National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
[Federal Register: May 20, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 97)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27645-27677]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20my03-16]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR 2002-0083; FRL-7460-2]
RIN 2060-AE48
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities. The final standards establish emission
limitations for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from new and
existing sinter plants, blast furnaces, and basic oxygen process
furnace (BOPF) shops. The 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 HAP emitted by integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities include metals (primarily manganese and lead with small
quantities of other metals) and trace amounts of organic HAP (such as
polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and carbon disulfide). Exposure to
these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects,
including chronic and acute disorders of the blood, heart, kidneys,
reproductive system, and central nervous system.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2003. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the final rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of May 20, 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 20004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Mulrine, Metals Group (C439-02),
Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5289, electronic mail (e-mail)
address, mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code Example of regulated
Category * entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................... 331111 Integrated iron and
steel mills, steel
companies, sinter
plants, blast furnaces,
BOPF shops.
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 Sec. 63.7781 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-2002-0083. 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.regulations.gov/ 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 integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities (66 FR 36836, July 13, 2001). Under CAA
section 307(b)(1), judicial review of the final rule is available only
by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by July 21, 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 the
EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Who must comply with the final rule?
B. What are the affected sources and emission points?
C. What are the emission limitations?
D. What are the operation and maintenance requirements?
E. What are the general compliance requirements?
F. What are the initial compliance requirements?
G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
[[Page 27647]]
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
I. What are the compliance deadlines?
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. How did we develop the MACT floors?
B. What surrogates did we use for HAP?
C. Is a risk analysis warranted?
D. How did we revise the emission limitations?
E. How did we revise the performance test requirements?
F. How did we revise the cost estimates and economic analysis?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy
impacts?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health & 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
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us (the EPA) to establish
national emission standards for all categories and subcategories of
major sources of HAP and for area sources listed for regulation under
section 112(c). 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. Area sources are stationary sources of HAP that
are not major sources. Additional information on the NESHAP development
process can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (66 FR
36836).
We received a total of 16 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP
from industry and trade association representatives, State agencies,
industry experts, environmental groups, universities, and private
citizens. We offered to provide interested individuals the opportunity
for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments concerning the
proposed rule, but a public hearing was not requested.
Today's final rule reflects our 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 section III of
this document. A detailed response to all the comments is included in
the Background Information Document (BID) for the Promulgated Standards
(Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0083).
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Who Must Comply With the Final Rule?
Each owner or operator of an affected source at an integrated iron
and steel manufacturing facility that is (or is part of) a major source
of HAP emissions must comply with the final rule.
B. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
The affected sources are each new or existing sinter plant, blast
furnace, and BOPF shop at an integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility that is (or is part of) a major source of HAP emissions.
Emission limitations apply to the sinter plant windbox exhaust,
discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse; and the
BOPF shop including each furnace and ancillary operations (hot metal
transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle
metallurgy). These processes, as well as their emissions and controls,
are described in the preamble to the proposed rule (66 FR 36838-36839).
C. What Are the Emission Limitations?
The final rule includes particulate matter (PM) emission limits and
opacity limits as well as operating limits for capture systems and
control devices. An operating limit also applies either to the oil
content of the sinter plant feedstock or to the volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from the sinter plant windbox exhaust stream.
Particulate matter and opacity serve as surrogate measures of HAP
emissions.
1. Sinter Plants
The PM emission limits for a windbox exhaust stream are 0.4 pounds
per ton (lb/ton) of product sinter for an existing sinter plant and 0.3
lb/ton for a new sinter plant. The final rule limits PM emissions from
a discharge end to 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)
for an existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf for a new plant. The discharge
end PM limits are a flow-weighted average when multiple control devices
are operated in parallel. A 20 percent opacity limit applies to
fugitive emissions from a discharge end at an existing sinter plant; a
10 percent opacity limit applies to a new sinter plant (both are 6-
minute averages). The PM emission limits for sinter cooler stacks are
0.03 gr/dscf for an existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf for a new plant. If
the sinter cooler is vented to the same control device as the discharge
end, the PM limit is 0.02 gr/dscf for an existing plant and 0.01 gr/
dscf for a new plant.
2. Blast Furnaces
The PM emission limits for a control device applied to emissions
from a casthouse are 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing blast furnace and
0.003 gr/dscf for a new blast furnace. The opacity limits for fugitive
emissions from a casthouse are 20 percent for an existing blast furnace
and 15 percent for a new blast furnace (both are 6-minute averages).
3. BOPF Shops
For primary emissions from BOPF, different PM emission limits apply
based on the type of hood system (closed or open). For BOPF with closed
hood systems at a new or existing BOPF shop, the PM emission limit is
0.03 gr/dscf, and it only applies during periods of primary oxygen
blow. The primary oxygen blow is the period in which oxygen is
initially blown into the furnace and does not include any subsequent
reblows. For BOPF with open hood systems, the PM emission limits are
0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop and 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop. These emission limits apply during all periods of the steel
production cycle. The steel production cycle begins when the furnace is
first charged with scrap and ends 3 minutes after slag is removed. The
BOPF limits are a flow-weighted average when multiple control devices
are operated in parallel.
The PM emission limits for a control device applied solely to
secondary emissions from a BOPF are 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop and 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop. Secondary emissions are
those not controlled by the primary emission control system, including
emissions that escape from open and closed hoods and openings in the
ductwork to the primary control system.
For the BOPF shop, the PM emission limit for a control device
applied to emissions from ancillary operations (hot metal transfer,
skimming, and desulfurization) is 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop and 0.003 for a new BOPF shop. The PM emission limits for ladle
metallurgy operations are 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop and
0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
For the BOPF roof monitor, a 20 percent opacity limit applies to
fugitive emissions from the BOPF or BOPF shop operations in an existing
BOPF shop. This opacity limit is based on 3-minute
[[Page 27648]]
averages. For a new BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown furnace, a 10
percent opacity limit applies (6-minute average) except that one 6-
minute period not to exceed 20 percent may occur once during each steel
production cycle. For a new BOPF shop housing a top-blown furnace, a 10
percent opacity limit applies (3-minute average) except that one 3-
minute period greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent may
occur once during each steel production cycle.
4. Capture Systems
We revised the requirements for capture systems to allow plants to
choose operating parameters appropriate for assessing capture system
performance, establish the values or settings for the parameters, and
designate monitoring requirements. At a minimum, the limits must
indicate the level of the ventilation draft and damper position
settings. Plants must include information to support their selected
parameter(s) in their operation and maintenance plan (including other
process configurations that may be used) and certify in their
performance test report that during the tests, the capture system
operated at the limit(s) established in their plan.
5. Operating Limits
For bag leak detection systems, we require that corrective actions
be initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm. For a
venturi scrubber, the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water
flow rate must remain at or above the level established during the
initial performance test. Plants using an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) must install and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) according to Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B. The average opacity for each 6-minute period must remain at
or below the site-specific limit. The final rule uses a statistical
approach, requiring that the limit be based on the COMS average
corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of a
normal distribution of average opacity values established during the
initial performance test. Plants must submit information on monitoring
parameters if another type of control device is used.
The final rule requires sinter plants to maintain the oil content
of the feedstock at or below 0.02 percent. This limit is based on a 30-
day rolling average. We are including an alternative VOC limit of 0.2
pound of VOC per ton (lb/ton) of sinter produced. This limit is also
based on a 30-day rolling average.
D. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
All plants subject to the final rule must prepare and implement a
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e). A written operation and maintenance
plan is also required for capture systems and control devices subject
to an operating limit. This plan must describe procedures for monthly
inspections of capture systems, preventative maintenance requirements
for control devices, and corrective action requirements for baghouses.
To avoid potential implementation issues, we have added specific
descriptions of the equipment to be inspected and a requirement to
correct any deficiency or defect as soon as practicable. In the event
of a bag leak detection system alarm, the plan must include specific
requirements for initiating corrective action to determine the cause of
the problem within 1 hour, initiating corrective action to fix the
problem within 24 hours, and completing all corrective actions needed
to fix the problem as soon as practicable. If applicable, the plan also
must include procedures for determining and recording the sinter plant
production rate.
E. What Are the General Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires compliance with the emission limitations
and operation and maintenance requirements at all times, except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction as defined in 40 CFR
63.2. The owner or operator must develop and implement a written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the requirements
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
The final rule also requires keeping a log detailing the operation
and maintenance of the process and emission control equipment. This
requirement applies during the period between the compliance date and
the date that continuous monitoring systems are installed and any
operating limits set.
F. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires performance tests to demonstrate that each
affected source meets all applicable emission and opacity limits. The
final rule allows the owner or operator to conduct representative
sampling of stacks where there are more than three stacks associated
with a process (subject to approval by the permitting authority). The
PM concentration (front-half filterable catch only) is to be measured
using EPA Method 5, 5D, or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The EPA
Method 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is required for determining the
opacity of emissions, with instructions for computing 6-minute and 3-
minute block averages.
The final rule also includes procedures for establishing site-
specific operating limits for control devices during the performance
test. We have also included procedures to be followed during opacity
tests to ensure capture systems operate at the limits established in
the operation and maintenance plan.
The final rule requires a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the operating limit for the oil content of the sinter
plant feedstock using OSW 846 Method 9071B (Revision 2, April 1998).
Plants must sample for 30 consecutive days and compute the 30-day
rolling average for each operating day. Plants electing the alternative
operating limit must conduct a performance test by sampling VOC
emissions and analyzing the samples according to EPA Method 25 in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A. Plants may use an alternative method that has
been previously approved by the permitting authority in lieu of OSW 846
Method 9071B for oil content or EPA Method 25 for VOC emissions.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the operation and
maintenance requirements, owners or operators must prepare the
operation and maintenance plan, certify in the performance test report
that capture systems operated at the limits established in the
operation and maintenance plan, and submit their notification of
compliance status. In the notification of compliance status, the owner
or operator must certify that the capture systems will be operated at
the limits established in the plan.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
Plant owners or operators must conduct PM and opacity performance
tests at least twice during each title V operating permit term (at
midterm and renewal). Owners or operators also must monitor operating
parameters for capture systems and control devices subject to operating
limits, and carry out the procedures in their operation and maintenance
plan.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit for
the oil content of sinter plant feedstock, owners or operators must
determine the oil content every 24 hours (from the composite of at
least three samples taken at 8-hour intervals) and compute
[[Page 27649]]
and record the 30-day rolling average percent oil content of sinter
feed for each operating day. Plants electing the alternative limit must
determine VOC emissions every 24 hours (from at least three samples
taken at 8-hour intervals) and compute and record the 30-day rolling
average emissions (in lb/ton of sinter) for each operating day.
The final rule requires a continuous parameter monitoring system
(CPMS) to measure and record operating parameters for capture systems
subject to an operating limit. Dampers that are manually set and remain
in the same position are exempt from the CPMS requirement. For dampers
that are not manually set and remain in the same position, the final
rule requires a daily visual check (every 24 hours) to verify they are
in the correct positions.
For baghouses, owners or operators are required to monitor the
relative change in PM loading using a bag leak detection system and
make inspections at specified intervals. The bag leak detection system
must be installed and operated according to the EPA guidance document
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/R-98-015,
September 1997. The document is available on the TTN at http://www.epa.
gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf. If the system does not work based
on the triboelectric effect, it must be installed and operated
consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations. The basic inspection requirements include daily,
weekly, monthly, or quarterly inspections of specified parameters or
mechanisms with monitoring of bag cleaning cycles by an appropriate
method. To demonstrate continuous compliance, the final rule requires
records documenting conformance with the operation and maintenance
plan, as well as the inspection and maintenance procedures.
For venturi scrubbers, owners or operators must use CPMS to measure
and record the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate. For ESP, owners or operators must use COMS to measure and record
the average opacity of emissions exiting each stack of the control
device for each 6-minute period. Owners or operators must operate and
maintain the COMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and
Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. These
requirements include a quality control program including a daily
calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual
zero alignment.
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.
To demonstrate continuous compliance, owners or operators must keep
records documenting compliance with the monitoring requirements
(including installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for
monitoring systems) and the operation and maintenance plan.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
based on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
Table 4 to subpart FFFFF lists each of the requirements in the General
Provisions (Sec. Sec. 63.2 through 63.15) with an indication of
whether they apply.
The plant owner or operator must submit each initial notification
required in the NESHAP General Provisions that applies to their
facility. These include an initial notification of applicability with
general information about the facility and notifications of performance
tests, performance evaluations, and compliance status.
Owners or operators are required to maintain the records required
by the NESHAP General Provisions that are needed to document
compliance, such as performance test results; copies of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plans and associated corrective action
records; monitoring data; and inspection records. Except for the
operation and maintenance plan for capture systems and control devices,
all records must be kept for a total of 5 years, with the records from
the most recent 2 years kept onsite. The final rule requires that the
operation and maintenance plan for capture systems and control devices
subject to an operating limit be kept onsite and available for
inspection upon request for the life of the affected source or until
the affected source is no longer subject to the final rule
requirements.
We clarified the recordkeeping requirements required to demonstrate
compliance with the operating limit for sinter plants. The final rule
requires records of the sampling date and time, sampling values (oil
content or VOC measurements), sinter produced (tons/day), and the 30-
day rolling average for each operating day.
Semiannual reports are required for any deviation from an emission
limitation (including an operating limit) or operation and maintenance
requirement. Each report is due no later than 30 days after the end of
the reporting period. If no deviation occurs, only a summary report is
required. If a deviation does occur, more detailed information is
required.
An immediate report is required if actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are not consistent with the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan. Deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if the owner or operator
demonstrates to the authority with delegation for enforcement that the
source was operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
I. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply by
May 22, 2006. An existing affected source is one constructed or
reconstructed before July 13, 2001. We changed the compliance date for
existing affected sources from 2 years to 3 years after the effective
date because some plants must install new capture and control systems
and perform significant upgrades of primary emission control systems.
In the final rule, we have corrected a printing error that
incorrectly listed the date defining a new affected source as July 23,
2001. A new affected source is one constructed or reconstructed on or
after July 13, 2001. New or reconstructed sources that startup on or
before the effective date of today's final rule must comply by May 20,
2003. New or reconstructed sources that startup after the effective
date of the final rule must comply upon initial startup.
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. How Did We Develop the MACT Floors?
We stated in the proposal preamble that we may take alternative
approaches to establish a MACT floor, depending on the type, quality,
and applicability of available data. The three approaches most commonly
used involve: (1) Reliance on State regulations or permit limits in
conjunction with emission test data; (2) use of emissions test data
alone to estimate actual emissions; and (3) use of control technology
information in conjunction with emission test data to estimate actual
emissions performance. In practice, regardless of what approach we
select, we attempt to ensure that our emissions performance estimates
reasonably characterize the level of performance that the relevant
sources
[[Page 27650]]
consistently achieve, considering normal operational variability.
Comment. One commenter contends that EPA may use State regulations
or permit limits to set floors only to the extent that such regulations
and limits provide a demonstrably accurate picture of the relevant best
source's actual performance. The commenter also states that EPA may
only use the performance of a chosen floor technology to set floors if
such technology is the only factor influencing the relevant best
sources' actual performance. In addition, the floor must reflect actual
performance, not what EPA thinks is achievable with a particular
technology. The commenter concludes that all of EPA's floors suffer
from the same basic defect in that ``. . . they do not represent the
actual performance of the relevant best sources.''
Response. While EPA may use any reasonable approach to estimate the
emissions control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar
source and the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in a category (or best 5 units for
categories of less that 30 sources), we generally agree with the
commenter that it is preferable to use actual performance test data to
determine the MACT floor when there are adequate such data available to
reasonably characterize the level of performance of the relevant
sources. Our approach to identifying the MACT floors and establishing
emission limits for the various emission points at integrated iron and
steel facilities is consistent with this preference. Nonetheless, we
did use State regulations and permit limits in some instances to help
us estimate the MACT floor level of performance for certain emission
points for which we have limited emission test data. However, in each
case where we used such information, we also evaluated the available
emission test data and other factors (such as type of control
technology and the design parameters that affect performance) to
confirm that the State limits reasonably reflect the actual performance
of the best units.
In those instances where we had a sufficient quantity of emission
test data to reasonably estimate the performance of the relevant best
units, we applied a statistical approach to confirm and refine the
emission estimates from proposal. This process involved application of
a statistical approach to determine the average emission limitation
achieved and account for normal operational variability. As described
below, this approach ensures that the emissions estimates used to
identify the MACT floors reasonably reflect the level of control that
is actually achieved by the relevant units over time, and under the
most adverse foreseeable circumstances. (The full supplemental analysis
is documented in the docket.) We had adequate test data to apply this
approach to the emission limits for the sinter plant windboxes,
casthouse control devices, primary control systems on open and closed
hood BOPF, and control devices applied to hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy.
For each of these emission points we confirmed and refined our
earlier estimates of the performance of the relevant best-performing
units used to identify the MACT floors. At proposal, we estimated the
performance of the best-controlled sources by identifying the best
control technology that had been demonstrated for each source. We then
evaluated the available data for sources using the best control
technology and established emission limits for new and existing sources
based on the level of control that sources with the technology had
achieved.
Conceptually, our approach to estimating the performance of the
best-controlled units is relatively straightforward. While we believe
each emissions source test gives a good indication of the level of
control achieved by the control device during the time of the emissions
test, we do not believe a single emissions source test can be used as
an estimate of the long term emissions performance achieved by that
source. Normal variations in process and control device performance and
other factors, such as the inherent imprecision of sampling and
analysis, which cannot be controlled, will result in variability in the
performance of every source over time, including the best-performing
sources. We believe that the MACT floor performance level must
reasonably account for the ordinary variability in the performance of
the best-controlled sources over time and under the most adverse
circumstances which can reasonably be expected to occur. As such, the
MACT floor performance limit must include a consideration for the
variability inherent in the process operations and the control device
performance.
For today's final rule, when emissions source test data were
available, we used a statistical method to confirm and refine the
emission estimates used at proposal to identify the MACT floors for the
relevant units. For each case where emissions source test data were
available, we estimated the emissions limitation achieved for each
source at the 95th percentile using the one-sided z-statistic test
(i.e., the emission limitation which the emission point is estimated to
be able to achieve 95 percent of the time). Assuming a normal
distribution, the 95th percentile is 1.645 standard deviations above
the mean. We chose the median of the 95th percentiles of the top-
performing sources as the MACT floor. We used the median as the most
representative estimate of the average emission limitation achieved by
the best-performing five sources because the median points to the
performance of an actual unit, with a specific combination of process
operations and control device performance.
We evaluated several options to estimate the standard deviation
that is needed to perform the analysis. We decided not to estimate the
standard deviation for each source based on the available emissions
data for just that one source since we have only three data points for
most sources to use in estimating the standard deviation-one data point
for each run in a three run emissions source test. Instead, we
calculated a relative standard deviation (RSD) for each test and then
averaged the RSD to provide our best estimate of the variability of the
test data. The RSD is the standard deviation divided by the mean. The
RSD provides a way to estimate the standard deviation for different
values of the mean when there are too few data points to calculate the
standard deviation directly. We believe this method adequately accounts
for the normal variability in emissions source test data and provides a
reasonable estimate of the long term emissions limitation achieved.
For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. In order to
confirm and refine our emissions estimates for new sources, we
identified the best-controlled source based on test data and applied
the same statistical techniques to determine the emission limitation
achieved in practice for new sources. We calculated the upper 95th
percentile of performance for the best-controlled source, and we chose
this value as the emission limitation that can be achieved by new
sources.
We believe the statistical technique used to account for general
variability is appropriate and reasonable. However, we also recognize
that some of the empirical test data may imply a level of accuracy that
is not present throughout the entire data set. As a result, we have
some reservations about identifying a MACT floor with a level of
accuracy that is not warranted by the underlying data. Accordingly, we
have concluded
[[Page 27651]]
that it is appropriate in some instances to round the results to two
decimal places. This approach encompasses the specific statistically-
derived numbers, while acknowledging that there is some residual
uncertainty about the representativeness of the data. Thus, while we
believe generally that our use of the 95th percentile adequately
identifies the range of actual performance of individual facilities,
our rounding approach should alleviate any concerns regarding whether
the statistics sufficiently capture the full range of ordinary
performance of the best-performing units over time and under the most
adverse circumstances that can be reasonably expected to occur.
Changes resulting from rounding will have no practical effect on
how industry responds to the emission limitations. That is, the control
technology needed is exactly the same and the equipment must be
operated in the same manner regardless of whether the numbers are
rounded or not. A properly designed and operated control device will
still be required to meet the rounded emission limit. Today's final
rule has provisions for operating parameters and operation and
maintenance plans to ensure proper operation. Thus, other than serving
to better reflect uncertainties in the underlying data, the rounding
has no practical impact on the stringency of the requirements.
Additional information on the statistical analysis used to confirm
and refine our emissions estimates, including the data used and the
complete ranking of sources, is available in the docket.
The objective of both the MACT floor methodology used at proposal,
and the methodology used here to confirm and refine the proposed
estimates of performance, is exactly the same. For each relevant
operation at integrated iron and steel facilities, both approaches
expressly are intended to provide a quantified estimate of the emission
performance of the best-controlled similar source, or of the average
emission limitation achieved by the relevant best-performing sources in
the category, taking into consideration the ordinary and unavoidable
variations in process operations and performance of the emissions
control equipment.
Moreover, the conclusions growing from the supplemental statistical
analysis, regarding the levels of performance that reflect the MACT
floor for both new and existing units, in large measure simply confirm
that the analysis underlying the proposal provided a reasonable
estimation of performance.
Indeed, none of the refinements to our performance estimates will
have any practical effect on how industry responds to the emission
limitations. As is the case with our decision to round the emission
estimates, any changes in the emission limitations in the final rule
will require the same control technology as would have been needed to
meet the proposed limits, and the control equipment will need to be
operated in the same manner as would have been the case with the
proposed emission limitations.
For three emission points (sinter cooler, sinter plant discharge
end, and control devices for BOPF fugitive emissions), we had only one
or two test results. Consequently, we did not have an adequate set of
emissions test data to directly estimate the actual performance of the
top-performing sources. Consequently, we developed the floors for these
three emission points based on the facilities subject to the most
stringent State regulations or permit limits, and we used the available
emissions information (emissions data and a characterization of the
operational processes and emissions controls) to confirm that the
identified State limits reasonably reflect the actual performance of
the relevant best-performing units. That is, the best units are able to
achieve the required State limits but are not consistently achieving a
level of emissions performance that is more stringent than the State
limits. The EPA may use State limits as long as we demonstrate that
such limits provide a reasonable estimate of the actual performance of
the best-performing sources.
For floors based on State opacity regulations that limit fugitive
emissions, we collected additional data and found that sources are
achieving a level of performance that is within the current limits, but
they are not consistently achieving a level of control more stringent
than the identified State limits. Consequently, we believe these State
limits provide an accurate picture of the best sources' actual
performance considering inherent and unavoidable variability. We used
this approach to develop the MACT floor for opacity from the sinter
plant discharge end, blast furnace casthouse, and BOPF shop.
We provide additional rationale in the following sections where we
discuss in detail the development of the MACT floors for each emission
point.
1. Sinter Plant Windbox Exhaust
Comment. One commenter stated that EPA proposed an emission
limitation of 0.3 lb/ton of PM based on the performance of either a
baghouse or scrubber. According to the commenter, EPA's floor does not
reflect the actual performance of the relevant best sources--the
average emission limitation achieved by the top five sources. As shown
in the BID, the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing five sources is 0.079 pound per ton (lb/ton), not the
proposed limit of 0.3 lb/ton. Second, floor reflects what EPA believed
to be achievable with the control technologies and not the actual
performance of the relevant best sources. Third, EPA admits that
several factors other than the performance of the technologies
influence emissions.
Response. As we documented in appendix B of the BID, the floor for
sinter plant windboxes was based on actual source test data and the
five best-performing sources. We collected test data and verified that
EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) was used. We ranked the
results (in lb/ton of sinter) and calculated the average of the five
best-performing sources (0.3 lb/ton). Contrary to the commenter's
assertion, we did not rely on control technology to identify the best-
performing units or to estimate the performance of the best units. In
this particular case, we had adequate test data to directly estimate
the average emission limitation achieved by the five best-performing
sources.
The calculation performed by the commenter is inappropriate and
does not provide an accurate estimate of the emission limitation
achieved by the plants. The commenter misinterpreted the information in
the BID, which is not source test data, but is simply a best estimate
of annual average emissions based on approximate emissions factors and
the assumption that all plants operate continuously at their design
capacity. Such an estimate cannot be used to represent actual
performance in a MACT floor calculation.
After proposal, we reviewed our approach for developing the MACT
floor and concluded that our original analysis did not sufficiently
account for the normal and unavoidable variability inherent in the
process operations and emission control equipment (as demonstrated by
the emission test data). The average performance of the five best-
performing sinter plants ranged from 0.26 to 0.32 lb/ton of sinter. To
account for inherent variability, we applied the z-statistic to
estimate the 95th percentile of a normal distribution for each source.
The median of the 95th percentiles of the five best-performing sources
is 0.4 lb/ton, which we chose to represent the MACT floor. This level
of performance reasonably reflects the
[[Page 27652]]
average emission limitation achieved by the five best-performing
sources considering inherent variability. The best-controlled source
averaged 0.26 lb/ton with a 95th percentile of 0.3 lb/ton, which
represents the MACT floor for new sources.
2. Sinter Plant Limit on Oil Content
Comment. Two commenters stated that the proposed limit on oil
content of 0.025 percent was based on the highest oil percentage of any
of the four plants for which EPA had oil percentage data. They claim
this is not a valid approach because it does not represent the actual
performance of the relevant best sources. One commenter recommended
that EPA consider beyond-the-floor technologies for dioxin emissions,
such as elimination of rolling mill scale from sinter feed, de-greasing
of sinter plant feed, quality control of water used in sinter plant
feed preparation, and use of low-organic waterborne rolling mill
lubricants.
Response. Our research indicates that emissions of organic
compounds from sinter plant windboxes are controlled by limiting the
amount of oil in the sinter feed. Emission control devices applied to
sinter plants are designed primarily for the removal of PM and not for
the various organic compounds that are formed from the oil. We believe
that oil content is the most significant factor affecting organic
compound HAP emissions. Consequently, we identified the MACT floor for
organic HAP emissions from sinter plants based on the level of oil
content that we observed for the sinter plants with the best programs
to control oil in the sinter feed.
We obtained data from four sinter plants that have implemented a
program to control the oil content of the sinter feed. We then examined
the data and evaluated the variability to determine the level of
control that has been achieved. The average results for oil content for
each plant ranged from 0.014 to 0.025 percent. These are the best-
performing plants because they were the only ones that routinely sample
for oil content. We applied the z-statistic and estimated the 95th
percentile for each plant. (The statistical analysis considered that
the limit is based on a 30-day rolling average, which reduces the
inherent variability as indicated by a lower standard deviation than
that associated with a single analysis of oil content.) The median of
the 95th percentiles for the top-performing plants is 0.022 percent. We
rounded this value to 0.02 percent, and this level represents the MACT
floor for existing units. The best-performing source averaged 0.014
percent oil with a 95th percentile of 0.015 percent. We rounded this
value to 0.02 percent, and this level represents the MACT floor for new
units.
We reviewed opportunities for control beyond the floor. We do not
believe it is practical or feasible to eliminate rolling mill scale
from the sinter feed. The sinter plant provides the only opportunity to
recycle and recover the raw material value. Otherwise, the mill scale
would be landfilled. De-greasing or de-oiling the sinter feed has been
investigated by the industry, but there is no demonstrated technology
in use at any sinter plant that has proven to be successful. There is
no indication that the water used in preparing the sinter feed
contributes to the oil content; therefore, water quality control is not
expected to have an impact on emissions of organic compounds.
Waterborne lubricants may have some advantages in certain applications.
However, they are problematic in some applications in the demanding
environment of steel rolling mills. We could find no indication that
the practices cited by the commenter have been demonstrated to reduce
dioxin or other organic compound emissions. Consequently, we selected a
limit on oil content as the MACT floor. We believe it is more
appropriate to set a performance standard that limits oil content
rather than mandating a technology that an owner or operator must use
to reduce oil content. The performance standard for oil content will
encourage owners or operators to investigate technologies that reduce
oil content to find the most effective approach for their specific
situation.
Comment. Six commenters object to the proposed limit on oil content
because EPA has not shown that it is achievable by the best-performing
sinter plants under the most adverse anticipated circumstances over
time.
Response. As we discussed in our previous response, we confirmed
and refined the MACT floor estimates using a statistical approach to
account for inherent variability. Based on this approach, we believe
the MACT floor has been achieved on a continuing basis by the best-
performing units. In addition, the limit is enforced based on a 30-day
rolling average, which further enhances achievability because it allows
an occasional high daily value to be averaged with lower values on
other days to achieve compliance. A 30-day rolling average also
provides time to take corrective action and lower the oil content
before the limit is exceeded.
3. PM Standard for Blast Furnace Casthouse Control Device
Comment. One commenter stated that the technology approach used to
develop the floor does not reflect the actual performance of the
relevant best sources. The commenter further states that EPA admits
that there are factors other than the type of control technology that
affect the actual emission control performance of blast furnace
casthouse control devices. Specifically, factors affecting emissions
include duration of tapping, exposed surface area of metal and slag,
length of runners, and the presence or absence of runner covers or
flame suppression. Thus, the performance of a baghouse cannot be
representative of the best sources's actual performance.
Response. We proposed a PM standard of 0.009 gr/dscf for blast
furnace casthouse control devices based on the performance of existing
units using baghouses. We re-evaluated the emissions test data for
blast furnace casthouses based on the statistical approach previously
discussed in order to confirm and refine our emissions estimates for
the best-performing units. We have test data for fugitive emissions
from source tests at four casthouses. The available data clearly
indicate that a baghouse is the best technology for controlling
emissions from blast furnace casthouses. We reviewed the test data and
the design features of these baghouses (such as air-to-cloth ratio),
and we concluded that the baghouses that had been tested were among the
best-performing units. The test results ranged from 0.002 to 0.0072 gr/
dscf. We calculated the 95th percentile for each plant. The median of
the 95th percentiles for the top-performing plants is 0.005 gr/dscf. We
rounded this value to two decimal places and chose 0.01 gr/dscf to
represent the MACT floor level of control for existing sources.
The best-controlled source averaged 0.002 gr/dscf with a 95th
percentile of 0.0034 gr/dscf. We rounded the 95th percentile to 0.003
gr/dscf to represent the MACT floor for new sources.
4. PM Standard for BOPF Primary Control Devices
Comment. One commenter stated that the chosen floor technologies do
not represent the actual performance of the relevant best sources.
Response. We proposed a PM limit of 0.019 gr/dscf for new and
existing open hood BOPF primary control systems based on the
performance of existing units using ESP. We re-evaluated the emissions
test data for open hood BOPF using the statistical approach previously
[[Page 27653]]
discussed, in order to confirm and refine our emissions estimates for
the best-performing units. The available data clearly indicate that ESP
perform better than venturi scrubbers in controlling emissions from
open hood shops. We have test data for five ESP that are similar in
design, each of which, based on design and operating data, are among
the best-performing units at open hood shops. The data include multiple
tests at some plants, and these data indicate there is variability in
performance from test to test and from run to run. The plant averages
ranged from 0.007 to 0.019 gr/dscf, and individual tests (three-run
averages) ranged from 0.004 to 0.019 gr/dscf. We calculated the 95th
percentile for each plant. The median of the 95th percentiles for the
top-performing plants is 0.019 gr/dscf. We rounded this value to two
decimal places and chose 0.02 gr/dscf to represent the MACT floor for
existing units.
The best-controlled open hood shop averaged 0.0066 gr/dscf with a
95th percentile of 0.01 gr/dscf, which we chose to represent the MACT
floor for new sources.
We proposed a limit of 0.024 gr/dscf for new and existing closed
hood BOPF primary control systems based on the performance of existing
units using venturi scrubbers. All of the closed hood shops use venturi
scrubbers as the primary control device. The test data and design
information indicated that shops having high-energy venturi scrubbers
with a pressure drop of 50 inches of water or more are the best-
performing sources. We have recent test data for only one closed hood
shop. However, we have data from 1971 to 1978 for high-energy venturi
scrubbers on closed hood shops. These data include four BOPF shops that
are currently operating. The test results range from 0.021 to 0.024 gr/
dscf. For purposes of today's final rule, we did not include Kaiser
Steel because the plant has been closed for several years. We
calculated the 95th percentile for each plant. The median of the 95th
percentiles for the top-performing plants is 0.027 gr/dscf. We rounded
this value to two decimal places and chose 0.03 gr/dscf to represent
the MACT floor for existing sources.
The best-controlled closed hood shop averaged 0.021 gr/dscf with a
95th percentile of 0.027 gr/dscf. We rounded the 95th percentile to two
decimal places and chose 0.03 gr/dscf to represent the MACT floor for
new sources.
Comment. Six commenters said EPA used test data dating from 1971
through 1978 to establish the limit for closed hood systems. These
commenters believe the data do not reflect current configurations or
actual performance and cannot be used to establish the floor. Many
systems have been upgraded to increase capture efficiency (including
some furnaces used to establish the standard). Because there are little
or no data for these sources, the commenters recommend that EPA use
existing State implementation plans (SIP) to determine the floor.
Another commenter agrees, adding that the test data used to support the
0.024 gr/dscf limit ranged up to 0.031 gr/dscf and represent the
minimum anticipated variation of emissions from a MACT floor technology
source. The proposed limit is more stringent than existing SIP and may
not be achievable by plants using MACT floor controls. The analysis
does not consider the current PM limit of 0.03 gr/dscf for plants in
Ohio, which the commenter believes should be the limit.
Response. The test data for closed hood shops are not just from
tests in 1971 to 1978--there is a 1992 test for Geneva Steel. The
commenters did not provide any information on the nature of the
upgrades or rationale as to their effect on emissions. For closed hood
systems, testing is performed only during the oxygen blow with the
capture hood tightly fitted to the furnace. Our understanding is that
capture system upgrades have been made primarily to improve the capture
of fugitive emissions from charging and tapping, which are not included
in the performance testing for closed hood furnaces. In addition, the
operating conditions of the scrubbers during the tests (e.g., pressure
drops of 50 inches of water or more) are representative of the way
these scrubbers are currently operated. Data for venturi scrubbers in
other similar processes indicate that high-pressure drop scrubbers can
achieve control levels of 0.03 gr/dscf or less. We believe the
statistical approach that we used to confirm and refine emissions
estimates for the floor analysis accounts for inherent variability over
time. We believe that source test data provide a better picture of
actual performance than the use of State limits as the commenter
suggests. Moreover, based on our analysis of the emission tests, we
have identified as MACT an emissions limit of 0.03 gr/dscf which is
consistent with the emissions limits that the commenters identified as
appropriate.
5. PM Standards for Ancillary Operations at BOPF Shops
Comment. According to eight commenters, the three data points for
hot metal transfer and desulfurization are not sufficient to define the
floor, accurately represent current operating conditions, or reflect a
level that is consistently achievable under the most adverse
foreseeable circumstances over time. If sufficient data are not
available, EPA should use existing State limits, if it can show that
the level of control is realistically achievable under the most adverse
anticipated circumstances over time. The commenters also question that
the data used for characterizing performance were collected using the
same test procedures specified in the proposed rule (average of three
1-hour tests during actual operation of the processes). Using data from
a test method other than the required compliance method to set a
standard does not meet CAA requirements.
Response. We proposed a PM standard of 0.007 gr/dscf for a control
device serving BOPF ancillary processes based on the performance of
existing units using baghouses. We reviewed the emissions data and
confirmed the tests were conducted using EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A). Every test result was presented as the average of three
runs, which is consistent with our performance test requirements.
Several test reports confirmed that sampling was conducted under normal
operating conditions, and none of the reports indicated conditions were
not normal. The tests used a sampling time of 1 hour or more to ensure
an adequate sample volume was collected. As explained earlier, in
response to another comment, EPA believes that it is preferable to use
actual performance test data to determine the MACT floor when there are
adequate such data available to reasonably characterize the level of
performance of the relevant sources. The commenters did not provide us
with any additional facts or data to show that any of the data we
relied upon are invalid. For the reasons described above, we believe
that these data are adequate to reasonably estimate the performance of
the best sources for purposes of establishing a MACT floor, and these
estimates more accurately reflect the actual performance of the best-
performing sources than would estimates based on State permit data.
Moreover, the approach that we used to confirm and refine the emissions
estimates for the top-performing sources assures that we have
adequately accounted for variability over time, and, therefore,
addresses the concerns of the commenter.
We re-evaluated the emissions test data for ancillary operations
based on the statistical approach previously discussed, in order to
confirm and
[[Page 27654]]
refine our earlier analysis. At proposal, we considered the combined
data for hot metal transfer/desulfurization and ladle metallurgy.
However, we believe it is necessary to separate the two operations
because hot metal transfer/desulfurization is performed on molten iron
before charging to the BOPF. Ladle metallurgy is performed on molten
steel from the BOPF. Consequently, the two processes have different
emission characteristics which suggests each should have a separate
MACT floor determination.
We have test data from three source tests of desulfurization and
hot metal transfer. The control device used in these source tests, and
the only type of control used for these processes, is a baghouse. We
reviewed the test data and the design features of these baghouses (such
as air-to-cloth ratio), and we concluded that the baghouses that had
been tested were among the best-performing units. The three tests
ranged from 0.0016 to 0.012 gr/dscf. We calculated the 95th percentile
for each plant. The median of the 95th percentiles for the top-
performing plants is 0.006 gr/dscf. We rounded this value to two
decimal places and chose 0.01 gr/dscf to represent the MACT floor for
existing units.
The best-controlled source averaged 0.0016 gr/dscf with a 95th
percentile of 0.003 gr/dscf, which we chose to represent the MACT floor
for new sources.
We have test results for six source tests of typical ladle
metallurgy operations. As with desulfurization, the control device used
in these source tests, and the only type of control used for these
processes, is a baghouse. We reviewed the test data and the design
features of these baghouses (such as air-to-cloth ratio), and we
concluded that the baghouses that had been tested were among the best-
performing units. The five best-performing units ranged from 0.0021 to
0.0047 gr/dscf. We calculated the 95th percentile for each plant. The
median of the 95th percentiles for the top-performing plants is 0.006
gr/dscf. We rounded this value to two decimal places and chose 0.01 gr/
dscf to represent the MACT floor for existing units.
The best-controlled source with typical ladle metallurgy operations
(lance injection, electromagnetic stirring, and alloy addition),
averaged 0.0021 gr/dscf with a 95th percentile of 0.004 gr/dscf, which
we chose to represent the MACT floor for ladle metallurgy for new
sources.
6. Opacity Standard for Sinter Plant Discharge End
Comment. According to one commenter, EPA does not explain how the
floor determination represents an accurate picture of the relevant best
sources' actual performance, or how it knows that the best sources are
not doing better than their permits require.
Response. We proposed an opacity limit of 20 percent for the sinter
plant discharge end based on the five sources subject to the most
stringent existing State regulations or permit limits. One plant has a
10 percent opacity limit, and four plants have a 20 percent opacity
limit. We chose the median (20 percent) to represent the MACT floor.
A total of six of the seven operating plants use a capture and
control system vented to a baghouse for the discharge end, and
engineering knowledge of their design features and the nature of
emissions indicate that these baghouses are the best demonstrated
control technology for the discharge end. Following the end of the
comment period, in order to confirm the appropriateness of the proposed
opacity limit, we surveyed the industry to obtain additional opacity
data for the discharge end. The only substantive data we obtained was
from Ispat-Inland, which submitted the results of 1,745 hours of
observations by EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) conducted
over 4 years (1997 to 2000). Ispat-Inland is among the better-
performing plants because it controls the discharge end, crusher, and
hot screen by capturing emissions using local hooding and ventilation
and venting them to a baghouse for collection. Consequently, we believe
that the control system at Ispat-Inland is representative of the best-
performing sources.
At Ispat-Inland, approximately one percent of the hourly opacity
observations had a 6-minute average that exceeded 20 percent opacity,
and the plant met the proposed limit 99 percent of the time. Although
many of the observations were below 20 percent opacity, the limit
accommodates the normal variability in the process operations and
control equipment. The data clearly show that Ispat-Inland is not
consistently performing substantially better than what their permit
requires and that our proposed limit is a reasonable picture of what
the best-controlled sources can achieve.
Comment. Seven commenters contend that EPA has not shown that
existing State limits are consistently achievable under the worst
foreseeable conditions over time. The commenters claimed that opacity
data they submitted to EPA demonstrates that the limits are not
consistently achievable by well-operated and maintained sinter plants.
The EPA must reevaluate the achievability of the proposed opacity
standard.
Response. None of the commenters provided evidence that facilities
subject to the identified State limits have been unable to meet those
limits (e.g., in the form of reported violations). Moreover, as
discussed in the previous response, approximately 99 percent of the
hourly opacity observations at Ispat-Inland never had a 6-minute
average in excess of 20 percent opacity. Performance improved to 99.9
percent compliance for more recent, 1998 to 2000, observations. As
stated previously, these data show that the opacity limit based on
existing State limits is achievable because it has been achieved on a
continuing basis. Our analysis considered all of the data that we could
obtain, and the only data available was that for Ispat-Inland which we
discussed in detail.
7. Opacity Standard for Blast Furnace Casthouse
Comment. One commenter states that we failed to explain how the
floor we selected reflects the best-performing 12 percent of the blast
furnace casthouses. The commenter further states that we failed to
pursue and collect from the affected sources or State and local
agencies available opacity data, and we undermined the floor-setting
process of the CAA.
Response. For blast furnace casthouses, we established the MACT
floor as a 20 percent opacity limit based on the five sources subject
to the most stringent existing State regulations or permit limits. Two
casthouses are subject to a 15 percent opacity limit, and the next most
stringent limit is 20 percent, which is applied to 22 of the 37 blast
furnace casthouses.
Following the end of the comment period, in order to confirm the
appropriateness of the proposed opacity limit, we obtained additional
opacity data for operating blast furnace casthouses to supplement the
limited data we had available at proposal. We now have opacity data for
25 of the 37 existing blast furnace casthouses, and the data range in
coverage from a 1-hour test to several years of observations. (Although
there were 39 blast furnace casthouses at proposal, two have
subsequently shut down.) We closely examined the data that covered a
reasonably long period of time (e.g., at least 1 year to capture
seasonal variations), which included 12 of the 25 casthouses for which
we had data. We
[[Page 27655]]
believe it is important to account for seasonal variations and examine
data covering 1 year or more to account for variability due to
differences in ventilation rates, weather conditions, and changes in
the process over time. We found that the casthouses with the lowest
opacities were those with secondary capture and control systems. For
some casthouses, most of the 6-minute averages were routinely below the
proposed 20 percent limit with occasional readings that approached or
exceeded 20 percent. The blast furnace casthouses at U.S. Steel (Gary)
achieved the 20 percent opacity limit 99 to 100 percent of the time.
One blast furnace casthouse had a maximum 6-minute average of 21
percent opacity, and another casthouse had a maximum of 20 percent
opacity. At Ispat-Inland, the casthouses achieved 20 percent opacity 98
to 99.6 percent of the time. At LTV Steel, the casthouses achieved 20
percent opacity 99.5 to 99.8 percent of the time. These blast furnaces
were achieving the 20 percent limit, but they were not demonstrably
able to consistently achieve a level of performance more stringent than
this limit. Consequently, the opacity data confirm that the 20 percent
opacity limit based on the median value of the sources with the five
most stringent emission limits is an accurate reflection of the MACT
floor.
Comment. Eight commenters contend that the limits are not
consistently achievable under the worst foreseeable conditions over
time even by the casthouses used to establish the MACT floor. In
support, the commenters claimed they had provided opacity data showing
that the limits have not been consistently achieved by well-operated
and maintained casthouses. Achievability of the opacity limit for blast
furnace casthouses is of particular concern because the process is
subject to infrequent but significant swings in emission rates. The
commenters recommend that EPA collect and analyze all available opacity
data from States, Regions, and industry and determine the standard
based on achievability. They recommend using a statistically-derived
limit based on a high confidence level (the 99.97th percentile) to
avoid an unachievable standard that would result in many violations.
Response. Following proposal, in order to confirm the
appropriateness of the proposed opacity limit, we collected additional
opacity data and identified the best-performing sources in terms of low
opacity. Our analysis considered all of the opacity data submitted by
the commenters and data obtained from other sources. For the five best-
performing blast furnace casthouses (i.e., lowest opacities) with
observations over at least 1 year, a 20 percent opacity limit was
achieved for 99 to 99.8 percent of the time. We believe the data
clearly show that an opacity limit of 20 percent represents what has
been achieved by the best-performing sources and that it can be
achieved on a continuing basis.
8. Opacity Standards for BOPF Shops
Comment. Eight commenters contend that the limits are not
consistently achievable under the worst foreseeable conditions over
time. They claim that opacity data submitted to EPA by the industry
demonstrate that the limits are not consistently achieved by well-
operated and maintained BOPF shops, and as a result, EPA must
reevaluate the achievability of the proposed opacity standards.
Response. Following proposal, in order to confirm the
appropriateness of the proposed 20 percent opacity limit, we obtained
additional opacity data for operating BOPF shops to supplement the
limited data we had available at proposal. We now have opacity data for
19 of the 23 existing BOPF shops ranging in coverage from a single 2-
hour test to multiple tests covering several years of observations. Our
analysis considered all of the opacity data submitted by the commenters
and data obtained from other sources. We examined the data and found
that the best-controlled BOPF shops were those with secondary capture
and control systems. In contrast, several BOPF shops without secondary
controls experienced frequent exceedances of the 20 percent opacity
limit. A total of eight BOPF shops have capture systems for secondary
emissions that are vented to baghouses. We re-evaluated the data to
determine the appropriateness and achievability of the proposed 20
percent opacity limit. We focused on BOPF shops for which we had a
reasonable amount of long-term data. Specifically, we examined opacity
data only from shops for which we had 12 months or more of observations
(i.e., all seasons of the year), which included observations for 11 of
the 23 existing shops. The five best-performing shops achieved the
limit 99.5 to 99.98 percent of the time. These data clearly indicate
that the best-performing units in the category achieve the proposed
opacity limit (but do not achieve a more stringent level of control),
and, therefore, that the State limits are a good proxy for actual best
performance. Thus, we are confident that the proposed opacity limit of
20 percent is achievable and that it provides an accurate picture of
the actual performance achieved by the best-performing sources.
Our analysis of the opacity data for BOPF shops indicated that
opacity observations are routinely made over several consecutive steel
production cycles. In the proposal, we had included a provision that
the opacity observations during the performance test did not have to be
consecutive. In today's final rule, we have removed the provision which
allowed non-consecutive observations. This is consistent with the
opacity data used to support the opacity limit and with the procedures
routinely used to make opacity observations for BOPF.
9. Sinter Cooler Stack
Comment. Six commenters note that one of the plants used to
calculate the MACT floor is permanently shut down. Consequently, the
floor analysis does not reflect the SIP requirements for actual
operating sources. In addition, EPA has not shown that the proposed
standard is achievable by the best-performing sources under the
foreseeable range of operating conditions.
Response. Our investigation into this comment indicates that all
five of the sinter plants listed in Table B-11 of the BID are operating
(Ispat-Inland at East Chicago, IN; WCI Steel at Youngstown, OH;
Bethlehem Steel at Sparrows Point, MD; U.S. Steel at Gary, IN; and AK
Steel at Middletown, OH). Because we had only limited test data, we
based the MACT floor on the average of the top five sources subject to
the most stringent existing State regulations or permit limits. One
plant has a limit of 0.01 gr/dscf (for one-half of its cooler), three
of the five best-performing plants are subject to a limit of 0.03 gr/
dscf, and one plant has a lb/hr limit that is equivalent to about 0.05
gr/dscf. The average and median limit applied to the top five plants is
0.03 gr/dscf. Although our data are limited, they show that the
proposed emission limit is achievable and has been achieved based on
the available test results. Nationwide, baghouses are used at three
plants, a cyclone at one plant, and three plants are uncontrolled.
Consequently, the best-performing plants and the median of the top five
would be a plant with a baghouse. A test at WCI Steel, which controls
these emissions with a baghouse, ranged from 0.005 to 0.02 gr/dscf and
averaged 0.009 gr/dscf. The results for WCI show significant
variability in the run-to-run results, which range up to 0.02 gr/dscf.
The test results indicate that the better-controlled plants can achieve
the limit
[[Page 27656]]
of 0.03 gr/dscf; however, considering the high variability from run to
run, the plant is not substantially overachieving the limit.
No commenters provided any evidence that the existing State limits
were not being achieved on a continuing basis (e.g., in the form of
violation reports), and we have no evidence that any facility has been
in violation of the existing State limits. Consequently, we believe the
floor based on State limits represents a reasonably accurate picture of
what the best-performing sources have and continue to achieve. For new
sources, we chose a limit of 0.01 gr/dscf based on the most stringent
State limit. The average test results for WCI Steel (0.009 gr/dscf)
show that this limit is achievable by a properly-designed and operated
baghouse.
10. PM Standard for Sinter Discharge End Control Device
Comment. According to one commenter, EPA claims it has PM test data
from six plants, but asserts in the preamble that it has credible test
data for only one plant and never explains why data for only one plant
is credible. The EPA does not explain how this represents an accurate
picture of the relevant best sources' actual performance, or how it
knows that the best sources are not doing better than their permits
require.
Response. The reference to test data in the BID is correct;
however, use of the term ``test data'' in the BID was not correct. We
had estimates of PM emissions from the discharge end from several
plants based on emission factors that they supplied in a survey
questionnaire. However, these estimates were not supported by the use
of reference methods for sampling and analysis or substantiated by
emission test reports. For units in this category, it is not feasible
to use estimates based on typical emission factors to identify the
level of control that a plant routinely achieves. Therefore, this
information is of no practical value for purposes of identifying the
best-performing sinter discharge ends. We found the only test data we
could validate for the discharge end was for the EPA test conducted at
WCI Steel. The results of this test support our conclusion that the
existing State limits reasonably approximate actual emissions and
performance. However, we have no indication or expectation that the
best-performing plants are achieving a level of control more stringent
than the proposed emission limit. Consequently, we based the floor on
the most stringent State limits.
Comment. Seven commenters state that three of the nine sinter
plants in the existing population are now shut down, including one of
the five plants used to calculate the floor for the discharge end. The
commenters assert that EPA must recalculate the floor to reflect only
operating sources. Also, EPA must show that the standard is
consistently achievable by the best-performing sources under the
foreseeable range of operating conditions.
Response. We agree that one of the five best-performing plants
(Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel) used to determine the floor was shut down
at the time of the floor analysis. We elected to re-calculate the floor
and exclude this plant. We determined that the floor based on the
average of the five best-performing sources remains the same (0.02 gr/
dscf). One plant is subject to a limit of 0.01 gr/dscf, two plants are
subject to a limit of 0.02 gr/dscf, one is subject to 0.03 gr/dscf, and
the fifth plant has a mass rate limit that is equivalent to about 0.04
gr/dscf. The average and median value associated with the top five
limits is 0.02 gr/dscf. We have detailed design information for the
baghouses applied to the discharge end, and our engineering analysis of
the design information, coupled with test data for baghouses in similar
applications, indicates that these controls can achieve 0.02 gr/dscf
under the foreseeable range of operating conditions. Although we have
test data for only one baghouse, the test averaged 0.006 gr/dscf and
further supports the achievability of the MACT floor. We based the MACT
floor for new sources on the most stringent State limit of 0.01 gr/
dscf. Again, the available test data indicate that this limit can be
achieved by a properly-designed and operated baghouse.
11. PM Standard for BOPF Fugitive Emissions
Comment. One commenter stated that EPA does not explain how the
floor determination represents an accurate picture of the relevant best
sources' actual performance, or how it knows that the best sources are
not doing better than their permits require.
Response. We have test data for only one baghouse applied to BOPF
fugitive emissions, and because of the nature of the test, the results
are not useful for determining the MACT floor. During the test,
sampling was performed continuously over a 3-hour period, even when the
furnace was not operating and when fugitive emissions were not
occurring. Consequently, the reported concentrations for the baghouse
outlet are unrepresentative of the concentrations that would be
measured when fugitive emissions from charging and tapping are
occurring. Because of the lack of data, we based the floor on existing
State limits and have made no changes to the proposed emission limits.
We chose 0.01 gr/dscf as the floor from the median of the five sources
with the most stringent limits (one at 0.0052, one at 0.006, two at
0.01, and one at 0.012 gr/dscf). One unit is subject to the most
stringent State limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf, and we selected this limit as
the MACT floor for new sources. These limits are achieved by using a
capture system vented to a baghouse, and these levels are consistent
with the performance of well-designed and operated baghouses. We have
no evidence that plants are violating their current limits, and we have
no indication they are achieving a level of control more stringent than
the identified State limits. This observation is consistent with an EPA
design manual for baghouses which states that typical outlet
concentrations for all applications range from 0.001 to 0.01 gr/dscf
(depending primarily on the design parameters).
B. What Surrogates Did We Use for HAP?
1. PM for Metal HAP
Comment. One commenter contends that PM is not a valid surrogate
for HAP metal compounds and that specific limits for individual metals
should be established. In support, the commenter points to other rules
where EPA has recognized that PM is not a valid surrogate for mercury,
lead, and cadmium because of their volatility and that these emissions
cannot necessarily be controlled merely by controlling PM emissions.
Consequently, EPA cannot claim PM is a valid surrogate for metal HAP in
the final rule or that setting standards for individual metals would
``. . . achieve little, if any, HAP emission reduction beyond what
would be achieved using the surrogate pollutant approach based on total
PM.'' Because EPA has already recognized that PM is not an adequate
surrogate for mercury, lead, and cadmium, EPA must set individual
emission standards for such HAP.
Response. We disagree with the commenter and believe that PM is a
valid surrogate for the HAP metal compounds emitted from integrated
iron and steel sources. The rationale in the preamble for the hazardous
waste combustors (HWC) rule is unique to that source category and does
not apply to the metal HAP emissions and controls in the integrated
iron and steel industry.
[[Page 27657]]
The preamble for the final HWC rule makes this point clearly:
. . . However, for sources not burning hazardous waste and
without a significant potential for extreme variability in metals
feed rates, PM is an adequate surrogate for metal HAP (e.g., for
nonhazardous waste burning cement kilns).\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Footnote 40 in preamble to the final HWC rule (64 FR
52846, September 30, 1999).
Hazardous waste combustors are unique and different from integrated
iron and steel sources in several respects:
? They have significant levels of volatile and semi-volatile
HAP metal compounds in the waste-derived fuels being burned,
? The feed rate of these metals can be highly variable, and
? The high temperatures in the combustion process can
volatilize semi-volatile metals and form fine PM, which can be harder
to control. In contrast, the raw materials used in iron and steel
processes have relatively low levels of metal HAP, the level of metal
HAP does not vary significantly as do the HAP metals in waste materials
fed to HWC, and test data indicate that PM control devices effectively
control the HAP metals from iron and steel processes.
A key parameter for the control of both semi-volatile and non-
volatile metal compounds is the operating temperature of the air
pollution control device that is applied. At temperatures of 200 to
400[deg]F, the range typical of control devices applied to emissions
from integrated iron and steel processes, any semi-volatile and non-
volatile HAP metal compounds present would exist in the form of fine
PM, and, therefore, will be controlled in direct relationship to PM.
Mercury is an exception because of its high volatility. However, we
have no data that show any significant emissions of mercury from
integrated iron and steel plants, and there is no reason to suspect its
presence in any appreciable quantities in emissions from ironmaking and
steelmaking. In the two sinter plant tests we conducted, we sampled and
analyzed for mercury. The results showed only trace levels of mercury
(7 x 10-\7\ to 2 x 10-\6\ gr/dscf). Thus, we
believe that mercury emissions from integrated iron and steel sources
are negligible and that the performance of these units with respect to
any trace levels of mercury can not be measurably improved. Moreover,
no iron and steel plants operate an emissions control system that would
further reduce these trace amounts of mercury emissions, or otherwise
take any steps that would reduce such emissions. Because no units
currently reduce mercury emissions from the integrated iron and steel
industry, the MACT floor for mercury (for both new and existing
sources) would be no reduction in emissions. Because the mercury
concentrations are already so low, no technically feasible control
technologies can be identified that could reduce these trace levels of
mercury emissions. Therefore, no mercury emissions standards are
proposed for integrated iron and steel sources.
2. Oil Content for Organic HAP
Comment. Two commenters urged us to establish emission standards
for specific organic HAP, including dioxin, in lieu of the oil content
limit. One commenter contends that the proposed rule should contain
emission limits for the many organic HAP emitted from iron and steel
plants, including dioxin, polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and
toluene. The proposed operating requirement for sinter plants is not an
emission standard and does not satisfy CAA requirements. Furthermore,
regulations pursuant to section 112 of the CAA must include emission
standards for each HAP emitted from an affected source category. The
commenter adds that EPA provided no data in support of the proposed
approach for controlling dioxin emissions. This commenter believes the
proposed rule effectively ignores organic HAP in contradiction of CAA
requirements because vapor phase organics are not removed by the fabric
filters or wet scrubbers.
Several commenters contend that EPA has not met its requirements to
show a correlation between the surrogate to be controlled and the
object of control. Two commenters state that EPA has not provided
sufficient data to demonstrate a correlation. Eight other commenters do
not believe that there is a correlation to dioxin emissions or that
control of the oil and grease would reduce HAP organic emissions. In
support, they claim data from one plant (Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows
Point) show no VOC increase in windbox emissions as oil content
increases.
Response. The only available data regarding organic HAP emissions
from these units are from two tests we conducted. These tests are
insufficient to generate a meaningful characterization of emission
control levels that can be achieved under varying process conditions
over time, and there is no way to use this emissions test data to
identify the best-performing plants. Moreover, the add-on emission
controls used by units in the category (baghouses and venturi
scrubbers) do not control vapor phase organic compounds. As a result,
we believe that the best way to assess current levels of VOC emission
control, and to limit such emissions is to rely upon existing methods
of pollution prevention. Accordingly, we have established limits on the
amount of organic HAP precursor material (specifically oil and grease)
that may be in the sinter feed, in order to control emissions of
organic compounds. Additionally, section 112(d)(2) of the CAA
specifically allows EPA to establish MACT standards based on emission
controls that rely on pollution prevention techniques.
We have added information to the docket from a European study that
shows dioxin emissions are related to oil content-emissions increase as
the oil content increases. We have also added information from two U.S.
sinter plants that show VOC emissions increase as oil content
increases, and the VOC contains volatile HAP such as benzene. In fact,
plants in Indiana control VOC emissions by limiting the amount of oil
in the sinter feed. Because the two are related, Indiana allows
monitoring oil content as an alternative to VOC monitoring. In the
past, sinter plants with baghouses have voluntarily limited oil content
because the organic compounds that were emitted tend to condense and
blind the bags as well as pose a fire hazard. We believe these studies
conclusively show that oil content correlates with organic emissions.
An emission limit for individual organic compounds is not practical
because the emission controls that are used do not effectively control
all organic HAP. Conventional control systems used for organics, such
as incineration or carbon adsorption, would not be practicable because
they are ineffective at the very low concentration (parts per million
levels) in the windbox exhaust stream. On the other hand, a limit on
oil content effectively limits emissions of organic HAP, and control of
oil content is a proven emission control measure. Consequently, in this
instance, we believe that a limit on oil content is the only feasible
way to ensure that all plants achieve the MACT level of control for
organic HAP from the sinter plant windbox exhaust.
C. Is a Risk Analysis Warranted?
Comment. Seven commenters urge EPA to perform a risk assessment
under section 112(d)(4) of the CAA for manganese to determine if HAP
controls are necessary. Manganese is a health threshold pollutant, and
there is little likelihood of chronic or widespread
[[Page 27658]]
exposure at concentrations above the threshold at iron and steel
plants. The EPA conducted this analysis for the pulp and paper
standards and decided not to regulate hydrogen chloride emissions.
According to the commenters, risk-based standards under section
112(d)(4) would result in no standards, or less stringent and more cost
effective standards.
Response. Section 112(d)(4) of the CAA provides EPA with authority,
at its discretion, to develop risk-based standards for HAP ``. . . for
which a health threshold has been established,'' provided that the
standard achieves an ``ample margin of safety.'' Section 112(d)(4)
says:
[w]ith respect to pollutants for which a health threshold has been
established, the Administrator may consider such threshold level,
with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emission standards
under this subsection.
As EPA has indicated in the past (see 63 FR 18754 and 67 FR 44713),
we generally apply section 112(d)(4) of the CAA only to HAP that are
not carcinogens because Congress clearly expected that carcinogens
would be non-threshold pollutants. The legislative history further
indicates that if EPA invokes this provision, it must assure that any
emission standard results in ambient concentrations less than the
health threshold, with an ample margin of safety, and that the
standards must also be sufficient to protect against adverse
environmental effects. (See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. at 171.) The
EPA is not to consider cost in establishing a standard pursuant to
section 112(d)(4).
Therefore, EPA believes it has the discretion under section
112(d)(4) of the CAA to develop risk-based standards for some
categories emitting threshold pollutants, which may be less stringent
than the corresponding floor-based MACT standard would be. Where EPA
develops standards under this provision, we seek to ensure that
emissions from every source in the category or subcategory are less
than the threshold level to an individual exposed at the upper end of
the exposure distribution. We believe that assuring protection to
persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution is consistent
with the ample margin of safety requirement in section 112(d)(4). (See
63 FR 18754 at 18768.)
However, the EPA emphasizes that use of section 112(d)(4) of the
CAA authority is wholly discretionary. As the legislative history
described above indicates, cases may arise in which other
considerations dictate that the Agency should not invoke this authority
to establish less stringent standards, despite the existence of a
health effects threshold that is not jeopardized. For instance, EPA
does not anticipate that it would set less stringent standards where
evidence indicates a threat of significant or widespread environmental
effects, although it may be shown that emissions from a particular
source category do not approach or exceed a level requisite to protect
public health with an ample margin of safety. The EPA may also elect
not to set less stringent standards where the estimated health
threshold for a contaminant is subject to large uncertainty. Thus, in
considering appropriate uses of its discretionary authority under
section 112(d)(4), EPA considers other factors in addition to health
thresholds, including uncertainty and potential adverse environmental
effects, as that phrase is defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA.
For several reasons, in this case, we have decided not to exercise
our discretion to consider existing threshold levels for manganese in
setting the emission standards for metal HAP compounds from integrated
iron and steel facilities. This decision is appropriate because we have
insufficient data about the nature and degree of public exposures to
these emissions, including background exposure levels and other
relevant factors, to meaningfully consider whether maximum exposures to
manganese emissions from integrated iron and steel facilities would
remain below the relevant threshold. In fact, it is clear that
facilities in this source category emit significant quantities of
manganese, totaling about 250 tpy. Because the commenters did not
provide us with any of the detailed site-specific information that we
would need to perform an adequate assessment of emissions and
exposures, we have concluded that it would be inappropriate to consider
the threshold nature of manganese in establishing MACT standards for
the integrated iron and steel source category. Additionally, the
commenters have supplied no information about the environmental impact
of metal emissions from integrated iron and steel plants, and we have
no data upon which we can rely for such an environmental assessment.
Moreover, even if we had access to more detailed data regarding
emissions, exposures, and environmental impact, it is not clear whether
consideration of the manganese health threshold would have any
practical effect on the MACT standards established in today's final
rule. In particular, emissions from integrated iron and steel plants
include metal HAP besides manganese that are not threshold pollutants
(including lead, nickel, and chromium compounds), and these pollutants
are controlled using the same control technologies that reduce
emissions of manganese. As with manganese, we have no data regarding
maximum exposures or environmental impacts from such emissions at
integrated iron and steel facilities, and we have no data specifically
characterizing these metal emissions. These plants emit about 360 tpy
of HAP metal compounds--including about 111 tpy of lead, nickel and
chromium compounds. Certain lead, nickel and chromium compounds are
listed as carcinogens and have no applicable human health threshold.
For additional information, see our guidance document entitled
``Guidance on the Major Source Determination for Certain Hazardous Air
Pollutants'' available on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/
memoranda/agghapmem.pdf.
Today's final rule controls all metal HAP emissions (including
lead, nickel, and chromium) by using PM as a surrogate. Because we use
PM as a surrogate, eliminating only one or some of the metal HAP from
consideration would have little if any practical impact on the MACT
standards. Consequently, we believe the MACT standards finalized today
are appropriate and will reduce emissions of all HAP at integrated iron
and steel plants to the levels currently being achieved by the best-
performing facilities.
D. How Did We Revise the Emission Limitations?
1. Sinter Cooler Emissions
Comment. Seven commenters explain that some exhaust systems on the
sinter plant discharge end are designed to capture emissions at the
point where sinter is loaded onto the sinter cooler and portions of the
sinter cooler itself. In situations where cooler emissions are
exhausted in part or in whole to the discharge end control system, the
commenters request that the cooler stack emissions standard of 0.03 gr/
dscf (for existing facilities) apply to the discharge end baghouse.
Response. We disagree and have written the final rule to clarify
that the limit of 0.02 gr/dscf for the discharge end applies even when
other emissions are ducted to the control device. The most effective
technology for controlling emissions from the discharge end is a
baghouse, and a properly-designed and operated baghouse can achieve
0.02 gr/dscf on a continuing basis. An emission limit of 0.03 gr/dscf
is too high to be representative of the MACT floor, and
[[Page 27659]]
does not reflect what is currently achieved by the five best-performing
sources.
2. Sinter Plant Oil Content Requirement
Comment. Sinter plants in Maryland and Indiana already must comply
with rules that regulate the oil and grease content for the sinter
plant raw material blend. The rules limit VOC emissions to no more than
0.25 lb/ton of sinter (except Indiana allows 0.36 lb/ton during non-
ozone season). Maryland requires VOC testing and Indiana provides the
option of VOC testing or sampling for oil content. Seven commenters
recommend VOC testing as an option in the final rule because most
plants in these states already use them; some comments also suggest a
30-day rolling average for VOC.
Response. We reviewed data submitted by two plants that showed VOC
emissions correlated with oil content. LTV Steel (now owned by
International Steel Group) performed simultaneous testing of oil
content and VOC emissions, correlated the results, and showed that an
oil content of 0.024 percent was equivalent to the State VOC limit of
0.25 lb/ton of sinter. As a result, the State allowed them to use
alternative monitoring procedures. Based on our review of the data, we
believe that maintaining the VOC at a level of 0.2 lb/ton or lower will
ensure that the operating limit of 0.02 percent oil is maintained.
Consequently, we have written the final rule to include an alternative
emission limitation for VOC of 0.2 lb/ton of sinter. A plant electing
the alternative limit is required to measure VOC emissions (total
gaseous nonmethane organics as carbon) in source emissions using EPA
Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (or a previously approved
method). As with the oil content, the VOC limit is based on a 30-day
rolling average. The 30-day average provides additional flexibility
because it allows an occasional high daily value to be averaged with
lower values on other days to achieve compliance. We believe the 30-day
average accounts for day-to-day variability and enhances the
achievability of the limit.
3. ESP Operating Limit
Comment. For plants required to use COMS to monitor ESP, the
proposed rule establishes an enforceable operating limit based on the
opacity observed during the initial performance test. Eight commenters
argue that COMS data should not be used for compliance determinations
because of measurement uncertainties and unreliability. They point to
the recognized limitation for measuring opacity below 10 percent and
provide supporting data comparing COMS measurements in ESP stacks to
EPA Method 9 data. Like the steel pickling MACT standard, COMS data
should be used only to indicate if the ESP is operating properly and to
institute corrective action as appropriate; subsequent EPA Method 9
observations may be appropriate in the event of a high number of
measured excursions. These commenters also object to the operating
limit for ESP equipped with COMS because EPA has not demonstrated a
correlation between opacity and PM emissions from BOPF controlled by
ESP to support using opacity as a surrogate for PM. A COMS opacity
reading that is above that observed during a performance test does not
necessarily indicate an exceedance because the high reading could have
been caused by water vapor or another interference. The commenters
believe EPA has not demonstrated that the tiny amount of data collected
during the initial performance test would be representative of the
opacity performance of ESP over the full range of foreseeable operating
conditions. Thirty 6-minute averages taken over a 3-hour period will
not adequately characterize the range of 87,600 6-minute averages
generated over an entire year. Thus, EPA has not demonstrated that a
limit set in this manner would be consistently achievable by well-
operated and maintained equipment under the most adverse operating
conditions over time.
Response. We believe that opacity is well established as a
surrogate for PM. However, we understand the concerns of the commenters
with respect to variability and have written the procedures in the
final rule for determining the COMS operating limit to account for
variability. The opacity operating limit is based on measurement of 6-
minute averages during the performance test, and then calculating the
99 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of a normal distribution
of the average opacity values. This statistical approach will account
for normal variability and still provide assurance that the ESP is
operating properly.
4. Operating Limits for Capture Systems
Comment. Nine commenters believe that an enforceable range of
operating limits applicable under all operating conditions cannot be
determined from the initial performance test for damper systems. Fixed
damper positions for one set of operating conditions are not
appropriate due to varying simultaneous operations, normal process
variations, and seasonable variations. The final rule should allow
sources to specify multiple operating scenarios or ranges of operation
in the operation and maintenance plan and require plants to meet the
values in the plan rather than those set in the initial performance
test. Eight of these commenters also recommend that the final rule
include an alternative allowing continuous monitoring of fan amperage,
like the provisions included in the proposed standards for coke plants.
Response. We investigated this issue further, and based on the
additional information we received, we agree that fixed damper settings
are not practicable or desirable in many cases. For example, damper
settings may need to be changed in the BOPF shop depending on the
operations underway at the time, such as hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, charging, oxygen blowing, and tapping. We have written
the final rule to provide flexibility and have modeled it after the
MACT standard for primary copper smelters. The owner or operator must
specify in the operation and maintenance plan the damper settings that
will be used under different operating scenarios and for seasonal
variations. These damper settings must be checked once per day. We have
also added fan amperage as an acceptable alternative, consistent with
the MACT standards for coke ovens and for primary copper smelters.
E. How Did We Revise the Performance Test Requirements?
1. Overlapping Cycles
Comment. Some plants have the capability of overlapping cycles of
two separate furnaces (e.g., they may blow one furnace while another is
being tapped). It appears that EPA's database is comprised of tests
conducted on single furnaces. For this reason, seven commenters ask EPA
to clarify that testing of primary emissions from BOPF is to be
conducted during the steel production cycle of a single furnace. Other
shop operations may be suspended during the testing. This approach is
consistent with the manner in which the data were collected.
Response. We specify in the final rule exactly when owners or
operators must test primary emissions from BOPF. For closed hood BOPF,
plants must sample only during the primary oxygen blow. For open hood
BOPF, plants must sample during the steel production cycle. We
clarified that the steel production cycle begins when scrap is charged
to the furnace and ends 3 minutes after the slag is emptied from the
vessel. These requirements are
[[Page 27660]]
consistent with the way the emission test data were collected. We do
not agree that testing should be performed under conditions that do not
represent normal operations, such as suspending certain shop
operations. The provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(e) apply and require that
sampling be conducted under conditions that are based on representative
performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions of
the affected source).
2. Testing Multiple Stacks
Comment. Eight commenters believe it is impractical and burdensome
to require simultaneous tests of multiple stacks or vents for a control
device (e.g., baghouse with eight modules, each with its own fan and
stack). Successive testing of each stack or vent could be more
manageable, but still has excessive costs. One commenter estimates 42
days of testing could be needed at one plant if each stack and vent
must be tested. For these reasons, the proposed rule should be revised
to allow for performance tests of a representative exhaust flow where
control devices with multiple stacks are used.
Response. We agree and believe that because of the site-specific
nature of this problem, decisions should be made on a case-by-case
basis by the applicable permitting authority. We have written the final
rule such that a source may conduct a representative sampling of stacks
subject to the approval of the permitting authority when there are more
than three stacks associated with a process.
F. How Did We Revise the Cost Estimates and Economic Impact Analysis?
Comment. Several commenters stated that we significantly
underestimated the cost of the proposed rule. At proposal, we estimated
a capital cost of $34 million. The commenters said that the total
capital cost was in the range of $270 to $320 million. Their estimate
includes the cost of controls for plants not included in EPA's estimate
as well as higher estimates of the cost for controls and monitoring in
general.
Response. Following proposal and the receipt of comments, we
contacted facilities to discuss the details of their cost estimates.
Some facilities provided the details and basis of their estimates, and
we incorporated them into our revised estimates. Other plants did not
provide details or documentation; consequently, we developed our best
estimate of potential costs for these facilities. In addition, we
collected opacity data for most of the operating plants. We used these
data to identify plants that may need to install capture and control
systems in the blast furnace casthouse or BOPF shop to meet the 20
percent opacity limit. Our revised capital cost estimate increased to
$93 million.
Comment: Eight commenters urge EPA to update it's economic impact
analysis to represent current economic conditions of the steel industry
and the cumulative effect of all other pending environmental regulatory
requirements facing the industry during the same time period.
Response: We agree with the commenters and have performed a revised
economic impact analysis. The revised analysis attempts to account for
the factors mentioned in the comment. At proposal, we estimated
domestic production from integrated steel mills would decline by 3,100
tons, and operating profits were expected to decrease by $5.2 million
annually. With our revised analysis, we estimate domestic production
from integrated mills will decline by 73,000 tons, and operating
profits will decrease by $13 million per year. A complete copy of the
economic impact analysis is available in the docket.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?
The installation of new controls and upgrades will result in
reductions in emissions of metal HAP and PM. We estimate that five new
capture and control systems for the blast furnace casthouses will
reduce these emissions by 90 percent, a reduction of 14 tpy of HAP and
2,100 tpy of PM. The new BOPF scrubbers at one plant and upgrades at
two others will result in a 50 percent reduction in emissions, 5 tpy of
HAP and 350 tpy of PM. Six new capture and control systems for fugitive
emissions from BOPF shops will result in a 90 percent reduction in
emissions, 48 tpy of HAP and 3,300 tpy of PM.
Most plants currently operate air pollution control equipment
sufficient to meet the final rule requirements. We expect the standard
to reduce metal HAP emissions from plants that will need to install or
upgrade controls by 67 tpy and PM emissions by 5,800 tpy. Nationwide
emissions of metal HAP and PM from integrated iron and steel plants
will be reduced by nearly 20 percent from current levels.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The nationwide capital and annual costs of new and upgraded capture
and control systems are estimated at $93 million and $15 million/yr,
respectively. The total nationwide annual costs (including monitoring
and recordkeeping) are about $16 million/yr. These costs are based on a
new primary control system (high-pressure drop venturi scrubbers) for
one BOPF shop, upgraded primary controls at two others, six new capture
and control systems for fugitive BOPF emissions, and five new capture
and control systems for blast furnace casthouses. In addition, the
estimate includes a capital cost of $0.9 million and a total annual
cost of $1 million for monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to determine the
impacts of the final rule on both the industry and the U.S. market for
steel mill products. We estimate the economic impacts in both areas to
be negligible. We project the price of steel mill products, in
aggregate, to increase by less than 0.1 percent with domestic
production from integrated mills declining by 73,100 short tons. This
decline in production at affected integrated mills is somewhat offset
by increases at nonintegrated domestic steel producers (15,800 short
tons) and foreign imports (49,500 short tons). In terms of industry
impacts, the integrated steel producers are projected to experience a
slight decrease in operating profits of $13 million annually, which
reflects increased costs of compliance and associated reductions in
revenues from producing final steel mill products. In addition, we
don't foresee any individual integrated facility being in jeopardy of
closure as a result of implementing the rule.
Based on the market analysis, the annual costs to society of
today's final rule are projected to be $15.4 million. As a result of
slightly higher prices for steel mill products, the final consumers of
these products will incur an additional $6.2 million annually. Profits
at integrated steel mills are expected to decline by $13 million
annually because of directly incurred control costs and reduced product
revenues, while nonintegrated steel mills that compete in these markets
and are unaffected by today's rule will experience an increase in
profits of $2.2 million. Similarly, foreign steel producers will also
experience an increase in profits of $1.7 million due to the slightly
higher prices and increases in imports to the U.S. market. For more
information, consult the economic impact analysis supporting the
proposed rule.
[[Page 27661]]
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
Implementation of the rule will result in a small increase in solid
waste-3,200 tpy of sludge and 5,500 tpy of dust. The energy increase is
estimated at 24,000 megawatt-hours per year, primarily due to the
energy requirements of new venturi scrubbers.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is,
therefore, not subject to OMB review.
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. 2003.02), 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, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or
by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy also may 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 applicable one-time notifications required
by the General Provisions for each affected source. As required by the
NESHAP General Provisions, all plants must prepare and operate by a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants also are required to
prepare an operation and maintenance plan for capture systems and
control devices subject to operating limits. Records are required to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the monitoring, operation, and
maintenance requirements for capture systems, control devices, and
monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are required.
These reports must describe any deviation from the standards, any
period a continuous monitoring system was out-of-control, or any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where actions taken to respond
were inconsistent with startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. If no
deviation or other event occurred, only a summary report is required.
Consistent with the General Provisions, if actions taken in response to
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not consistent with the
plan, an immediate report must be submitted within 2 days of the event
with a letter report 7 days later.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information averaged over the first 3 years after May 20,
2003 is estimated to total 4,772 labor hours per year at a total annual
cost of $347,115, including labor, capital, and operation and
maintenance. Total capital costs associated with the monitoring
equipment is estimated at $885,000. The total annualized cost of the
monitoring equipment is estimated at $126,000. This estimate includes
the capital, operating, and maintenance costs associated with the
installation and operation of the monitoring equipment.
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 numbers 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 impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to the U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) size standards for NAICS code 33111 (Iron
and Steel Mills) of 1,000 or fewer employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
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.
Based on the SBA size category for this source category, no small
businesses are subject to the final rule and its requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may
[[Page 27662]]
result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
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 cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if
the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
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 expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year. Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has also determined that the
final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's final rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.''
The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on control
technology and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards as
alternatives to EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 9 and OSW 846 Method 9071B, and
none were brought to our attention in comments.
The Agency identified ASTM D4536-96, ``Test Method for High Volume
Sampling for Solid Particulate Matter and Determination of Particle
Emissions,'' as being potentially applicable and proposed it as an
alternative to Method 5 or 17 for testing positive pressure fabric
filters. However, this standard has been replaced by ASTM D6331-98,
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Mass Concentration of
Particulate Matter from Stationary Sources at Low Concentrations
(Manual Gravimetric Method).'' We have decided not to use ASTM D6331 in
the final rule. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would be
impractical or inconsistent with applicable law because it is not
similar enough to replace ASTM D4536-96.
[[Page 27663]]
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 16 other
voluntary consensus standards. The EPA has not adopted these standards
as alternatives in the final rule because they are impractical or still
under development. Our search and review results are available in the
docket.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 28, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
? For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
? 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
? 2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding a new paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(k) The following material may be obtained from U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste (5305W), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460:
(1) Method 9071B, ``n-Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) for Sludge,
Sediment, and Solid Samples,'' (Revision 2, April 1998) as published in
EPA Publication SW-846: ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods.'' The incorporation by reference of Method
9071B is approved for Section 63.7824(e) of Subpart FFFFF of this part.
? 3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart FFFFF to read as follows:
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.7780 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7781 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.7790 What emission limitations must I meet?
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
General Compliance Requirements
63.7810 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Initial Compliance Requirements
63.7820 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7822 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter?
63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
63.7824 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating
limits?
63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations that apply to me?
63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.7831 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
63.7832 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations that apply to me?
63.7834 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7842 What records must I keep?
63.7843 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.7850 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7851 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.7780 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate
initial and continuous compliance with all applicable emission
limitations and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart.
Sec. 63.7781 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facility that is (or is part of) a major
source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. Your integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facility is a major source of HAP if it
emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more
per year.
Sec. 63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source
at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility.
[[Page 27664]]
(b) The affected sources are each new or existing sinter plant,
blast furnace, and basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shop at your
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility.
(c) This subpart covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse;
and the BOPF shop including each individual BOPF and shop ancillary
operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag
skimming, and ladle metallurgy).
(d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or BOPF shop at your integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facility is existing if you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the affected source before July 13,
2001.
(e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or BOPF shop at your integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facility is new if you commence
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after July
13, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the
definition of reconstruction in Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation and operation and maintenance requirement in
this subpart that applies to you no later than May 22, 2006.
(b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is on or before May 20, 2003, then you must comply with each emission
limitation and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart
that applies to you by May 20, 2003.
(c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is after May 20, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation
and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies
to you upon initial startup.
(d) If your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is not
a major source and becomes a major source of HAP, the following
compliance dates apply to you.
(1) Any portion of the existing integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facility that becomes a new affected source or a new
reconstructed source must be in compliance with this subpart upon
startup.
(2) All other parts of the integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility must be in compliance with this subpart no later than 2 years
after it becomes a major source.
(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.7840. Several of these notifications must be submitted before
the compliance date for your affected source.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.7790 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit and opacity limit in Table 1
to this subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit for capture systems and
control devices in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section that
applies to you.
(1) You must operate each capture system applied to emissions from
a sinter plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse or to secondary
emissions from a BOPF at or above the lowest value or settings
established for the operating limits in your operation and maintenance
plan;
(2) For each venturi scrubber applied to meet any particulate
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the hourly
average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at or above the
minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
(3) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
BOPF, you must maintain the average opacity of emissions for each 6-
minute period at or below the site-specific opacity value corresponding
to the 99 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of a normal
distribution of average opacity values established during the initial
performance test.
(c) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device
other than a baghouse, venturi scrubber, or electrostatic precipitator
must submit a description of the device; test results collected in
accordance with Sec. 63.7822 verifying the performance of the device
for reducing emissions of particulate matter to the atmosphere to the
levels required by this subpart; a copy of the operation and
maintenance plan required in Sec. 63.7800(b); and appropriate
operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous
compliance with the applicable emission limitation(s). The monitoring
plan identifying the operating parameters to be monitored is subject to
approval by the Administrator.
(d) For each sinter plant, you must either:
(1) Maintain the 30-day rolling average oil content of the
feedstock at or below 0.02 percent; or
(2) Maintain the 30-day rolling average of volatile organic
compound emissions from the windbox exhaust stream at or below 0.2 lb/
ton of sinter.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Sec. 63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels
required by this subpart.
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system or
control device subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b). Each
plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the
performance of the total capture system (e.g., pressure sensors,
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g.,
presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by
dents or accumulated dust in the ductwork, and fan erosion). The
operation and maintenance plan also must include requirements to repair
any defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next
scheduled inspection.
(2) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(3) Operating limits for each capture system applied to emissions
from a sinter plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse, or to
secondary emissions from a BOPF. You must establish the operating
limits according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Select operating limit parameters appropriate for the capture
system design that are representative and reliable indicators of the
performance of the capture system. At a minimum, you must use
appropriate operating limit parameters that indicate the level of the
ventilation draft and the damper position settings for the capture
system when operating to collect emissions, including revised settings
for seasonal variations. Appropriate operating limit parameters for
ventilation draft include, but are not limited to, volumetric flow rate
through each separately ducted hood, total volumetric flow rate at the
inlet to the control device to which the capture system is vented, fan
motor amperage, or static pressure.
[[Page 27665]]
(ii) For each operating limit parameter selected in paragraph
(b)(3)(i) of this section, designate the value or setting for the
parameter at which the capture system operates during the process
operation. If your operation allows for more than one process to be
operating simultaneously, designate the value or setting for the
parameter at which the capture system operates during each possible
configuration that you may operate.
(iii) Include documentation in your plan to support your selection
of the operating limits established for the capture system. This
documentation must include a description of the capture system design,
a description of the capture system operating during production, a
description of each selected operating limit parameter, a rationale for
why you chose the parameter, a description of the method used to
monitor the parameter according to the requirements of Sec.
63.7830(a), and the data used to set the value or setting for the
parameter for each of your process configurations.
(4) Corrective action procedures for bag leak detection systems. In
the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered, you must
initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm within 1
hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the cause of
the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective
action as soon as practicable. Corrective actions may include, but are
not limited to:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repair the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions;
and
(5) Procedures for determining and recording the daily sinter plant
production rate in tons per hour.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7810 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction as defined
in Sec. 63.2.
(b) During the period between the compliance date specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.7783 and the date upon which
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions
control equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7820 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with each emission and opacity limit in Table 1 to this
subpart that applies to you. You must also conduct a performance test
to demonstrate initial compliance with the 30-day rolling average
operating limit for the oil content of the sinter plant feedstock in
Sec. 63.7790(d)(1) or alternative limit for volatile organic compound
emissions from the sinter plant windbox exhaust stream in Sec.
63.7790(d)(2). You must conduct the performance tests within 180
calendar days after the compliance date that is specified in Sec.
63.7783 for your affected source and report the results in your
notification of compliance status.
(b) For each operation and maintenance requirement that applies to
you where initial compliance is not demonstrated using a performance
test or opacity observation, you must demonstrate initial compliance
within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.7783.
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July
13, 2001 and May 20, 2003, you must demonstrate initial compliance with
either the proposed emission limit or the promulgated emission limit no
later than November 17, 2003 or no later than 180 days after startup of
the source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July
13, 2001 and May 20, 2003, and you chose to comply with the proposed
emission limit when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct
a second performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
promulgated emission limit by November 17, 2006, or no later than 180
days after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM and opacity limits in Table 1 to this
subpart no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and renewal) during
each term of your title V operating permit. For sources without a title
V operating permit, you must conduct subsequent performance tests every
2.5 years.
Sec. 63.7822 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
(b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for
particulate matter in Table 1 to this subpart, follow the test methods
and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to
the following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter:
(i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of
the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5, 5D, or 17, as applicable, to determine the
concentration of particulate matter (front half filterable catch only).
(2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet
(dscf) of gas during each particulate matter test run. Three valid test
runs are needed to comprise a performance test.
(c) For each sinter plant windbox exhaust stream, you must complete
the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Follow the procedures in your operation and maintenance plan
for measuring and recording the sinter production rate for each test
run in tons per hour; and
(2) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep) for
each test run using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[[Page 27666]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR20MY03.000
Where:
Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions of particulate matter,
lb/ton;
C = Concentration of particulate matter, grains per dry standard cubic
foot (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dry standard cubic foot per hour
(dscf/hr);
P = Production rate of sinter during the test run, tons/hr; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound (gr/lb).
(d) If you apply two or more control devices in parallel to
emissions from a sinter plant discharge end or a BOPF, compute the
average flow-weighted concentration for each test run using Equation 2
of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR20MY03.001
Where:
Cw = Flow-weighted concentration, gr/dscf;
Ci = Concentration of particulate matter from exhaust stream
``i'', gr/dscf; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust
stream ``i'', dry standard cubic foot per minute (dscfm).
(e) For a control device applied to emissions from a blast furnace
casthouse, sample for an integral number of furnace tapping operations
sufficient to obtain at least 1 hour of sampling for each test run.
(f) For a primary emission control device applied to emissions from
a BOPF with a closed hood system, sample only during the primary oxygen
blow and do not sample during any subsequent reblows. Continue sampling
for each run for an integral number of primary oxygen blows.
(g) For a primary emission control system applied to emissions from
a BOPF with an open hood system and for a control device applied solely
to secondary emissions from a BOPF, you must complete the requirements
of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Sample only during the steel production cycle. Conduct sampling
under conditions that are representative of normal operation. Record
the start and end time of each steel production cycle and each period
of abnormal operation; and
(2) Sample for an integral number of steel production cycles. The
steel production cycle begins when the scrap is charged to the furnace
and ends 3 minutes after the slag is emptied from the vessel into the
slag pot.
(h) For a control device applied to emissions from BOPF shop
ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or
ladle metallurgy), sample only when the operation(s) is being
conducted.
(i) Subject to approval by the permitting authority, you may
conduct representative sampling of stacks when there are more than
three stacks associated with a process.
Sec. 63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(h)(5) and
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) You must conduct each visible emissions performance test such
that the opacity observations overlap with the performance test for
particulate matter.
(c) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in
Table 1 to this subpart for a sinter plant discharge end or a blast
furnace casthouse:
(1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(2) Obtain a minimum of 30 6-minute block averages. For a blast
furnace casthouse, make observations during tapping of the furnace.
Tapping begins when the furnace is opened, usually by creating a hole
near the bottom of the furnace, and ends when the hole is plugged.
(d) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in
Table 1 to this subpart for BOPF shops:
(1) For an existing BOPF shop:
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter except
as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(ii) Instead of procedures in section 2.4 of Method 9 in appendix A
to part 60 of this chapter, record observations to the nearest 5
percent at 15-second intervals for at least three steel production
cycles.
(iii) Instead of procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix
A to part 60 of this chapter, determine the 3-minute block average
opacity from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-
second intervals.
(2) For a new BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF:
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(ii) Determine the highest and second highest sets of 6-minute
block average opacities for each steel production cycle.
(3) For a new BOPF shop housing a top-blown BOPF:
(i) Determine the opacity of emissions according to the
requirements for an existing BOPF shop in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(ii) Determine the highest and second highest sets of 3-minute
block average opacities for each steel production cycle.
(4) Opacity observations must cover the entire steel production
cycle and must be made for at least three cycles. The steel production
cycle begins when the scrap is charged to the furnace and ends 3
minutes after the slag is emptied from the vessel into the slag pot.
(5) Determine and record the starting and stopping times of the
steel production cycle.
Sec. 63.7824 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with operating limits?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(b)(1), you must certify that the system operated during the
performance test at the site-specific operating limits established in
your operation and maintenance plan using the procedures in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Concurrent with all opacity observations, measure and record
values for each of the operating limit parameters in your capture
system operation and maintenance plan according to the monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 63.7830(a).
(2) For any dampers that are manually set and remain at the same
position at all times the capture system is operating, the damper
position must be visually checked and recorded at the beginning and end
of each opacity observation period segment.
(3) Review and record the monitoring data. Identify and explain any
times the capture system operated outside the applicable operating
limits.
(4) Certify in your performance test report that during all
observation period segments, the capture system was operating at the
values or settings established in your capture system operation and
maintenance plan.
(b) For a venturi scrubber subject to operating limits for pressure
drop and scrubber water flow rate in
[[Page 27667]]
Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you must establish site-specific operating limits
according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Using the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
required in Sec. 63.7830(c), measure and record the pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate during each run of the particulate matter
performance test.
(2) Compute and record the hourly average pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating
limits are the lowest average pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate value in any of the three runs that meet the applicable emission
limit.
(c) For an electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3) for opacity, you must establish a site-
specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required
in Sec. 63.7830(d), measure and record the opacity of emissions from
each control device stack during each run of the particulate matter
performance test.
(2) Compute and record the 6-minute block average opacity from 36
or more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period during the
test runs.
(3) Determine, based on the 6-minute block averages, the opacity
value corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence limit on the
mean of a normal distribution of average opacity values.
(d) You may change the operating limits for a capture system,
venturi scrubber, or electrostatic precipitator if you meet the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating
limit.
(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section for a control
device or capture system.
(e) For each sinter plant subject to the operating limit for the
oil content of the sinter plant feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(d)(1), you
must demonstrate initial compliance according to the procedures in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Sample the feedstock at least three times a day (once every 8
hours), composite the three samples each day, and analyze the
composited samples using Method 9071B, ``n-Hexane Extractable
Material(HEM) for Sludge, Sediment, and Solid Samples,'' (Revision 2,
April 1998). Method 9071B is incorporated by reference (see Sec.
63.14) and is published in EPA Publication SW-846 ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.'' Record the
sampling date and time, oil content values, and sinter produced (tons/
day).
(2) Continue the sampling and analysis procedure for 30 consecutive
days.
(3) Each day, compute and record the 30-day rolling average using
that day's value and the 29 previous daily values.
(f) To demonstrate initial compliance with the alternative
operating limit for volatile organic compound emissions from the sinter
plant windbox exhaust stream in Sec. 63.7790(d)(2), follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Determine the volatile organic compound emissions according to
the following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter:
(i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of
the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 25 to determine the mass concentration of volatile
organic compound emissions (total gaseous nonmethane organics as
carbon) from the sinter plant windbox exhaust stream stack.
(2) Determine volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions every 24
hours (from at least three samples taken at 8-hour intervals) using
Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Record the sampling date and
time, sampling results, and sinter produced (tons/day).
(3) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ev)
each day using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR20MY03.002
Where:
Ev = Process-weighted mass emissions of volatile organic
compounds, lb/ton;
Mc = Average concentration of total gaseous nonmethane
organics as carbon by Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A),
milligrams per dry standard cubic meters (mg/dscm) for each day;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
35.31 = Conversion factor (dscf/dscm);
454,000 = Conversion factor (mg/lb); and
K = Daily production rate of sinter, tons/hr.
(4) Continue the sampling and analysis procedure in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (3) of this section for 30 consecutive days.
(5) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of VOC emissions
for each operating day.
(g) You may use an alternative test method to determine the oil
content of the sinter plant feedstock or the volatile organic compound
emissions from the sinter plant windbox exhaust stack if you have
already demonstrated the equivalency of the alternative method for a
specific plant and have received previous approval from the applicable
permitting authority.
Sec. 63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each affected source subject to an emission or opacity
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you have demonstrated initial
compliance if:
(1) You meet the conditions in Table 2 to this subpart; and
(2) For each capture system subject to the operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(b)(1), you have established appropriate site-specific operating
limit(s) and have a record of the operating parameter data measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(a)(1).
(3) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(b); and
(4) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you have established an
appropriate site-specific operating limit and have a record of the
opacity measurements made during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.7824(c).
(b) For each existing or new sinter plant subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7790(d)(1), you have demonstrated initial compliance
if the 30-day rolling average of the oil content of the feedstock,
measured during the initial performance test in accordance with Sec.
63.7824(e) is no more than 0.02
[[Page 27668]]
percent or the volatile organic compound emissions from the sinter
plant windbox exhaust stream, measured during the initial performance
test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(f), is no more than 0.2 lb/ton of
sinter produced.
(c) For each emission limitation that applies to you, you must
submit a notification of compliance status according to Sec.
63.7840(e).
Sec. 63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For a capture system applied to emissions from a sinter plant
discharge end or blast furnace casthouse or to secondary emissions from
a BOPF, you have demonstrated initial compliance if you meet all of the
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Prepared the capture system operation and maintenance plan
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7800(b), including monthly
inspection procedures and detailed descriptions of the operating
parameter(s) selected to monitor the capture system;
(2) Certified in your performance test report that the system
operated during the test at the operating limits established in your
operation and maintenance plan;
(3) Submitted a notification of compliance status according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7840(e), including a copy of the capture
system operation and maintenance plan and your certification that you
will operate the capture system at the values or settings established
for the operating limits in that plan; and
(4) Prepared a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a).
(b) For each control device subject to operating limits in Sec.
63.7790(b)(2) or (3), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you
meet all the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Prepared the control device operation and maintenance plan
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7800(b), including a
preventative maintenance schedule and, if applicable, detailed
descriptions of the procedures you use for corrective action for
baghouses;
(2) Submitted a notification of compliance status according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7840(e), including a copy of the operation and
maintenance plan; and
(3) Prepared a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(b)(1) established in your capture system operation and
maintenance plan, you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(e) and the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Dampers that are manually set and remain in the same position
are exempt from the requirement to install and operate a CPMS. If
dampers are not manually set and remain in the same position, you must
make a visual check at least once every 24 hours to verify that each
damper for the capture system is in the same position as during the
initial performance test.
(2) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor the operating
limit parameter for a sinter plant discharge end or blast furnace
casthouse, you must monitor the hourly average rate (e.g., the hourly
average actual volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted
hood, the average hourly total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the
control device) according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7832.
(3) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor the operating
limit parameter for a capture system applied to secondary emissions
from a BOPF, you must monitor the average rate for each steel
production cycle (e.g., the average actual volumetric flow rate through
each separately ducted hood for each steel production cycle, the
average total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control device
for each steel production cycle) according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7832.
(b) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and
maintain a bag leak detection system according to Sec. 63.7831(f),
monitor the relative change in particulate matter loadings according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.7832, and conduct inspections at their
specified frequencies according to the requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the manual.
(2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
(7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
(8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
(c) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you
must install, operate, and maintain CPMS according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.7831(g) and monitor the hourly average pressure drop and
water flow rate according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7832.
(d) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must install, operate, and
maintain a COMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(h) and
monitor the 6-minute average opacity of emissions exiting each control
device stack according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7832.
(e) For each sinter plant subject to the operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(d), you must either:
(1) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the oil
content of the feedstock for each operating day using the procedures in
Sec. 63.7824(e); or
(2) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of volatile
organic compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) for each operating day
using the procedures in Sec. 63.7824(f).
Sec. 63.7831 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
(a) For each CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830, you must develop and
make available for inspection upon request by the permitting authority
a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Installation of the CPMS sampling probe or other interface at a
[[Page 27669]]
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and
reduction system;
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations);
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
the general requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
(b) Unless otherwise specified, each CPMS must:
(1) Complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each
successive 15-minute period and collect a minimum of three of the
required four data points to constitute a valid hour of data;
(2) Provide valid hourly data for at least 95 percent of every
averaging period; and
(3) Determine and record the hourly average of all recorded
readings.
(c) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(d) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(e) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(b)(1), you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section.
(f) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and
maintain a bag leak detection system according to the requirements in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot)
or less.
(2) The system must provide output of relative changes in
particulate matter loadings.
(3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset
level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the
appropriate plant personnel.
(4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997. You may install, operate, and maintain
other types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with
the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
(5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time.
(6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity
or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time,
except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
(7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(g) For each venturi scrubber subject to operating limits in Sec.
63.7790(b)(2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you must
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the requirements
in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(h) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must install, operate, and
maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each COMS according to
Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each COMS
according to Sec. 63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in appendix B
to 40 CFR part 60.
(3) Each COMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) COMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
Sec. 63.7832 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, out-of-control periods as
specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), associated repairs, and required quality
assurance or control activities (including as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor
continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times
an affected source is operating.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels or to fulfill a minimum data availability requirement,
if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other
periods in assessing compliance.
(c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions.
Sec. 63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each affected
source subject to an emission or opacity limit in Sec. 63.7790(a) by
meeting the requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.
(b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each capture
system subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1) by meeting
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Operate the capture system at or above the lowest values or
settings established for the operating limits in your operation and
maintenance plan; and
(2) Monitor the capture system according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7830(a) and collect, reduce, and record the monitoring data
for each of the operating limit parameters according to the applicable
requirements of this subpart;
(c) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this section:
(1) Maintaining records of the time you initiated corrective action
in the event of a bag leak detection system alarm, the corrective
action(s) taken, and the date on which corrective action was completed.
[[Page 27670]]
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7831(f) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements. If you increase or
decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system beyond the
limits specified in Sec. 63.7831(f)(6), you must include a copy of the
required written certification by a responsible official in the next
semiannual compliance report.
(d) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you
must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements
of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Maintaining the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water
flow rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial
or subsequent performance test;
(2) Operating and maintaining each venturi scrubber CPMS according
to Sec. 63.7831(g) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec. 63.7831(b) and recording
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(e) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the site-
specific opacity operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Maintaining the average opacity of emissions for each 6-minute
period no higher than the site-specific limit established during the
initial or subsequent performance test; and
(2) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data
according to Sec. 63.7831(h).
(f) For each new or existing sinter plant subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7790(d), you must demonstrate continuous compliance
by either:
(1) For the sinter plant feedstock oil content operating limit in
Sec. 63.7790(d)(1),
(i) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average of the
percent oil content for each operating day according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7824(e);
(ii) Recording the sampling date and time, oil content values, and
sinter produced (tons/day); and
(iii) Maintaining the 30-day rolling average oil content of the
feedstock no higher than 0.02 percent.
(2) For the volatile organic compound operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(d)(2),
(i) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average of volatile
organic compound emissions for each operating day according to the
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7824(f);
(ii) Recording the sampling date and time, sampling values, and
sinter produced (tons/day); and
(iii) Maintaining the 30-day rolling average of volatile organic
compound emissions no higher than 0.2 lb/ton of sinter produced.
Sec. 63.7834 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each capture system and control device subject to an
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.
63.7800(b) by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)
of this section:
(1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems and initiating
corrective action according to Sec. 63.7800(b)(1) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements;
(2) Performing preventative maintenance according to Sec.
63.7800(b)(2) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak
detection system alarm according to Sec. 63.7800(b)(4) and recording
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and
maintenance plan required in Sec. 63.7800(b) onsite and available for
inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the life of the
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to
the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emission limitation in Sec. 63.7790 that applies to you.
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You also
must report each instance in which you did not meet each operation and
maintenance requirement in Sec. 63.7800 that applies to you. These
instances are deviations from the emission limitations and operation
and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be
reported according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7841.
(b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(1) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations,
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e) and (f)(4), and 63.9(b)
through (h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected
source before May 20, 2003, you must submit your initial notification
no later than September 17, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start your new
affected source on or after May 20, 2003, you must submit your initial
notification no later than 120 calendar days after you become subject
to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, opacity
observation, or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit
a notification of compliance status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
[[Page 27671]]
Sec. 63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.7783 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes
first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in
Sec. 63.7783.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your
first compliance report is due.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you
may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and,
as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.7833 and 63.7834 that apply to you, a
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations
or operation and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS, COMS, or continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a
statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
(7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Sec. 63.7790
that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system (including a CPMS, COMS, or CEMS) to comply with an
emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must contain
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and
the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the
corrective action taken.
(8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), including
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown,
control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and
other unknown causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source
operating time during the reporting period.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or
71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation or
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of
a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may
have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected
source to your permitting authority.
Sec. 63.7842 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the following records:
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of
[[Page 27672]]
compliance status that you submitted, according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and
opacity observations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Monitoring data for a performance evaluation as required in
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
(3) Previous (that is, superceded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(c) You must keep the records required in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for
visual observations.
(d) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec. 63.7833 and
63.7834 to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and
operation and maintenance requirement that applies to you.
Sec. 63.7843 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.7850 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 4 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.7851 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce
this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find
out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart under Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90, except for
approval of an alternative method for the oil content of the sinter
plant feedstock or volatile organic compound measurements for the
sinter plant windbox exhaust stream stack as provided in Sec.
63.7824(g).
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows.
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited
to, an instrument that operates on tribroelectric, light scattering,
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
Basic oxygen process furnace means any refractory-lined vessel in
which high-purity oxygen is blown under pressure through a bath of
molten iron, scrap metal, and fluxes to produce steel. This definition
includes both top and bottom blown furnaces, but does not include argon
oxygen decarburization furnaces.
Basic oxygen process furnace shop means the place where steelmaking
operations that begin with the transfer of molten iron (hot metal) from
the torpedo car and end prior to casting the molten steel, including
hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, refining in a basic
oxygen process furnace, and ladle metallurgy occur.
Basic oxygen process furnace shop ancillary operations means the
processes where hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag
skimming, and ladle metallurgy occur.
Blast furnace means a furnace used for the production of molten
iron from iron ore and other iron bearing materials.
Bottom-blown furnace means any basic oxygen process furnace in
which oxygen and other combustion gases are introduced into the bath of
molten iron through tuyeres in the bottom of the vessel or through
tuyeres in the bottom and sides of the vessel.
Casthouse means the building or structure that encloses the bottom
portion of a blast furnace where the hot metal and slag are tapped from
the furnace.
Certified observer means a visible emission observer certified to
perform EPA Method 9 opacity observations.
Desulfurization means the process in which reagents such as
magnesium, soda ash, and lime are injected into the hot metal, usually
with dry air or nitrogen, to remove sulfur.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
Discharge end means the place where those operations conducted
within the sinter plant starting at the discharge of the sintering
machine's traveling grate including (but not limited to) hot sinter
crushing, screening, and transfer operations occur.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or
operating limit.
Hot metal transfer station means the location in a basic oxygen
process furnace shop where molten iron (hot
[[Page 27673]]
metal) is transferred from a torpedo car or hot metal car used to
transport hot metal from the blast furnace casthouse to a holding
vessel or ladle in the basic oxygen process furnace shop. This location
also is known as the reladling station or ladle transfer station.
Integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility means an
establishment engaged in the production of steel from iron ore.
Ladle metallurgy means a secondary steelmaking process that is
performed typically in a ladle after initial refining in a basic oxygen
process furnace to adjust or amend the chemical and/or mechanical
properties of steel.
Primary emissions means particulate matter emissions from the basic
oxygen process furnace generated during the steel production cycle
which are captured and treated in the furnace's primary emission
control system.
Primary emission control system means the combination of equipment
used for the capture and collection of primary emissions (e.g., an open
hood capture system used in conjunction with an electrostatic
precipitator or a closed hood system used in conjunction with a
scrubber).
Primary oxygen blow means the period in the steel production cycle
of a basic oxygen process furnace during which oxygen is blown through
the molten iron bath by means of a lance inserted from the top of the
vessel (top-blown) or through tuyeres in the bottom and/or sides of the
vessel (bottom-blown).
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.
63.2.
Secondary emissions means particulate matter emissions that are not
controlled by a primary emission control system, including emissions
that escape from open and closed hoods, lance hole openings, and gaps
or tears in ductwork to the primary emission control system.
Secondary emission control system means the combination of
equipment used for the capture and collection of secondary emissions
from a basic oxygen process furnace.
Sinter cooler means the apparatus used to cool the hot sinter
product that is transferred from the discharge end through contact with
large volumes of induced or forced draft air.
Sinter plant means the machine used to produce a fused clinker-like
aggregate or sinter of fine iron-bearing materials suited for use in a
blast furnace. The machine is composed of a continuous traveling grate
that conveys a bed of ore fines and other finely divided iron-bearing
material and fuel (typically coke breeze), a burner at the feed end of
the grate for ignition, and a series of downdraft windboxes along the
length of the strand to support downdraft combustion and heat
sufficient to produce a fused sinter product.
Skimming station means the locations inside a basic oxygen process
furnace shop where slag is removed from the top of the molten metal
bath.
Steel production cycle means the operations conducted within the
basic oxygen process furnace shop that are required to produce each
batch of steel. The following operations are included: scrap charging,
preheating (when done), hot metal charging, primary oxygen blowing,
sampling, (vessel turndown and turnup), additional oxygen blowing (when
done), tapping, and deslagging. The steel production cycle begins when
the scrap is charged to the furnace and ends after the slag is emptied
from the vessel into the slag pot.
Top-blown furnace means any basic oxygen process furnace in which
oxygen is introduced into the bath of molten iron by means of an oxygen
lance inserted from the top of the vessel.
Windboxes means the compartments that provide for a controlled
distribution of downdraft combustion air as it is drawn through the
sinter bed of a sinter plant to make the fused sinter product.
Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Emission and Opacity Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must comply with each applicable emission and opacity limit in the
following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must comply with each of the
For . . . following . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing sinter plant................. You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.4 lb/ton of product
sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new sinter plant....................... You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.3 lb/ton of product
sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant.......................... a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain, on a
flow-weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf
\1\; and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge
end that exhibit opacity greater
than 20 percent (6-minute
average).
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant................................ a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain, on a
flow weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge
end that exhibit opacity greater
than 10 percent (6-minute
average).
5. Each sinter cooler stack at an existing sinter plant.................... You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.03 gr/dscf.
6. Each sinter cooler stack at a new sinter plant.......................... You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace............................. a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast
furnace that exhibit opacity
greater than 20 percent (6-minute
average).
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace................................... a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.003 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast
furnace that exhibit opacity
greater than 15 percent (6-minute
average).
[[Page 27674]]
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing shop..................................... a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with a closed hood system at a new
or existing BOPF shop that
contain, on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of
0.03 gr/dscf during the primary
oxygen blow \2\;
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with an open hood system that
contain, on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of
0.02 gr/dscf during the steel
production cycle for an existing
BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/dscf during
the steel production cycle for a
new BOPF shop \2\; and
c. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device used solely for the
collection of secondary emissions
from the BOPF that contain
particulate matter in excess of
0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and desulfurization operation at a You must not cause to be discharged
new or existing BOPF shop. to the atmosphere any gases that
exit from a control device that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.003 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop......... You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any gases that
exit from a control device that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each roof monitoring at an existing BOPF shop.......................... You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any secondary
emissions that exit any opening in
the BOPF shop or any other
building housing the BOPF or BOPF
shop operation that exhibit
opacity greater than 20 percent (3-
minute average).
13. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop................................... a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 6-minute
period not to exceed 20 percent
may occur once per steel
production cycle; or
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur
once per steel production cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control device as the discharge end.
\2\ This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a single BOPF during the oxygen blow.
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Initial Compliance with Emission and Opacity Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7825(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission and opacity
limits according to the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial
For . . . compliance if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing sinter plant................. The process-weighted mass rate of
particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(c), did not
exceed 0.4 lb/ton of product
sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new sinter plant....................... The process-weighted mass rate of
particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(c), did not
exceed 0.3 lb/ton of product
sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant.......................... a. The flow-weighted average
concentration of particulate
matter from one or more control
devices applied to emissions from
a discharge end, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(d),
did not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each discharge end,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7823(c), did not exceed
20 percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant................................ a. The flow-weighted average
concentration of particulate
matter from one or more control
devices applied to emissions from
a discharge end, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(d),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each discharge end,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7823(c), did not exceed
10 percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler stack at an existing sinter plant.................... The average concentration of
particulate matter from a sinter
cooler stack, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(b), did not
exceed 0.03 gr/dscf.
6. Each sinter cooler stack at a new sinter plant.......................... The average concentration of
particulate matter from a sinter
cooler stack, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(b), did not
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace............................. a. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each casthouse,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7823(c), did not exceed
20 percent (6-minute average).
[[Page 27675]]
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace................................... a. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each casthouse,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7823(c), did not exceed
15 percent (6-minute average).
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing BOPF shop................................ a. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with a
closed hood system, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(f),
did not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf for a
new or existing BOPF shop;
b. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with an open
hood system, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(g), did not exceed
0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop; and
c. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a control
device applied solely to secondary
emissions from a BOPF, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(g),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer skimming, and desulfurization at a new or The average concentration of
existing BOPF shop. particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from
hot metal transfer, skimming, or
desulfurization, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(h),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.003 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop......... The average concentration of
particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
ladle metallurgy operation,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(h), did not exceed
0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop.
12. Each roof monitor at an existing BOPF shop............................. The opacity of secondary emissions
from each BOPF shop, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(d),
did not exceed 20 percent (3-
minute average).
13. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop................................... a. The opacity of the highest set
of 6-minute averages from each
BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown
BOPF, determined according to the
performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7823(d), did not exceed
20 percent and the second highest
set of 6-minute averages did not
exceed 10 percent; or
b. The opacity of the highest set
of 3-minute averages from each
BOPF shop housing a top-blown
BOPF, determined according to the
performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7823(d), did not exceed
20 percent and the second highest
set of 3-minute averages did not
exceed 10 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with Emission and Opacity Limits
[As required in Sec. 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity
limits according to the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For . . . compliance by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing sinter plant................. a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter at or below 0.4
lb/ton of product sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new sinter plant....................... a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter at or below 0.3
lb/ton of product sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant.......................... a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from one or
more control devices at or below
0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge
end at or below 20 percent (6-
minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant................................ a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from one or
more control devices at or below
0.01 gr/dscf;
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge
end at or below 10 percent (6-
minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
5. Each sinter cooler stack at an existing sinter plant.................... a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter at or below
0.03 gr/dscf; and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance sinter plant tests at
least twice during each term of
your title V operating permit (at
midterm and renewal).
6. Each sinter cooler stack at a new sinter plant.......................... a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter at or below
0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace............................. a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf;
[[Page 27676]]
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast
furnace at or below 20 percent (6-
minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace................................... a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.003 gr/dscf;
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
building housing the casthouse at
or below 15 percent (6-minute
average); and
c. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing BOPF shop................................ a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from the
primary emission control system
for a BOPF with a closed hood
system at or below 0.03 gr/dscf;
b. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from the
primary emission control system
for a BOPF with an open hood
system at or below 0.02 gr/dscf
for an existing BOPF shop or 0.01
gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop;
c. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from a control
device applied solely to secondary
emissions from a BOPF at or below
0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop; and
d. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and desulfurization operation at a a. Maintaining emissions of
new or existing BOPF shop. particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/dscf
for a new BOPF; and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop......... a. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
12. Each roof monitor at an existing BOPF shop............................. a. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing the BOPF or shop
operation at or below 20 percent
(3-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
13. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop................................... a. Maintaining the opacity (for any
set of 6-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or shop operation at or below
10 percent, except that one 6-
minute period greater than 10
percent but no more than 20
percent may occur once per steel
production cycle;
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any
set of 3-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or shop operation at or below 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur
once per steel production cycle;
and
c. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
[As required in Sec. 63.7850, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to Subpart FFFFF Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1...................... Applicability........... Yes.
Sec. 63.2...................... Definitions............. Yes.
Sec. 63.3...................... Units and Abbreviations. Yes.
Sec. 63.4...................... Prohibited Activities... Yes.
Sec. 63.5...................... Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), Compliance with Yes.
(e), (f), (g), (h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9). Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i)............. Determining Compliance No....................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
with Opacity and VE Method 9 in appendix A
Standards. to part 60 of this
chapter to comply with
roof monitor opacity
limits.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)............ Applicability and No....................... Subpart FFFFF and
Performance Test Dates. specifies performance
test applicability and
dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3), (b), (c)-(h).. Performance Testing Yes......................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), Monitoring Requirements. Yes...................... CMS requirements in Sec.
(c)(1)-(3), (c)(4)(i)-(e), 63.8(c)(4) (i)-(ii),
(c)(7)-(8), (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)- (c)(5) and (6), (d),
(4). and (e) apply only to
COMS for electrostatic
precipitators.
[[Page 27677]]
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Additional Monitoring No....................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements for require flares.
Control Devices in Sec.
63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ Continuous Monitoring No....................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
System Requirements. requirements for
operation of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ RATA Alternative........ No.
Sec. 63.9...................... Notification Yes...................... Additional notifications
Requirements. for CMS in Sec.
63.9(g) apply to COMS
for electrostatic
precipitators.
Sec. 63.9(g)(5)................ DATA Reduction.......... No....................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1)-(2)(xii), Recordkeeping and Yes...................... Additional records for
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6), Reporting Requirements. CMS in Sec. 63.10(c)
(c)(9)-(15), (d), (e)(1)-(2), (1)-(6), (9)-(15), and
(e)(4), (f). reports in Sec.
63.10(d)(1)-(2) apply
only to COMS for
electrostatic
precipitators.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......... CMS Records for RATA No.
Alternative.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)........... Records of Excess No....................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Emissions and Parameter record requirements.
Monitoring Exceedances
for CMS.
Sec. 63.11..................... Control Device No....................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements. require flares.
Sec. 63.12..................... State Authority and Yes.
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13-Sec. 63.15........ Addresses, Incorporation Yes.
by Reference,
Availability of
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 03-5518 Filed 5-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081104210941im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}