National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: April 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18007-18040]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ap03-8]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0085; FRL-7462-3]
RIN 2060-AH55

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2003.

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

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

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

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7281 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0085. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.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 coke oven pushing, quenching, and
battery stacks (66 FR 35326, July 3, 2001). Under CAA section
307(b)(1), judicial review of the final rule is achievable only by
filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by June 13, 2003. Under CAA section
307(b)(2), the requirements that are the subject of this document may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA
to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for NESHAP?
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
C. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
B. What Are the Requirements for Pushing?
C. What Are the Requirements for Soaking?
D. What Are the Requirements for Quenching?
E. What Are the Requirements for Battery Stacks?
F. What Are the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Requirements?
G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
H. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

[[Page 18009]]

A. Why Did We Select a Work Practice Standard for Fugitive
Pushing Emissions?
B. What Changes Did We Make to the Work Practice Standard for
Fugitive Pushing Emissions?
C. What Changes Did We Make to the Requirements for Pushing
Emission Control Devices (PECD)?
D. What Changes Did We Make to the Requirements for Quenching?
E. What Were the Major Comments on the Proposed Standard for
Battery Stacks?
F. What Changes Did We Make to the Requirements for Soaking?
G. What Changes Did We Make to the O&M Requirements?
H. Why Did We Change the Compliance Dates for Existing Sources?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy
Impacts?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish technology-
based regulations for all categories and subcategories of major and
area sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b).
Major sources are those that emit or have the potential to emit at
least 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAP. We previously listed the category of major sources
covered by today's final rule, ``Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks,'' on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). This action is a
rulemaking under section 307(d) of the CAA.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

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

C. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?

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

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

The affected source is each new or existing coke oven battery at a
plant that is a major source of HAP emissions. A new affected source is
one constructed or reconstructed after July 3, 2001. An existing
affected source is one constructed or reconstructed on or before July
3, 2001. The final rule covers fugitive pushing emissions, emissions
from control devices applied to pushing emissions, and emissions from
quenching, soaking, and battery stacks.

B. What Are the Requirements for Pushing?

1. By-Product Coke Oven Batteries With Vertical Flues
We proposed two options for controlling fugitive pushing
emissions--numerical opacity limits (Option 1) and a work practice
standard (Option 2). Based on comments received on the proposed rule
and further consideration of the proposed options, we are promulgating
a work practice standard.
Under the work practice standard, owners or operators must observe
and record the opacity from four consecutive pushes each operating day.
If the average opacity of the six highest 15-second consecutive
readings for any individual push is more than 30 percent for a short
battery or 35 percent for a tall battery, the owner or operator must
take corrective action and/or increase coking time to fix the problem
within a specified time frame. To demonstrate the corrective action
and/or increased coking time was successful, the owner or operator must
observe two additional daytime pushes for the oven after completing the
corrective action. If the corrective action is not successful, the
owner or operator must take additional corrective action. If the second
attempt to fix the problem is not successful, the failure must be
reported as a deviation, and the owner or operator must again take
corrective action or increase the coking time. Each subsequent failure
to

[[Page 18010]]

fix the problem on the same oven must also be reported as a deviation.
We have included provisions to qualify an oven for decreased coking
time after it is placed on increased coking time, which requires a
demonstration that the opacity is 30 percent or less for a short
battery or 35 percent or less for a tall battery when the oven is
operated on the decreased coking time. If an oven fails to qualify for
decreased coking time, it must be returned to the previously
established increased coking time, or the owner or operator may
implement some other corrective action or increased coking time. If the
facility implements some other corrective action or increased coking
time, it must confirm that the selected action was successful. If an
individual oven fails to qualify for a decreased coking time in two or
more consecutive attempts, the failure on the second and any subsequent
attempts must be reported as a deviation.
The final rule requires that observers taking opacity readings to
comply with the work practice standard for pushing must be certified
according to Method 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Opacity
observations begin with the first detectable movement of the coke mass.
The plant owner or operator must identify each oven that cannot be read
using Method 9 due to obstructions, interferences, or sun angle and
must propose alternative procedures to observe these ovens.
To demonstrate initial compliance, the plant owner or operator must
certify, as part of the notification of compliance status, that the
plant will meet each of the requirements in the work practice standard.
Records of all observations and calculations are needed to document
continuous compliance. Additional records are required in each instance
where pushing emissions from an oven exceed 30 percent opacity for a
short battery or 35 percent opacity for a tall battery.
2. By-Product Coke Oven Batteries With Horizontal Flues
Plant owners or operators must prepare and implement a written plan
to prevent incomplete coking. The plan must establish minimum flue
temperatures at different coking times and a lowest acceptable minimum
flue temperature. The minimum temperatures must be established based on
a study conducted by the plant that establishes minimum flue
temperatures at different minimum coking times and an absolute minimum
flue temperature. The plan must be submitted to the Administrator for
approval. The authority to approve the work practice plan is retained
by the Administrator and is not delegated to the State, local, or
tribal agency.
In implementing the plan, owners or operators must measure and
record the temperature of all flues on two ovens per day within the 2
hours before the scheduled push time. If the measured temperature is
below the minimum established for an oven's coking time, the coking
time must be increased by the amount specified in the plant's written
plan. If the flue temperature measurement is below the lowest
acceptable minimum temperature, the oven must be removed from service
for repairs. If a flue temperature is below the lowest acceptable
minimum after return to service, the owner or operator must report the
event as a deviation.
No performance test is required to demonstrate initial compliance
with the work practice standards. The plant owner or operator must
certify, as part of the notification of compliance status, that the
plant has submitted the written plan to prevent incomplete coking and
the supporting study to the Administrator for review and approval, and
that the plant will meet each of the requirements in the work practice
standard beginning no later than the first day that compliance is
required according to Sec. 63.7283 of the final rule. If the plan is
disapproved, the owner or operator must revise the plan as directed by
the Administrator and re-submit it for approval. If an original or re-
submitted plan has not been approved by the applicable compliance date,
the owner or operator must operate in accordance with the last plan
submitted to the Administrator.
Plant owners or operators must demonstrate continuous compliance
by: (1) Measuring and recording flue temperatures for two ovens a day
and for all ovens in each battery at least once a month, and (2)
recording the time each oven is charged and pushed and the net coking
time. Plant owners or operators must keep additional records to show
that the correct procedures were followed if any measured flue
temperature is below the minimum flue temperature or the lowest
acceptable minimum temperature.
3. Non-Recovery Coke Oven Batteries
The final work practice standards require plant owners or operators
to visually inspect each oven prior to pushing by opening the door
damper and observing the bed of coke. The oven cannot be pushed unless
the visual inspection confirms that there is no smoke in the open space
above the coke bed, and that there is an unobstructed view of the door
on the opposite side of the oven. Plant owners or operators must
demonstrate initial compliance by certifying in their initial
notification of compliance status that they will follow the work
practice standards. Plant owners or operators must demonstrate
continuous compliance by maintaining records of each visual inspection.
4. Emission Control Devices
We are establishing emission limits for particulate matter (PM) as
a measure of control device performance. Plant owners or operators that
currently use capture and control equipment must continue to use such
equipment and must meet the applicable PM emission limits. The limits
differ in form and numerical value depending on the type of capture
system used (cokeside shed or moveable hood) and whether the control
device is stationary (land-based) or mobile. Where a cokeside shed is
used as the capture system, the PM limit is 0.01 grain per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf). If a moveable hood vented to a stationary control
device is used to capture emissions, the PM emission limit is 0.02
pound per ton (lb/ton) of coke pushed. For mobile scrubber cars that do
not capture emissions during travel, the emission limits are 0.03 lb/
ton of coke for short batteries and 0.01 lb/ton of coke for tall
batteries. For mobile scrubber cars that capture emissions during
travel, the limit is 0.04 lb/ton of coke.
We have also established operating limits for control devices and
capture systems applied to pushing emissions. If a venturi scrubber is
used, the daily average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate must
remain at or above the minimum level established during the initial
performance test. The final rule provides two options for a capture
system applied to pushing emissions: (1) Maintain the daily average fan
motor amperes at or above the minimum level established during the
initial performance test, or (2) maintain the daily average volumetric
flow rate at the inlet of the control device at or above the minimum
level established during the initial performance test.
The final rule requires a performance test for each control device
to demonstrate it meets the emission limit. The concentration of PM is
to be measured using EPA Method 5 or 5D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
The testing requirements also include procedures for establishing
operating limits for venturi scrubbers and capture systems and for
revising the limits, if needed, after the performance test. To
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limit,
plant owners or operators must conduct

[[Page 18011]]

performance tests for each control device at least twice during each
term of their title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).
If a baghouse is applied to pushing emissions, plant owners or
operators must monitor the relative change in PM loading using a bag
leak detection system and make inspections at specified intervals. The
basic inspection requirements include daily, weekly, monthly, or
quarterly inspections of specified parameters or mechanisms with
monitoring of bag cleaning cycles. Each bag leak detection system must
be capable of detecting PM at concentrations of 10 milligrams per
actual cubic meter or less and provide an output of relative PM
loading, and be installed and operated according to EPA guidance.\1\ If
the system does not work based on the triboelectric effect, it must be
installed and operated consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations. In addition, the bag leak detection
system must be equipped with an alarm system that will alert operators
if PM is detected above a preset level. The proposed requirement that a
bag leak detection system must not sound for more than 5 percent of the
time in a semiannual period has been deleted from the final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/R-98-
015, September 1997, available on the TTN at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf

To demonstrate continuous compliance, the final rule requires plant
owners or operators to maintain records of corrective actions taken in
response to bag leak detection system alarms. They must also keep
records documenting conformance with the inspection and maintenance
requirements.
If a venturi scrubber is applied to pushing emissions, plant owners
or operators must monitor the daily average pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate using continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS).
The CPMS must measure and record the pressure drop and scrubber water
flow rate at least once per push and determine and record the daily
average of the readings. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operating limits, plant owners or operators must maintain the daily
average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at levels no lower
than those established during the performance test. Valid monitoring
data must be available for all pushes.
Section 63.7331 of the rule establishes requirements for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of continuous monitoring
systems. The final rule requires owners or operators to prepare a site-
specific monitoring plan for CPMS that addresses installation,
performance, operation and maintenance, quality assurance, and
recordkeeping and reporting procedures. These requirements replace the
more detailed performance specifications contained in the proposed
rule.
For a capture system applied to pushing emissions, plant owners or
operators are required to check the fan motor amperes or the volumetric
flow rate at least once each 8-hour period to verify the daily average
is at or above the level established during the initial performance
test and to record the results of each check.

C. What Are the Requirements for Soaking?

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

D. What Are the Requirements for Quenching?

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

[[Page 18012]]

L or that the concentration of benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene
does not exceed the site-specific constituent limit. To demonstrate
continuous compliance, plant owners or operators are required to
maintain baffles in each quench tower to meet the rule requirements,
test quench water for TDS at least weekly or at least monthly for
benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene, and keep records documenting
conformance with the work practice requirements regarding baffle repair
and cleaning.
Backup quench stations at existing coke oven batteries that are
used for less than 5 percent of the quenches in a 12-month calendar
period are not subject to the baffle requirements for quench towers.
However, backup quench stations at new batteries are subject to the
requirements for baffles.

E. What Are the Requirements for Battery Stacks?

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

F. What Are the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Requirements?

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

G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?

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

H. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

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

[[Page 18013]]

III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. Why Did We Select a Work Practice Standard for Fugitive Pushing
Emissions?

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

[[Page 18014]]

This approach accurately reflects the performance of the best-
controlled facilities in the category that already implement oven
diagnosis and repair programs to successfully identify and remedy
problems that lead to increased emissions. Most of the best-controlled
batteries will seldom have an oven that enters the oven-directed
program, and our data show that none have had the types of continuing
problems that would result in a deviation under the final rule.
We believe that the work practice standard can be coordinated with
a long-term repair program. The batteries upon which the MACT floor is
based have a long-term repair program to address major repairs. This
long-term program includes procedures for minimizing impacts on
adjacent ovens and preventing excess emissions when ovens must be
removed from service. In addition, these batteries have effective
procedures for identifying problem ovens and making short-term repairs.
There is no legitimate reason why this type of approach cannot be
implemented at other coke oven batteries.

B. What Changes Did We Make to the Work Practice Standard for Fugitive
Pushing Emissions?

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

[[Page 18015]]

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

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

Comment: Two commenters stated that there is no legal basis for
setting MACT standards for PECD given EPA's conclusion at proposal that
PECD are not part of the MACT floor for pushing. One commenter also
stated that EPA has no legal authority to set operating limits for PECD
because they are simply a surrogate for the underlying emission limits.
In addition, PECD should not be regulated because the emissions do not
contain HAP. The commenter said the limits and monitoring are not
necessary and are duplicative of other existing requirements, including
State implementation plans, title V permits, and the compliance
assurance monitoring program.
Response: We believe emission limits for PECD are appropriate and
warranted. As we explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, there
are several reasons we do not believe it is appropriate to include PECD
as a component of the MACT floor for pushing. However, we also
indicated at proposal that operation of these controls does have some
HAP reduction benefits (although we are unable to specifically quantify
these benefits in terms of either HAP or PM), and there is little doubt
that these devices help to reduce HAP emissions, including POM and
trace metals. Thus, while minimizing the frequency of green pushes is
the basis for the MACT floor, and achieving this objective will
significantly decrease the emission benefits of the add-on control
devices, these devices will continue to reduce HAP emissions to some
degree on a continuing basis. The EPA has reasonably concluded that it
is important to ensure that the benefits related to the operation of
these controls are maintained, and the appropriate way to accomplish
this is to require that coke plants operate existing PECD at all times
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices.
Accordingly, today's requirements establish emission limitations for
existing control devices that reflect the performance of well-operated
PECD. The costs associated with the PECD requirements include those for
periodic Method 5 testing, parametric monitoring (such as bag leak
detection systems), and monthly inspections of capture and control
systems. These costs are only $4,600 per year for a typical coke plant,
which is a minimal cost relative to the overall costs of the final rule
(less than 0.5 percent). While we are not able to quantify the HAP
emission reductions associated with operation of PECD or with the PECD
requirements in the final rule, we believe the requirements preserving
these existing benefits of PECD's and ensuring proper operation of
control devices is warranted. For example, bag leak detection systems
and monthly inspections will ensure that corrective actions are taken
promptly when the systems are not operating properly, and these actions
will reduce excess emissions that might have occurred in the absence of
the continuous monitoring.
We do not believe that the limits will duplicate existing State
requirements because the limits are generally equivalent to or more
stringent than those currently required by State agencies or contained
in existing operating permits. By establishing these limits in national
standards, we will

[[Page 18016]]

ensure that emissions from PECD do not increase in the future if
existing State limits are relaxed or if operating permits are modified.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed emission limits are
based on very limited data and that the limits are not achievable. In
support of this claim, the commenter submitted statistical analyses
that indicate that their ``statistically-derived values'' are much
higher than the proposed limits and should be used in lieu of the
proposed values. Several commenters submitted additional test data for
EPA to consider and asked for higher limits.
Response: We reviewed the additional test data submitted by the
commenters. These new data include additional tests on mobile scrubber
cars used on short batteries and baghouses applied to cokeside sheds.
We also reexamined our approach for selecting appropriate emission
limits. We believe that it is not necessary to use statistical analyses
to account for variability because these control devices operate
uniformly over time, and the data indicate there is little variability
when the device is operating properly. In addition, we have data for
most of the affected control devices, including multiple tests for some
units. We believe the large database inherently accounts for
variability and choosing the highest three-run average means that 100
percent of the test results are below the limit. However, to account
for inherent variability in the performance of the control devices (to
more accurately reflect the actual performance of existing controls
over time), we established the limits in the final rule by rounding the
highest test results to two decimal places.
The two additional tests for mobile scrubber cars used on short
batteries include one result slightly below the proposed limit and
another slightly higher than the proposed limit. The tests were
conducted using approved methods and appear to be representative of
normal operation. In addition, the results expanded the database for
this subcategory from three tests to five tests. The averages for the
five tests ranged from 0.012 to 0.025 lb/ton of coke. We rounded 0.025
lb/ton to 0.03 lb/ton and established this value as the limit for
mobile scrubber cars for short batteries.
We also reviewed additional test data for three batteries equipped
with a cokeside shed and baghouse, including three tests conducted on a
6-meter battery at one plant and four tests conducted on two 4-meter
batteries designated Batteries 1 and 4 at a second plant. The proposed
limit for existing cokeside sheds and baghouses was 0.004 gr/dscf. With
the additional data, we now have results for ten tests at five
batteries with cokeside sheds and baghouses. All three tests on the 6-
meter battery are below the proposed limit of 0.004 gr/dscf with values
of 0.0009, 0.0024, and 0.0013 gr/dscf.
The additional data for the two 4-meter batteries plus one test
result which we previously had gives us a total of five tests for that
plant, four tests for Battery 1 and one test for Battery 4. The company
acknowledged that a 1984 test which averaged 0.02 gr/dscf was performed
under unrepresentative conditions because of operational problems with
the baghouse during the test. We examined the other test reports for
Battery 1 and found that a test conducted in 1984 averaged 0.004 gr/
dscf, a 1988 test averaged 0.0036 gr/dscf, and a 1998 test averaged
0.01 gr/dscf. The test reports indicate that sampling was performed
under representative conditions. Consequently, we revised the emission
limit for batteries with cokeside sheds to 0.01 gr/dscf to reflect the
level that has been demonstrated as achievable.
No additional data were submitted for two types of capture and
control systems: mobile scrubber cars on tall batteries and mobile
scrubber cars that capture during travel. We chose as limits the
highest three-run average for each of these systems--0.01 lb/ton for
mobile scrubber cars on tall batteries and 0.04 lb/ton for mobile
scrubber cars that capture during travel. We believe the data show that
these limits are achievable because they have been achieved at several
different batteries over time.
Comment: One commenter requested that the 5 percent operating limit
for bag leak detection system alarms be deleted. The commenter argued
that the 5 percent of the operating time limit on alarms is arbitrary.
In addition, the commenter stated that EPA had not demonstrated that a
bag leak detection system is workable for pushing emissions given the
intermittent operation of PECD (e.g., 1 to 2 minutes during a push,
which occurs every 15 to 20 minutes).
Response: We reexamined the proposed operating limit of 5 percent
for bag leak detection systems and concluded it was not applicable for
PECD. The proposed limit was adopted from other rules and was not based
on data associated with baghouses applied to pushing emissions. We do
not believe we can establish an appropriate limit in this application
because of the intermittent operation of baghouses. For most systems,
the device operates only during the push, which is 1 to 2 minutes every
10 to 15 minutes. In addition, we have no information on the effect of
the initial surge when full evacuation is applied at the beginning of
the push. Thus, given that emissions from PECD are not the major focus
of today's final rule and are not included as part of the MACT floor
calculation, we believe it is appropriate to delete the 5 percent
operating limit for bag leak detection systems. However, we are
requiring that corrective actions be initiated within 1 hour of an
alarm.

D. What Changes Did We Make to the Requirements for Quenching?

Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of ``clean
water'' needs to be clarified because it would be difficult or
impossible for plant owners or operators to prove that some sources of
water meet the definition. As proposed, ``clean water'' is defined to
mean surface water from a river, lake, or stream; water meeting
drinking water standards; water that has been used for non-contact
cooling; or process wastewater that has been treated to remove organic
compounds and/or dissolved solids. The commenter recommended that the
definition be revised to state that any water can be used except
untreated process wastewater from the by-product plant. Another
commenter agreed and further stated that plant owners or operators
should be allowed to use any source of makeup water that has been used
historically and previously deemed acceptable by EPA. One commenter
requested that the definition include water that is used in seals on
standpipes; otherwise, the plant owner or operator would have to draw
an additional 200,000 gallons per day from Lake Michigan and treat the
same amount of water before discharge. Another commenter requested that
storm water and wash down water associated with non-recovery plants be
added. The commenter stated that this water does not pick up toxic
chemicals at non-recovery plants, and using this water for quenching
eliminates discharge to the watershed and reduces the amount of water
drawn from the water supply.
Other commenters requested that the proposed definition of ``clean
water'' be tightened by developing minimum quality standards for quench
water. Two commenters suggested that ``clean water'' be defined as
meeting Federal safe drinking water standards. Two other commenters
asked that EPA establish a limit for TDS because the solids contain
metals. Commenters also noted that the definition includes process
water that has been treated to remove organic compounds and/or

[[Page 18017]]

dissolved solids. They stated that removal of both solids and organics
should be required, and EPA must establish appropriate levels of
treatment. If an appropriate level of treatment cannot be defined, then
all process wastewater should be prohibited for quenching coke. One
commenter suggested that return water from the quench tower and all
process wastewater be prohibited, whether treated or not. This
commenter further stated that if EPA chooses to allow treated process
water, then daily sampling and analysis must be required to ensure the
treatment process is removing the contaminants.
Response: We agree that altering the definition of ``clean water''
is necessary to clarify what types of water can be used as makeup
water. We also agree that it is appropriate to establish TDS limits to
control quench water quality. Our intent at proposal was that untreated
process wastewater, whether contaminated with solids, organic
compounds, or both, should not be used for quenching. These
contaminants have been shown to increase HAP emissions from quenching,
and most plants have abandoned the practice of disposing of untreated
wastewater in the quenching process.
Process wastewater must be treated to remove solids and organics,
as necessary, before it can be used for quenching. This can be ensured
by requiring that process wastewater be treated to meet effluent
limitation guidelines. It was not our intent to prohibit the use of
non-contact process water, cooling water, or other miscellaneous
sources of water that would not contribute to additional emissions from
pushing. For example, the water used to seal standpipe caps and storm
water are not process wastewater. To address the above concerns, we
have replaced the term ``clean water'' in the proposed rule with the
term ``acceptable makeup water,'' which is defined in the final rule to
mean surface water from a river, lake, or stream; water meeting
drinking water standards; storm water runoff and production area
cleanup water except for water from the by-product recovery plant area;
process wastewater treated to meet effluent limitations guidelines; any
of these types of water that has been used only for non-contact cooling
or in water seals; or water from scrubbers used to control pushing
emissions. We believe this change accommodates most if not all of the
concerns stated in the comments.
Water used for quenching is usually taken from a sump near the base
of the quench tower and consists of recycled water and makeup water.
Recycled water is the runoff from quenching that is returned from the
quench tower to the sump. Makeup water is from some other source, such
as a river or lake, and is added to replenish the water lost by
evaporation during quenching. Dissolved solids in the quench water
contribute to HAP and PM emissions during quenching. We reviewed data
from tests at quench towers and found that HAP emissions increase as
the TDS level in the quench water increases. Several States have
established TDS limits for the quench water to ensure that high levels
of solids are not present to contribute to emissions from the quench
tower. We agree with commenters who requested that TDS limits be
established in the final rule and that the quench water be sampled
periodically. We reviewed the available data on TDS levels in quench
water. However, we have only limited data, much of the data included
the use of by-product plant wastewater which is no longer used for
quenching, and we could not validate the procedures that were used for
sampling and analysis by the various plants. In addition, we have only
one data point for reporting plants, which does not reflect the
variability in TDS levels over time.
We also reviewed existing State and local TDS requirements and
found that most of the existing limits are in the range of 800 to 1,500
mg/L. We evaluated the five most stringent State limits (12 percent of
36 quench towers) applied to quench towers at coke plants that were
operating during the development of the proposed rule. Two quench
towers (one in Michigan and one in Ohio) are subject to a limit of 800
mg/L, two others in Illinois are subject to a limit of 1,200 mg/L, and
one in Illinois is subject to a limit of 1,500 mg/L. We chose the mean
value of 1,100 mg/L as the MACT floor. We chose the mean value rather
than the median value (1,200 mg/L) because we usually use the median
value when that value is associated with a specific source and the
operation of a particular emission control technology. In this case,
the mean value is more appropriate because the State limits are not
directly related to the level of control achieved by a particular
control technology.
We also evaluated the test method used by the plants that comprise
the MACT floor and determined that all of these plants measure TDS by
drying the filterable residue at 103 to 105[deg]
C. (There is an
alternative TDS method that specifies drying at 180[deg]
C.) Our data
indicate that the lower drying temperature is more appropriate for coke
plant quench water because the higher temperature evaporates some
organic PM and results in an inaccurate measure of TDS. This organic PM
contributes to the total TDS and emissions at the normal temperatures
of the quench water before it is used for quenching. Consequently, we
specify that TDS must be determined by drying the filterable residue at
103 to 105[deg]
C.
We believe the existing limits are a reasonable proxy for TDS
levels that can be achieved, and they account for the normal
variability in TDS levels. For example, the available data indicate
that TDS concentrations in clean makeup water are usually less than 600
mg/L. We reviewed data for several plants and concluded that TDS in
quench water is about twice that in makeup water. Therefore, we believe
a level of 1,100 mg/L TDS or less is indicative of acceptable quench
water. Consequently, we are establishing this level in the final rule
as the maximum TDS allowed in quench water. We are also requiring
weekly sampling of the quench water to ensure that water quality is
maintained.
Although a TDS limit is a proven historical method for limiting
emissions from quenching, we believe that plant owners or operators can
achieve equivalent levels of HAP control by limiting the HAP in quench
water. To provide additional flexibility, we included in the final rule
an alternative to develop a site-specific limit for the quench water
for the HAP that are indicators of coke oven emissions--benzene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene. To qualify for the alternative, a
plant owner or operator must sample and analyze at least nine quench
water samples for TDS, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene. The
alternative HAP limit is the highest sum of the concentrations of the
HAP in any single sample that meets the TDS limit of 1,100 mg/L.
Comment: Two commenters noted that baffles control PM and that EPA
had not explained why PM is a suitable surrogate for HAP emissions from
quenching. One commenter said that the requirement for 95 percent
coverage of quench towers by baffles is unclear and that coverage
cannot be measured. Another commenter stated that the 95 percent
coverage requirement is too lenient and will allow the release of
significant emissions. The commenter noted that two layer baffles which
cause two changes in flow direction have been installed and
successfully used at coke plants in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Several commenters stated that it is difficult or impossible to
wash and repair baffles in cold and inclement weather because water
lines freeze and

[[Page 18018]]

severe weather makes the process dangerous. One commenter said the
company does not allow work on the quench tower during freezing weather
due to safety concerns. One commenter recommended that baffles be
cleaned daily or as often as weather conditions allow and that repair
of damaged or missing baffles be initiated within 30 days and completed
as soon as practicable. Materials needed for repair are not always
available in a short time frame. Three commenters said that their
experience indicates that monthly cleaning of baffles is adequate and
added that additional cleaning should be performed if the upward flow
of the steam plume is obstructed. These commenters also noted that it
may not be possible to complete repairs to damaged baffles prior to the
next scheduled monthly inspection and suggested that a requirement to
initiate repairs prior to the next inspection is more appropriate.
Two commenters noted that some plants have backup quench stations
that are used when the primary quench tower is unavailable because of
maintenance or malfunction. These backup stations are used only a small
amount of the time, and they are not designed to capture quenching
emissions (i.e., they have no stacks or baffles). Both commenters
requested that EPA clarify that backup quench stations are not subject
to the requirements for baffles.
Response: We agree with the comment that baffles reduce PM
emissions. In addition, we believe that baffles also reduce the
emission of HAP metal compounds contained in the particles of grit
released, as well as semivolatile and VOC such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) and benzene, when green coke is quenched.
Semivolatile organic compounds evolve from green coke and condense to
form fine PM or condense on other particles during the quenching
process. Consequently, baffles reduce emissions of both metal and
organic HAP.
To clarify the provision for 95 percent coverage, we revised the
coverage requirement to read that no more than 5 percent of the cross
sectional area of the quench tower can be exposed to the sky when
viewed from below. We understand there are several different designs
and configurations used for baffles. However, there are many different
factors that affect emissions from quench towers. For example, it is
likely that the design of the quench tower affects the level of
emission control and may also affect the choice of baffle type and
configuration. Consequently, we do not believe it is appropriate to
prescribe in the final rule the use of a particular baffle type or
design and have provided the flexibility for the owner or operator to
make this determination. However, all types of baffles must have
adequate coverage to provide effective emission control for quench
towers.
We believe requirements for daily cleaning, monthly inspection, and
prompt repair of damaged baffles are reasonable and necessary to ensure
that they are well maintained. These practices are common at many coke
plants, and the frequencies are based on industry responses to a
nationwide survey. However, we agree that repairing baffles during
inclement weather conditions is a personnel safety issue. We also agree
that there may be operational problems when baffles are washed during
freezing weather. Consequently, we revised the requirement to wash
baffles daily to allow daily washing to be suspended when the highest
measured ambient temperature throughout the day is less than 30 degrees
Fahrenheit. We understand that the time needed for repair can vary
depending on the extent of repair needed and the availability of
materials. Therefore, we have written the final rule to require that
the repair of damaged or missing baffles be initiated within 30 days
and that the repairs be completed as soon as practicable.
We gathered information on the use of backup quench stations by
surveying coke plants. A total of nine coke plants among the 12
responding to the survey have 13 backup quench stations. Only one of
these 13 backup quench stations is equipped with baffles, and the
stations are typically used less than 5 percent of the time. Based on
the information we received, we conclude that MACT for backup quench
stations at existing coke oven batteries does not include the
installation of baffles. We have specified in the final rule our
subcategorization of backup quench stations, and we have defined this
subcategory as those quench stations that are used for less than 5
percent of quenches for any coke oven battery in any 12-month period.
However, the best-controlled similar source has baffles in the backup
quench station. Consequently, the requirements for installing,
inspecting, cleaning, and repairing baffles applies to backup quench
stations at new batteries.
In addition, the TDS limit applies to backup quench stations
because the existing State limits we used to determine the MACT floor
apply to quench water, whether it is used in regular quench towers or
backup quench stations. There is no reason to permit the use of higher
TDS levels for quenching merely because a backup quench station is
used.

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

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

[[Page 18019]]

We examined the data to determine if subcategories are needed for
different battery designs as mentioned by the commenter. We could find
no difference in performance levels achieved by short vs. tall
batteries, under jet vs. gun flue, furnace vs. foundry coke, or the
other factors mentioned by the commenter. We found a difference in
performance when batteries are placed on extended coking, which reduces
sealing carbon on the oven walls. Consequently, we developed a separate
emission limit for batteries on extended coking. We also acknowledge
that batteries operating routinely on coking cycles that are longer
than that for which they are designed could qualify as extended coking.
To accommodate this, we have revised the definition for ``batterywide
extended coking'' to mean increasing the average coking time for all
ovens in a battery by 25 percent or more over the manufacturer's design
rate.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA must develop a work practice
standard for battery stacks because it is not feasible to set
performance standards. The commenter noted that EPA uses three
approaches to determine MACT floors (emissions data, existing emission
limits from State regulations or operating permits, or technology). We
used the technology approach for battery stacks. The commenter believes
that the use of a technology approach for battery stacks is
inappropriate because the technology is not an air pollution control
device but is good O&M. The commenter further states that good O&M
results in widely varying degrees of emission control. Good O&M is not
a ``technology'' for the purposes of applying the technology approach
because, unlike an add-on control device, good O&M cannot be associated
with specific emission control levels at different batteries. The only
way to establish a floor for battery stacks is to use actual emissions
data. However, EPA does not have enough emissions data to subcategorize
batteries adequately or to characterize performance over time and under
the worst foreseeable operating conditions.
The commenter provided details for a suggested work practice
program for battery stacks. The program would be implemented when a
daily average opacity trigger is exceeded. The commenter suggests that
the values EPA proposed for the emission limits (15 percent for normal
coking time and 20 percent for extended coking time) be used as the
triggers. The work practice program would include requirements for
worker training as well as procedures for controlling oven to flue
leakage, including diagnostic procedures for identifying problem ovens
and a list of corrective actions.
Response: The EPA established the MACT floor for battery stacks by
identifying the level of performance consistently achieved by the best-
performing units. Because units in this category currently do not use
add-on control devices to reduce stack emissions, we looked at other
measures employed by existing facilities in order to identify the best-
performing units. Specifically, we looked at equipment, work practices,
and operational factors that reduce emissions at existing facilities.
We identified good systematic operation and maintenance, along with
operation of COMS to monitor stack opacity, as the most important
factors affecting the level of emissions from coke oven battery stacks.
In fact, we determined that all of the best-performing batteries employ
measures that have the same basic features, including COMS monitoring
to identify problems, ongoing systematic maintenance of oven walls, and
procedures for prompt and efficient repair of damaged ovens. We also
identified, based on the large amount of available COMS data, the level
of performance that units employing such measures are consistently
achieving. Therefore, this approach identifies what is being done at
existing facilities to reduce coke oven emissions from battery stacks
and correlates those control activities to a specific level of
performance. Because a sufficient number of units in the category are
employing these control strategies and achieving the identified
emissions limitation, this limit is MACT for existing sources.\2\
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, there is no basis to conclude
that any existing battery, with appropriate repairs, monitoring and
maintenance, would be unable to achieve a similar level of control.
Therefore, it was reasonable here for EPA to use this approach to
identify the best units and to establish emission limits based on the
performance of those units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ While, in the proposal, we described this as a ``technology
approach'' and referred to good O&M as the ``MACT technology,''
these were merely short hand references for EPA's detailed analysis
of the measures employed by best facilities to achieve the greatest
degree of emissions reductions. In fact, the emission limit for
battery stacks is based on the level of performance that the best
existing sources consistently achieve, as demonstrated by actual
emission test data (in the form of COMS readings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the opacity data used to establish the emissions limits
are, in fact, representative of what a well operated coke oven battery
can achieve (with comprehensive O&M, continuous monitoring, and an
efficient repair program), it is not only reasonable but required that
EPA establish such a limit. Because these emissions are emitted through
a stack, can be measured, and could be captured and controlled with the
application of available emission control technologies, it would not be
appropriate for EPA to establish a work practice standard in lieu of an
emissions standard. Thus, the CAA requires us to develop an emission
standard in this case because a work practice standard is allowed in
lieu of an emission standard only if it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission standard.
The primary factor affecting battery stack emissions is the
condition of oven walls. Batteries that are well maintained can achieve
the MACT limits. When the walls are allowed to deteriorate and cracks
occur, coke oven emissions escape through the cracks into the
underfiring system and lead to high stack opacity. Another important
factor in meeting the proposed limit is using COMS for diagnostic
purposes. When an opacity spike occurs, the last oven charged can be
identified and corrective actions can be made to repair the oven. High
stack opacity may on occasion be caused by combustion problems, which
also result in HAP emissions. However, these are easily remedied by
proper adjustment and operation of the underfiring system.
We identified batteries with good O&M practices, and we collected
opacity data from their COMS to characterize the level of control they
have achieved. As discussed earlier, these batteries are representative
of the types currently operating, and aside from the effect of extended
coking, we found no basis to develop additional subcategories. The
opacity limits identified as MACT have been achieved by these different
types of batteries by using good O&M procedures. The performance level
associated with the floor has been demonstrated as achievable and is
representative of the performance of the top performing sources.
We agree that a good work practice program is essential to maintain
control of battery stack emissions and that we derived the emission
limits based on the best-controlled batteries which have such programs.
However, a work practice standard alone would not ensure that battery
stacks are well maintained on a continuing basis. In contrast, a
performance standard will ensure that battery stack emissions are well
controlled and allows plant owners or operators the flexibility to
implement a site-specific program appropriate for their operation. In
addition, we are obligated under the CAA to set

[[Page 18020]]

numerical emission limitations unless it is infeasible, and we must
prescribe requirements for continuous monitoring whenever possible.
Moreover, we have battery stack emissions data for 16 batteries that
cover many months of operation.
Comment: Two commenters claimed that EPA arbitrarily and improperly
excluded critical COMS data. Specifically, 3 years of data were
excluded for Battery 1 at Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor, and all of the
data for U.S. Steel Gary Works were excluded. The commenter said that
EPA excluded the Burns Harbor data because end flue repairs were
suspended in 1994, but noted that twice as many end flue repairs were
made in 1993 and after 1994 than in previous years. The commenter said
that EPA excluded the Gary Works data because they do not represent
periods of good systematic O&M. The commenter further stated that the
data for two tall batteries at Gary Works should be included because
they represent the battery's performance prior to a $150 million
program of end flue and through wall repair. There is no basis for
excluding these data, and EPA must account for all operating periods
(other than startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions) to accurately
reflect a source's performance under the most adverse operating
conditions over time. The commenter provided details on periods of
startup, shut down, and malfunction events that occurred during 31 days
of the 2 years of data for Gary Works. The commenter concluded that EPA
must include all of the data for Battery 1 at Burns Harbor and the data
for Gary Works (except for the 31 days they identified) in the MACT
floor analysis. Another commenter asked that all of the data supplied
for Battery 1 at Burns Harbor be included in the analysis because it
represents consistent operating practices over the period.
Response: We strongly disagree that our exclusion of certain COMS
data was inappropriate. The data that we did not use were not generated
at a facility while it was implementing an effective O&M program. We
explained that the data for Battery 1 at Burns Harbor collected in the
early 1990's do not represent proper MACT level O&M because repairs
were decreased to maintain production while adjacent Battery 2 was
being rebuilt. The data clearly show that abandoning repairs increased
opacity, which averaged 8.1 percent prior to 1996 and 4.8 percent
afterwards. It is also apparent that the earlier data show high opacity
spikes (daily averages of 35 to 40 percent) that are indicative of
damaged oven walls and clearly show that good O&M practices were not in
place. By definition, good O&M means that the opacity spikes identified
by the COMS would have been investigated, problems diagnosed, and
repairs made. When repairs were resumed and better O&M procedures were
followed, the daily average opacity was consistently maintained below
15 percent for subsequent months. We have 50 consecutive months of data
for Battery 1 showing that it achieves the MACT emission limit on a
continuing basis. In addition, these are the most recent data which
indicate that the battery has improved with age rather than
deteriorated with age. It is obvious that the measures taken in the
early 1990s to maintain oven walls were not the same as those taken in
subsequent years, and this has been confirmed by company data that show
no end flue repairs in 1994.
A similar situation exists at U.S. Steel Gary Works. We obtained
documentation from the company that shows that batteries were not
employing good O&M during high opacity events. Equipment malfunction or
untimely repair was the cause of most exceedances during that time
period. However, subsequent events confirm that oven repairs and good
systematic O&M resulted in batteries achieving the emission limit.
After a $150 million program of end flue and through wall repairs, the
four batteries at Gary Works have improved performance significantly
and can meet the battery stack limit. We have COMS data for 13 recent
months that show the four batteries have achieved the MACT level of
control. Moreover, these batteries also show improved performance
rather than deterioration as they age.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's emission estimates for
battery stacks are based on a flawed correlation between opacity and
HAP. The commenter said that no correlation exists because high opacity
can be caused by situations that do not indicate the presence of HAP,
such as poor or incomplete combustion and the presence of sulfates. The
commenter noted that the data from two EPA tests (ABC Coke and
Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor) show no correlation between opacity and
PAH, extractable organics, or metal HAP. The commenter concluded that
EPA has not met its burden of demonstrating that opacity is a
reasonable surrogate for HAP emissions.
Response: It is well established that opacity is directly
correlated with the concentration of particles in emissions. Our tests
have shown that the particles emitted during coke oven pushing contain
HAP compounds, including POM and metals. Higher opacities mean a higher
concentration of particles and therefore higher concentrations of HAP.
The correlation of opacity and HAP is also supported by the common
industry practice of using COMS to detect leaks in oven walls. Coke
oven gas escapes from ovens with cracked or damaged walls and results
in increased battery stack opacity. These coke oven emissions that are
detected with the COMS are a listed HAP.
The two batteries that we tested had very low opacities (2 to 5
percent), and it is not possible to develop a clear correlation over
such a narrow range. The emissions from these well-controlled batteries
are not representative of batteries that have high opacity emissions
from their battery stacks.
Infrequently, higher opacity occurs because of combustion problems
which result in the formation of products of incomplete combustion that
also contain HAP. For example, such emissions contain a variety of PAH
such as benzo(a)pyrene. All the available data related to poor
performing batteries, including the available emissions data and the
historical use of COMS to detect coke oven emissions, indicate that
coke oven emissions can be appropriately identified by looking at
opacity. Therefore, limiting opacity is an appropriate mechanism for
limiting such emissions from coke oven battery stacks.
Comment: Two commenters stated that COMS should be used for
diagnostic purposes only and not as an enforcement tool. One commenter
cited an industry survey that identified 26 COMS used on 27 batteries
and stated that they are used as a diagnostic tool. Most of these COMS
are no longer commercially available and cannot meet EPA's PS 1
requirements. Consequently, it is inappropriate to use data generated
by these COMS to set standards or to demonstrate compliance with an
opacity limit. Another commenter also stated that the COMS do not meet
PS 1 requirements and added that EPA should not base emission limits on
data that were collected by methods less stringent than those that will
be used to determine compliance. One commenter noted that there are
demonstrated inaccuracies that make COMS unreliable at opacity levels
below 10 percent. This is important because battery stack opacity is
below 5 percent most of the time at virtually all batteries, so a large
number of unreliable data points would be averaged with fewer reliable
data points to calculate the daily average opacity. Another

[[Page 18021]]

commenter stated that COMS readings are inaccurate and that only
opacity data generated by Method 9 observations should be used to
determine compliance.
Response: We proposed a performance standard for battery stacks in
the form of an opacity limit. The COMS have been well established as
the preferred method to show continuous compliance with an opacity
limit. The data we collected from the U.S. Steel batteries at Clairton
and the more recent data from the new COMS installed at U.S. Steel Gary
Works were from devices that meet PS 1 requirements.
Moreover, while we agree that COMS are subject to greater
imprecision at low opacity, this imprecision is inherent in the data we
used to develop the opacity limits; therefore, these limits already
account for this imprecision. Additionally, the limits have been shown
to be achievable by numerous batteries over time. Consequently, we
believe that COMS are an appropriate tool for enforcement of the
standard that was based on data collected by COMS.
We do agree with the commenter that COMS should also be used for
diagnostic purposes. A COMS is an important part of good systematic O&M
that we identified as the MACT floor technology. The COMS will provide
information on problem ovens in need of repair, and diagnostic
procedures coupled with corrective action will provide good control of
HAP emissions from battery stacks.
We do not believe observations by Method 9 should be used to
determine compliance. A COMS provides data in a more timely manner,
monitors emissions continuously, and is the only reasonable way to
collect enough data to determine a daily average opacity.

F. What Changes Did We Make to the Requirements for Soaking?

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

[[Page 18022]]

soaking emissions, and each plant should address all aspects of safety.
We do not believe that the revised standard jeopardizes the safety of
plant workers.
We agree with the commenters that the proposed standard would have
imposed unnecessary administrative burdens related to soaking
emissions. Accordingly, we have eliminated the requirement to document
the ignition of soaking emissions every time an oven is dampered off
the main. Instead, plant owners or operators must prepare and operate
at all times according to a written work practice plan for soaking.

G. What Changes Did We Make to the O&M Requirements?

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

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

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

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

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

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

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

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

We conducted a detailed assessment of the economic impacts
associated with the final rule. We expect the compliance costs
associated with the final rule to increase the price of coke, steel
mill products, and iron castings and to reduce their domestic
production and

[[Page 18023]]

consumption. We project the market price of furnace coke to increase by
almost 3 percent, while the market price for foundry coke should remain
unchanged. We expect domestic production of furnace coke to decline by
348,000 tons, or 3.9 percent. For foundry coke, we expect domestic
production to remain unchanged.
In terms of industry impacts, we project the integrated steel
producers to experience a slight decrease in operating profits, which
reflects increased costs of furnace coke inputs and associated
reductions in revenues from producing their final products. Our
analysis indicates that one of the captive batteries may stop supplying
furnace coke to the open market but will continue to satisfy internal
coke requirements for integrated steel production. Through the market
impacts described above, the final rule will produce impacts within the
merchant segment. We project merchant plants producing furnace coke as
a whole to experience profit increases in response to the final rule.
We also project other merchant plants producing foundry coke and some
integrated steel plants to lose profits. Furthermore, the economic
impact analysis indicates that two of the 13 merchant batteries
producing furnace coke are at risk of closure, while none of the
foundry coke producing batteries are at risk of closure. For more
information, consult the economic impact analysis supporting the final
rule.

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

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 18024]]

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written 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 estimated costs of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the final rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The EPA has also determined that the final rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 (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

[[Page 18025]]

government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own or operate coke
oven batteries. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final
rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

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

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The final rule
requires plants to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D,
and 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and PS 1 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B. Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted searches to
identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA
methods.
One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable to PS
1. The standard, ASTM D6216 (1998), Standard Practice for Opacity
Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and
Performance Specifications, has been incorporated by reference into PS
1 (65 FR 48920, August 10, 2000).
Our search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 16 other
voluntary consensus standards. We determined that 13 of these standards
identified for measuring emissions of HAP or surrogates would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, detail, or quality assurance/
quality control requirements. The three remaining consensus standards
identified in the search are under development or under EPA review.
Therefore, the final rule does not require these voluntary consensus
standards. See Docket OAR-2002-0085 for more detailed information on
the search and review results.
Section 63.7322 of the final rule lists the EPA test methods that
coke plants are required to use when conducting a performance test.
Most of these methods have been used by States and the industry for
more than 10 years. Nevertheless, 40 CFR 63.7(e) and (f) allow any
State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use an alternative
method in place of any of the EPA test methods or performance
specifications required by a rule.

J. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

? 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart CCCCC to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart CCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

What This Subpart Covers

63.7280 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7281 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7282 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7283 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

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

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.7300 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Initial Compliance Requirements

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

[[Page 18026]]

63.7321 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7322 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter?
63.7323 What procedures must I use to establish operating limits?
63.7324 What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial compliance
with the opacity limits?
63.7325 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the TDS or constituent limits
for quench water?
63.7326 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations that apply to me?
63.7327 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7328 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart CCCCC of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart CCCCC of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart CCCCC

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.7280 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for pushing, soaking, quenching, and battery
stacks at coke oven batteries. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with all
applicable emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation
and maintenance requirements in this subpart.

Sec. 63.7281 Am I subject to this subpart?

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

Sec. 63.7282 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

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

Sec. 63.7283 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

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

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Sec. 63.7290 What emission limitations must I meet for capture
systems and control devices applied to pushing emissions?

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

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

(a) You must meet each requirement in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7)
of this

[[Page 18027]]

section for each new or existing by-product coke oven battery with
vertical flues.
(1) Observe and record the opacity of fugitive pushing emissions
from each oven at least once every 90 days. If an oven cannot be
observed during a 90-day period due to circumstances that were not
reasonably avoidable, you must observe the opacity of the first push of
that oven following the close of the 90-day period that is capable of
being observed in accordance with the procedures in Sec. 63.7334(a),
and you must document why the oven was not observed within a 90-day
period. All opacity observations of fugitive pushing emissions for
batteries with vertical flues must be made using the procedures in
Sec. 63.7334(a).
(2) If two or more batteries are served by the same pushing
equipment and total no more than 90 ovens, the batteries as a unit can
be considered a single battery.
(3) Observe and record the opacity of fugitive pushing emissions
for at least four consecutive pushes per battery each day. Exclude any
push during which the observer's view is obstructed or obscured by
interferences and observe the next available push to complete the set
of four pushes. If necessary due to circumstances that were not
reasonably avoidable, you may observe fewer than four consecutive
pushes in a day; however, you must observe and record as many
consecutive pushes as possible and document why four consecutive pushes
could not be observed. You may observe and record one or more non-
consecutive pushes in addition to any consecutive pushes observed in a
day.
(4) Do not alter the pushing schedule to change the sequence of
consecutive pushes to be observed on any day. Keep records indicating
the legitimate operational reason for any change in your pushing
schedule which results in a change in the sequence of consecutive
pushes observed on any day.
(5) If the average opacity for any individual push exceeds 30
percent opacity for any short battery or 35 percent opacity for any
tall battery, you must take corrective action and/or increase coking
time for that oven. You must complete corrective action or increase
coking time within either 10 calendar days or the number of days
determined using Equation 1 of this section, whichever is greater:

X = 0.55 * Y (Eq. 1)

Where:
X = Number of calendar days allowed to complete corrective action or
increase coking time; and
Y = Current coking time for the oven, hours.

For the purpose of determining the number of calendar days allowed
under Equation 1 of this section, day one is the first day following
the day you observed an opacity in excess of 30 percent for any short
battery or 35 percent for any tall battery. Any fraction produced by
Equation 1 of this section must be counted as a whole day. Days during
which the oven is removed from service are not included in the number
of days allowed to complete corrective action.
(6)(i) You must demonstrate that the corrective action and/or
increased coking time was successful. After a period of time no longer
than the number of days allowed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section,
observe and record the opacity of the first two pushes for the oven
capable of being observed using the procedures in Sec. 63.7334(a). The
corrective action and/or increased coking time was successful if the
average opacity for each of the two pushes is 30 percent or less for a
short battery or 35 percent or less for a tall battery. If the
corrective action and/or increased coking time was successful, you may
return the oven to the 90-day reading rotation described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. If the average opacity of either push exceeds
30 percent for a short battery or 35 percent for a tall battery, the
corrective action and/or increased coking time was unsuccessful, and
you must complete additional corrective action and/or increase coking
time for that oven within the number of days allowed in paragraph
(a)(5) of this section.
(ii) After implementing any additional corrective action and/or
increased coking time required under paragraph (a)(6)(i) or (a)(7)(ii)
of this section, you must demonstrate that corrective action and/or
increased coking time was successful. After a period of time no longer
than the number of days allowed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section,
you must observe and record the opacity of the first two pushes for the
oven capable of being observed using the procedures in Sec.
63.7334(a). The corrective action and/or increased coking time was
successful if the average opacity for each of the two pushes is 30
percent or less for a short battery or 35 percent or less for a tall
battery. If the corrective action and/or increased coking time was
successful, you may return the oven to the 90-day reading rotation
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the average opacity
of either push exceeds 30 percent for a short battery or 35 percent for
a tall battery, the corrective action and/or increased coking time was
unsuccessful, and you must follow the procedures in paragraph
(a)(6)(iii) of this section.
(iii) If the corrective action and/or increased coking time was
unsuccessful as described in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section, you
must repeat the procedures in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section
until the corrective action and/or increased coking time is successful.
You must report to the permitting authority as a deviation each
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action and/or increased coking time
under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section.
(7)(i) If at any time you place an oven on increased coking time as
a result of fugitive pushing emissions that exceed 30 percent for a
short battery or 35 percent for a tall battery, you must keep the oven
on the increased coking time until the oven qualifies for decreased
coking time using the procedures in paragraph (a)(7)(ii) or (a)(7)(iii)
of this section.
(ii) To qualify for a decreased coking time for an oven placed on
increased coking time in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) or (6) of
this section, you must operate the oven on the decreased coking time.
After no more than two coking cycles on the decreased coking time, you
must observe and record the opacity of the first two pushes that are
capable of being observed using the procedures in Sec. 63.7334(a). If
the average opacity for each of the two pushes is 30 percent or less
for a short battery or 35 percent or less for a tall battery, you may
keep the oven on the decreased coking time and return the oven to the
90-day reading rotation described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
If the average opacity of either push exceeds 30 percent for a short
battery or 35 percent for a tall battery, the attempt to qualify for a
decreased coking time was unsuccessful. You must then return the oven
to the previously established increased coking time, or implement other
corrective action(s) and/or increased coking time. If you implement
other corrective action and/or a coking time that is shorter than the
previously established increased coking time, you must follow the
procedures in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section to confirm that the
corrective action(s) and/or increased coking time was successful.
(iii) If the attempt to qualify for decreased coking time was
unsuccessful as described in paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section, you
may again attempt to qualify for decreased coking time for the oven. To
do this, you must operate the oven on the decreased coking time. After
no more than two coking cycles on

[[Page 18028]]

the decreased coking time, you must observe and record the opacity of
the first two pushes that are capable of being observed using the
procedures in Sec. 63.7334(a). If the average opacity for each of the
two pushes is 30 percent or less for a short battery or 35 percent or
less for a tall battery, you may keep the oven on the decreased coking
time and return the oven to the 90-day reading rotation described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the average opacity of either push
exceeds 30 percent for a short battery or 35 percent for a tall
battery, the attempt to qualify for a decreased coking time was
unsuccessful. You must then return the oven to the previously
established increased coking time, or implement other corrective
action(s) and/or increased coking time. If you implement other
corrective action and/or a coking time that is shorter than the
previously established increased coking time, you must follow the
procedures in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section to confirm that the
corrective action(s) and/or increased coking time was successful.
(iv) You must report to the permitting authority as a deviation the
second and any subsequent consecutive unsuccessful attempts on the same
oven to qualify for decreased coking time as described in paragraph
(a)(7)(iii) of this section.
(b) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an
alternative to the work practice standards in paragraph (a) of this
section.

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

(a) You must comply with each of the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Prepare and operate by a written plan that will eliminate or
minimize incomplete coking for each by-product coke oven battery with
horizontal flues. You must submit the plan and supporting documentation
to the Administrator (or delegated authority) for approval no later
than 90 days after completing all observations and measurements
required for the study in paragraph (a)(3) of this section or April 14,
2004, whichever is earlier. You must begin operating by the plan
requirements by the compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.7283.
The written plan must identify minimum flue temperatures for different
coking times and a battery-wide minimum acceptable flue temperature for
any oven at any coking time.
(2) Submit the written plan and supporting documentation to the
Administrator (or delegated authority) for review and approval. Include
all data collected during the study described in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section. If the Administrator (or delegated authority) disapproves
the plan, you must revise the plan as directed by the Administrator (or
delegated authority) and submit the amended plan for approval. The
Administrator (or delegated authority) may require you to collect and
submit additional data. You must operate according to your submitted
plan (or submitted amended plan, if any) until the Administrator (or
delegated authority) approves your plan.
(3) You must base your written plan on a study that you conduct
that meets each of the requirements listed in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (x) of this section.
(i) Initiate the study by July 14, 2003. Notify the Administrator
(or delegated authority) at least 7 days prior to initiating the study
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7340(f).
(ii) Conduct the study under representative operating conditions,
including but not limited to the range of moisture content and volatile
matter in the coal that is charged.
(iii) Include every oven in the study and observe at least two
pushes from each oven.
(iv) For each push observed, measure and record the temperature of
every flue within 2 hours before the scheduled pushing time. Document
the oven number, date, and time the oven was charged and pushed, and
calculate the net coking time.
(v) For each push observed, document the factors to be used to
identify pushes that are incompletely coked. These factors must include
(but are not limited to): average opacity during the push, average
opacity during travel to the quench tower, average of six highest
consecutive observations during both push and travel, highest single
opacity reading, color of the emissions (especially noting any yellow
or brown emissions), presence of excessive smoke during travel to the
quench tower, percent volatile matter in the coke, percent volatile
matter and percent moisture in the coal that is charged, and the date
the oven was last rebuilt or completely relined. Additional
documentation may be provided in the form of pictures or videotape of
emissions during the push and travel. All opacity observations must be
conducted in accordance with the procedures in Sec. 63.7334(a)(3)
through (7).
(vi) Inspect the inside walls of the oven after each observed push
for cool spots as indicated by a flue that is darker than others (the
oven walls should be red hot) and record the results.
(vii) For each push observed, note where incomplete coking occurs
if possible (e.g., coke side end, pusher side end, top, or center of
the coke mass). For any push with incomplete coking, investigate and
document the probable cause.
(viii) Use the documented factors in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this
section to identify pushes that were completely coked and those that
were not completely coked. Provide a rationale for the determination
based on the documentation of factors observed during the study.
(ix) Use only the flue temperature and coking time data for pushes
that were completely coked to identify minimum flue temperatures for
various coking times. Submit the criteria used to determine complete
coking, as well as a table of coking times and corresponding
temperatures for complete coking as part of your plan.
(x) Determine the battery-wide minimum acceptable flue temperature
for any oven. This temperature will be equal to the lowest temperature
that provided complete coking as determined in paragraph (a)(3)(ix) of
this section.
(4) You must operate according to the coking times and temperatures
in your approved plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)
through (viii) of this section.
(i) Measure and record the percent volatile matter in the coal that
is charged.
(ii) Measure and record the temperature of all flues on two ovens
per day within 2 hours before the scheduled pushing time for each oven.
Measure and record the temperature of all flues on each oven at least
once each month.
(iii) For each oven observed in accordance with paragraph
(a)(4)(ii) of this section, record the time each oven is charged and
pushed and calculate and record the net coking time. If any measured
flue temperature for an oven is below the minimum flue temperature for
an oven's scheduled coking time as established in the written plan,
increase the coking time for the oven to the coking time in the written
plan for the observed flue temperature before pushing the oven.
(iv) If you increased the coking time for any oven in accordance
with paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section, you must investigate the
cause of the low

[[Page 18029]]

flue temperature and take corrective action to fix the problem. You
must continue to measure and record the temperature of all flues for
the oven within 2 hours before each scheduled pushing time until the
measurements meet the minimum temperature requirements for the
increased coking time for two consecutive pushes. If any measured flue
temperature for an oven on increased coking time falls below the
minimum flue temperature for the increased coking time, as established
in the written plan, you must increase the coking time for the oven to
the coking time specified in the written plan for the observed flue
temperature before pushing the oven. The oven must continue to operate
at this coking time (or at a longer coking time if the temperature
falls below the minimum allowed for the increased coking time) until
the problem has been corrected, and you have confirmed that the
corrective action was successful as required by paragraph (a)(4)(v) of
this section.
(v) Once the heating problem has been corrected, the oven may be
returned to the battery's normal coking schedule. You must then measure
and record the flue temperatures for the oven within 2 hours before the
scheduled pushing time for the next two consecutive pushes. If any flue
temperature measurement is below the minimum flue temperature for that
coking time established in the written plan, repeat the procedures in
paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
(vi) If any flue temperature measurement is below the battery-wide
minimum acceptable temperature for complete coking established in the
written plan for any oven at any coking time, you must remove the oven
from service for repairs.
(vii) For an oven that has been repaired and returned to service
after being removed from service in accordance with paragraph
(a)(4)(vi) of this section, you must measure and record the
temperatures of all flues for the oven within 2 hours before the first
scheduled pushing time. If any flue temperature measurement is below
the minimum flue temperature for the scheduled coking time, as
established in the written plan, you must repeat the procedures
described in paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
(viii) For an oven that has been repaired and returned to service
after removal from service in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(vi) of
this section, you must report as a deviation to the permitting
authority any flue temperature measurement made during the initial
coking cycle after return to service that is below the lowest
acceptable minimum flue temperature.
(b) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an
alternative to the work practice standards in paragraph (a) of this
section.

Sec. 63.7293 What work practice standards must I meet for fugitive
pushing emissions if I have a non-recovery coke oven battery?

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

Sec. 63.7294 What work practice standard must I meet for soaking?

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

Sec. 63.7295 What requirements must I meet for quenching?

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

[[Page 18030]]

Sec. 63.7296 What emission limitations must I meet for battery
stacks?

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

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

Sec. 63.7300 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 the general operation and
maintenance of new or existing by-product coke oven batteries. Each
plan must address, at a minimum, the elements listed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Frequency and method of recording underfiring gas parameters.
(2) Frequency and method of recording battery operating
temperature, including measurement of individual flue and cross-wall
temperatures.
(3) Procedures to prevent pushing an oven before it is fully coked.
(4) Procedures to prevent overcharging and undercharging of ovens,
including measurement of coal moisture, coal bulk density, and
procedures for determining volume of coal charged.
(5) Frequency and procedures for inspecting flues, burners, and
nozzles.
(6) Schedule and procedures for the daily washing of baffles.
(c) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system and
control device applied to pushing emissions from a new or existing coke
oven battery. Each plan must address at a minimum the elements in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that are important to the
performance of the total capture system (e.g., pressure sensors,
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g.,
presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by
dents or accumulated dust in ductwork, and fan erosion). The operation
and maintenance plan must also include requirements to repair any
defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next scheduled
inspection.
(2) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(3) Corrective action for all baghouses applied to pushing
emissions. In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered,
you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm
within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the
cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the
corrective action as soon as practicable. Actions may include, but are
not limited to:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.7310 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, work
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction as defined in Sec. 63.2.
(b) During the period between the compliance date specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.7283 and the date upon which
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions
control equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).

Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.7320 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?

(a) As required in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance
test to demonstrate compliance with each limit in Sec. 63.7290(a) for
emissions of particulate matter from a control device applied to
pushing emissions that applies to you within 180 calendar days after
the compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.7283.
(b) You must conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance
with the TDS limit or constituent limit for quench water in Sec.
63.7295(a)(1) and each opacity limit in Sec. 63.7297(a) for a by-
product coke oven battery stack by the compliance date that is
specified in Sec. 63.7283.
(c) For each work practice standard and operation and maintenance
requirement that applies to you, you must demonstrate initial
compliance within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is
specified in Sec. 63.7283.
(d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July 3,
2001 and April 14, 2003, you must demonstrate initial compliance with
either the proposed emission limit or the promulgated emission limit no
later than October 14, 2003, or no later than 180 calendar days after
startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.
63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(e) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July 3,
2001 and April 14, 2003, and you chose to comply with the proposed
emission limit when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct
a second performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
promulgated emission limit by October 11, 2006, or after startup of the
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).

Sec. 63.7321 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

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

Sec. 63.7322 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?

(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section.

[[Page 18031]]

(b) To determine compliance with the emission limit for particulate
matter from a control device applied to pushing emissions where a
cokeside shed is the capture system, follow the test methods and
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. To determine
compliance with a process-weighted mass rate of particulate matter (lb/
ton of coke) from a control device applied to pushing emissions where a
cokeside shed is not used, follow the test methods and procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to
the following test methods in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
(i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of
traverse points. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of
the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5 or 5D, as applicable, to determine the concentration
of front half particulate matter in the stack gas.
(2) During each particulate matter test run, sample only during
periods of actual pushing when the capture system fan and control
device are engaged. Collect a minimum sample volume of 30 cubic feet of
gas during each test run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise
a performance test. Each run must start at the beginning of a push and
finish at the end of a push (i.e., sample for an integral number of
pushes).
(3) Determine the total combined weight in tons of coke pushed
during the duration of each test run according to the procedures in
your source test plan for calculating coke yield from the quantity of
coal charged to an individual oven.
(4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (E_p) for
each test run using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR14AP03.001

Where:

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

Sec. 63.7323 What procedures must I use to establish operating
limits?

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

Sec. 63.7324 What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial
compliance with the opacity limits?

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

Sec. 63.7325 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the TDS or constituent limits for
quench water?

(a) If you elect the TDS limit for quench water in Sec.
63.7295(a)(1)(i), you must conduct each performance test that applies
to your affected source according to the conditions in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.

[[Page 18032]]

(1) Take the quench water sample from a location that provides a
representative sample of the quench water as applied to the coke (e.g.,
from the header that feeds water to the quench tower reservoirs).
Conduct sampling under normal and representative operating conditions.
(2) Determine the TDS concentration of the sample using Method
160.1 in 40 CFR part 136.3 (see ``residue--filterable''), except that
you must dry the total filterable residue at 103 to 105 [deg]C (degrees
Centigrade) instead of 180 [deg]C.
(b) If at any time you elect to meet the alternative requirements
for quench water in Sec. 63.7295(a)(1)(ii), you must establish a site-
specific constituent limit according to the procedures in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Take a minimum of nine quench water samples from a location
that provides a representative sample of the quench water as applied to
the coke (e.g., from the header that feeds water to the quench tower
reservoirs). Conduct sampling under normal and representative operating
conditions.
(2) For each sample, determine the TDS concentration according to
the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and the
concentration of benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene using the
applicable methods in 40 CFR part 136 or an approved alternative
method.
(3) Determine and record the highest sum of the concentrations of
benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene in any sample that has a TDS
concentration less than or equal to the TDS limit of 1,100 mg/L. This
concentration is the site-specific constituent limit.
(4) Submit the site-specific limit, sampling results, and all
supporting data and calculations to your permitting authority for
review and approval.
(c) If you elect the constituent limit for quench water in Sec.
63.7295(a)(1)(ii), you must conduct each performance test that applies
to your affected source according to the conditions in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Take a quench water sample from a location that provides a
representative sample of the quench water as applied to the coke (e.g.,
from the header that feeds water to the quench tower reservoirs).
Conduct sampling under normal and representative operating conditions.
(2) Determine the sum of the concentration of benzene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene in the sample using the applicable
methods in 40 CFR part 136 or an approved alternative method.

Sec. 63.7326 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?

(a) For each coke oven battery subject to the emission limit for
particulate matter from a control device applied to pushing emissions,
you have demonstrated initial compliance if you meet the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that apply to you.
(1) The concentration of particulate matter, measured in accordance
with the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7322(b)(1) and (2),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for a control device where a cokeside shed
is used to capture pushing emissions or the process-weighted mass rate
of particulate matter (lb/ton of coke), measured in accordance with the
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7322(b)(1) through (4), did not
exceed:
(i) 0.02 lb/ton of coke if a moveable hood vented to a stationary
control device is used to capture emissions;
(ii) If a mobile scrubber car that does not capture emissions
during travel is used, 0.03 lb/ton of coke from a control device
applied to pushing emissions from a short coke oven battery or 0.01 lb/
ton of coke from a control device applied to pushing emissions from a
tall coke oven battery; and
(iii) 0.04 lb/ton of coke if a mobile scrubber car that captures
emissions during travel is used.
(2) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7323(a).
(3) For each hot water scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the water pressure and temperature measured during the
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7323(b).
(4) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you have
established an appropriate site-specific operating limit, and:
(i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for
fan motor amperes, you have a record of the fan motor amperes during
the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7323(c)(1); or
(ii) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(ii)
for volumetric flow rate, you have a record of the total volumetric
flow rate at the inlet of the control device measured during the
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7323(c)(2).
(b) For each new or existing by-product coke oven battery subject
to the opacity limit for stacks in Sec. 63.7296(a), you have
demonstrated initial compliance if the daily average opacity, as
measured according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7324(b), is no more than 15 percent for a battery on a normal coking
cycle or 20 percent for a battery on batterywide extended coking.
(c) For each new or existing by-product coke oven battery subject
to the TDS limit or constituent limits for quench water in Sec.
63.7295(a)(1),
(1) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the TDS limit in
Sec. 63.7295(a)(1)(i) if the TDS concentration, as measured according
to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7325(a), does not exceed
1,100 mg/L.
(2) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the constituent
limit in Sec. 63.7295(a)(1)(ii) if:
(i) You have established a site-specific constituent limit
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.7325(b); and
(ii) The sum of the constituent concentrations, as measured
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7325(c), is
less than or equal to the site-specific limit.
(d) For each by-product coke oven battery stack subject to an
opacity limit in Sec. 63.7296(a) and each by-product coke oven battery
subject to the requirements for quench water in Sec. 63.7295(a)(1),
you must submit a notification of compliance status containing the
results of the COMS performance test for battery stacks and the quench
water performance test (TDS or constituent limit) according to Sec.
63.7340(e)(1). For each particulate matter emission limitation that
applies to you, you must submit a notification of compliance status
containing the results of the performance test according to Sec.
63.7340(e)(2).

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

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

[[Page 18033]]

(1) You have prepared and submitted a written plan and supporting
documentation establishing appropriate minimum flue temperatures for
different coking times and the lowest acceptable temperature to the
Administrator (or delegated authority) for review and approval; and
(2) You certify in your notification of compliance status that you
will meet each of the work practice requirements beginning no later
than the compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.7283.
(c) For each non-recovery coke oven battery subject to the work
practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions in Sec. 63.7293(a),
you have demonstrated initial compliance if you certify in your
notification of compliance status that you will meet each of the work
practice requirements beginning no later than the compliance date that
is specified in Sec. 63.7283.
(d) For each by-product coke oven battery subject to the work
practice standards for soaking in Sec. 63.7294, you have demonstrated
initial compliance if you have met the requirements of paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) You have prepared and submitted a written work practice plan in
accordance with Sec. 63.7294(a); and
(2) You certify in your notification of compliance status that you
will meet each of the work practice requirements beginning no later
than the compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.7283.
(e) For each coke oven battery, you have demonstrated initial
compliance with the work practice standards for quenching in Sec.
63.7295(b) if you certify in your notification of compliance status
that you have met the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this
section:
(1) You have installed the required equipment in each quench tower;
and
(2) You will meet each of the work practice requirements beginning
no later than the compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.7283.
(f) For each work practice standard that applies to you, you must
submit a notification of compliance status according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7340(e)(1).

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

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.7330 What are my monitoring requirements?

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

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

(a) For each baghouse applied to pushing emissions, you must
install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot)
or less;
(2) The system must provide output of relative changes in
particulate matter loadings;
(3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset
level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the
appropriate plant personnel;
(4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997). You may install, operate, and maintain
other types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with
the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations;
(5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time;
(6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity
or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time,
except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a
responsible

[[Page 18034]]

official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been inspected
and found to be in good operating condition; and
(7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(b) For each CPMS required in Sec. 63.7330, you must develop and
make available for inspection upon request by the permitting authority
a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Installation of the CPMS sampling probe or other interface at a
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and
reduction system;
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations);
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7),
and (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).
(c) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(d) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(e) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you
must install, operate, and maintain CPMS to measure and record the
pressure drop across the scrubber and scrubber water flow rate during
each push according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d)
of this section except as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Each CPMS must complete a measurement at least once per push;
(2) Each CPMS must produce valid data for all pushes; and
(3) Each CPMS must determine and record the daily (24-hour) average
of all recorded readings.
(f) For each hot water scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you
must install, operate, and maintain CPMS to measure and record the
water pressure and temperature during each push according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, except as
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(g) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for
a capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install,
operate, and maintain a device to measure the fan motor amperes.
(h) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for
a capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install,
operate, and maintain a device to measure the total volumetric flow
rate at the inlet of the control device.
(i) For each by-product coke oven battery, you must install,
operate, and maintain a COMS to measure and record the opacity of
emissions exiting each stack according to the requirements in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each COMS according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.8(e) and Performance Specification 1 in 40
CFR part 60, appendix B. Identify periods the COMS is out-of-control,
including any periods that the COMS fails to pass a daily calibration
drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, or annual zero alignment
audit.
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each COMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and Performance
Specification 1 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60;
(3) You must develop and implement a quality control program for
operating and maintaining each COMS according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8(d). At minimum, the quality control program must include a
daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and an
annual zero alignment audit of each COMS;
(4) Each COMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period. You must reduce the COMS
data as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
(5) You must determine and record the hourly and daily (24-hour)
average opacity according to the procedures in Sec. 63.7324(b) using
all the 6-minute averages collected for periods during which the COMS
is not out-of-control.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18035]]

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

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

(a) For each by-product coke oven battery with vertical flues
subject to the work practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions
in Sec. 63.7291(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance
according to the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this
section:
(1) Observe and record the opacity of fugitive emissions for four
consecutive pushes per operating day, except you may make fewer or non-
consecutive observations as permitted by Sec. 63.7291(a)(3). Maintain
records of the pushing schedule for each oven and records indicating
the legitimate operational reason for any change in the pushing
schedule according to Sec. 63.7291(a)(4).
(2) Observe and record the opacity of fugitive emissions from each
oven in a battery at least once every 90 days. If an oven cannot be
observed during a 90-day period, observe and record the opacity of the
first push of that oven following the close of the 90-day period that
can be read in accordance with the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(3) Make all observations and calculations for opacity observations
of fugitive pushing emissions in accordance with Method 9 in appendix A
to 40 CFR part 60 using a Method 9 certified observer unless you have
an approved alternative procedure under paragraph (a)(7) of this
section.
(4) Record pushing opacity observations at 15-second intervals as
required in section 2.4 of Method 9 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). The
requirement in section 2.4 of Method 9 for a minimum of 24 observations
does not apply, and the data reduction requirements in section 2.5 of
Method 9 do not apply. The requirement in Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(ii)(B) for
obtaining at least 3 hours of observations (thirty 6-minute averages)
to demonstrate initial compliance does not apply.
(5) If fewer than six but at least four 15-second observations can
be made, use the average of the total number of observations to
calculate average opacity for the push. Missing one or more
observations during the push (e.g., as the quench car passes behind a
building) does not invalidate the observations before or after the
interference for that push. However, a minimum of four 15-second
readings must be made for a valid observation.
(6) Begin observations for a push at the first detectable movement
of the coke mass. End observations of a push when the quench car enters
the quench tower.
(i) For a battery without a cokeside shed, observe fugitive pushing
emissions from a position at least 10 meters from the quench car that
provides an unobstructed view and avoids interferences from the topside
of the battery. This may require the observer to be positioned at an
angle to the quench car rather than perpendicular to it. Typical
interferences to avoid include emissions from open standpipes and
charging. Observe the opacity of emissions above the battery top with
the sky as the background where possible. Record the oven number of any
push not observed because of obstructions or interferences.
(ii) For a battery with a cokeside shed, the observer must be in a
position that provides an unobstructed view and avoids interferences
from the topside of the battery. Typical interferences to avoid include
emissions from open standpipes and charging. Observations must include
any fugitive emissions that escape from the top of the shed, from the
ends of the shed, or from the area where the shed is joined to the
battery. If the observer does not have a clear view to identify when a
push starts or ends, a second person can be positioned to signal the
start or end of the push and notify the observer when to start or end
the observations. Radio communications with other plant personnel
(e.g., pushing ram operator or quench car operator) may also serve to
notify the observer of the start or end of a push. Record the oven
number of any push

[[Page 18036]]

not observed because of obstructions or interferences.
(iii) You may reposition after the push to observe emissions during
travel if necessary.
(7) If it is infeasible to implement the procedures in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (6) of this section for an oven due to physical
obstructions, nighttime pushes, or other reasons, you may apply to your
permitting authority for permission to use an alternative procedure.
The application must provide a detailed explanation of why it is
infeasible to use the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of
this section, identify the oven and battery numbers, and describe the
alternative procedure. An alternative procedure must identify whether
the coke in that oven is not completely coked, either before, during,
or after an oven is pushed.
(8) For each oven observed that exceeds an opacity of 30 percent
for any short battery or 35 percent for any tall battery, you must take
corrective action and/or increase the coking time in accordance with
Sec. 63.7291(a). Maintain records documenting conformance with the
requirements in Sec. 63.7291(a).
(b) For each by-product coke oven battery with horizontal flues
subject to the work practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions
in Sec. 63.7292(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by
having met the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section:
(1) Measuring and recording the temperature of all flues on two
ovens per day within 2 hours before the oven's scheduled pushing time
and ensuring that the temperature of each oven is measured and recorded
at least once every month;
(2) Recording the time each oven is charged and pushed and
calculating and recording the net coking time for each oven; and
(3) Increasing the coking time for each oven that falls below the
minimum flue temperature trigger established for that oven's coking
time in the written plan required in Sec. 63.7292(a)(1), assigning the
oven to the oven-directed program, and recording all relevant
information according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7292(a)(4)
including, but not limited to, daily pushing schedules, diagnostic
procedures, corrective actions, and oven repairs.
(c) For each non-recovery coke oven battery subject to the work
practice standards in Sec. 63.7293(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by maintaining records that document each visual inspection
of an oven prior to pushing and that the oven was not pushed unless
there was no smoke in the open space above the coke bed and there was
an unobstructed view of the door on the opposite side of the oven.
(d) For each by-product coke oven battery subject to the work
practice standard for soaking in Sec. 63.7294(a), you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by maintaining records that document conformance
with requirements in Sec. 63.7294(a)(1) through (5).
(e) For each coke oven battery subject to the work practice
standard for quenching in Sec. 63.7295(b), you must demonstrate
continuous compliance according to the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Maintaining baffles in each quench tower such that no more than
5 percent of the cross-sectional area of the tower is uncovered or open
to the sky as required in Sec. 63.7295(b)(1);
(2) Maintaining records that document conformance with the washing,
inspection, and repair requirements in Sec. 63.7295(b)(2), including
records of the ambient temperature on any day that the baffles were not
washed; and
(3) Maintaining records of the source of makeup water to document
conformance with the requirement for acceptable makeup water in Sec.
63.7295(a)(2).

Sec. 63.7335 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

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

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

(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emission limitation in this subpart that applies to you. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must also
report each instance in which you did not meet each work practice
standard or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that
applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission
limitations (including operating limits), work practice standards, and
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7341.
(b) Startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(1) Consistent with 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

[[Page 18037]]

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).

Notification, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.7340 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 April 14, 2003, you must submit your initial notification
no later than August 12, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new
affected source on or after April 14, 2003, you must submit your
initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after you become
subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in 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
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following completion of the
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(f) For each by-product coke oven battery with horizontal flues,
you must notify the Administrator (or delegated authority) of the date
on which the study of flue temperatures required by Sec. 63.7292(a)(3)
will be initiated. You must submit this notification no later than 7
days prior to the date you initiate the study.

Sec. 63.7341 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule, you must submit quarterly compliance
reports for battery stacks and semiannual compliance reports for all
other affected sources to your permitting authority according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The first quarterly compliance report for battery stacks must
cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.7283 and ending on the last date of
the third calendar month. Each subsequent compliance report must cover
the next calendar quarter.
(2) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the period
beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected
source in Sec. 63.7283 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever
date comes first after the compliance date that is specified for your
affected source. Each subsequent compliance report must cover the
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(3) All quarterly compliance reports for battery stacks must be
postmarked or delivered no later than one calendar month following the
end of the quarterly reporting period. All semiannual compliance
reports must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or
January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the
semiannual reporting period.
(4) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(b) Quarterly compliance report contents. Each quarterly report
must provide information on compliance with the emission limitations
for battery stacks in Sec. 63.7296. The reports must include the
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3), and as applicable,
paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section.
(c) Semiannual compliance report contents. Each compliance report
must provide information on compliance with the emission limitations,
work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements for
all affected sources except battery stacks. The reports must include
the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, and
as applicable, paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance
requirements in Sec. 63.7333(e) for battery stacks, a statement that
there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the
reporting period. If there were no deviations from the continuous
compliance requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.7333 through 63.7335 that
apply to you (for all affected sources other than battery stacks), a
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations,
work practice standards, or operation and maintenance requirements
during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including COMS, continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS),
or CPMS) was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a
statement that there were no periods during which a continuous
monitoring system was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in this subpart
(including quench water limits) and for each deviation from the
requirements for work practice standards in this subpart that occurs at
an affected source where you are not using a continuous monitoring
system (including a COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) to comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (c)(4) and (7)(i) and (ii) of this section.
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if

[[Page 18038]]

applicable) as applicable and the corrective action taken.
(8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) to comply with the emission limitation
in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(4)
and (8)(i) through (xii) of this section. This includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring system
(including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) was inoperative, except for zero (low-
level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system (including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) was out-of-control, including
the information in 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 into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source
operating time during the reporting period.
(viii) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the
affected source.
(ix) A brief description of the process units.
(x) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(xi) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(xii) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring
systems, processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(d) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(e) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or
40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this
subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report for an affected source along with, or as part of, the
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the
required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation
or work practice standard in this subpart, submission of the compliance
report satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report
deviations from permit requirements to your permitting authority.

Sec. 63.7342 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in 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 or CEMS, 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 COMS during 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 in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for visual
observations.
(d) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec. 63.7333
through 63.7335 to show continuous compliance with each emission
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement that applies to you.

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

(a) You must keep your records in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to 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. 63.7350 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

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

Sec. 63.7351 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce
this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find
out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies.
(1) Approval of alternatives to work practice standards for
fugitive pushing emissions in Sec. 63.7291(a) for a by-product coke
oven battery with vertical flues, fugitive pushing emissions in Sec.
63.7292(a) for a by-product coke oven battery with horizontal flues,
fugitive pushing emissions in Sec. 63.7293 for a non-recovery coke
oven battery, soaking

[[Page 18039]]

for a by-product coke oven battery in Sec. 63.7294(a), and quenching
for a coke oven battery in Sec. 63.7295(b) under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations for a by-
product coke oven battery under Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
(3) 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
alternative procedures in Sec. 63.7334(a)(7).
(4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(6) Approval of the work practice plan for by-product coke oven
batteries with horizontal flues submitted under Sec. 63.7292(a)(1).

Sec. 63.7352 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA),
in Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Acceptable makeup water means surface water from a river, lake, or
stream; water meeting drinking water standards; storm water runoff and
production area clean up water except for water from the by-product
recovery plant area; process wastewater treated to meet effluent
limitations guidelines in 40 CFR part 420; water from any of these
sources that has been used only for non-contact cooling or in water
seals; or water from scrubbers used to control pushing emissions.
Backup quench station means a quenching device that is used for
less than 5 percent of the quenches from any single coke oven battery
in the 12-month period from July 1 to June 30.
Baffles means an apparatus comprised of obstructions for checking
or deflecting the flow of gases. Baffles are installed in a quench
tower to remove droplets of water and particles from the rising vapors
by providing a point of impact. Baffles may be installed either inside
or on top of quench towers and are typically constructed of treated
wood, steel, or plastic.
Battery stack means the stack that is the point of discharge to the
atmosphere of the combustion gases from a battery's underfiring system.
Batterywide extended coking means increasing the average coking
time for all ovens in the coke oven battery by 25 percent or more over
the manufacturer's specified design rate.
By-product coke oven battery means a group of ovens connected by
common walls, where coal undergoes destructive distillation under
positive pressure to produce coke and coke oven gas from which by-
products are recovered.
By-product recovery plant area means that area of the coke plant
where process units subject to subpart L in part 61 are located.
Coke oven battery means a group of ovens connected by common walls,
where coal undergoes destructive distillation to produce coke. A coke
oven battery includes by-product and non-recovery processes.
Coke plant means a facility that produces coke from coal in either
a by-product coke oven battery or a non-recovery coke oven battery.
Cokeside shed means a structure used to capture pushing emissions
that encloses the cokeside of the battery and ventilates the emissions
to a control device.
Coking time means the time interval that starts when an oven is
charged with coal and ends when the oven is pushed.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including operating limits) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or work practice standard
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or
operating limit.
Four consecutive pushes means four pushes observed successively.
Fugitive pushing emissions means emissions from pushing that are
not collected by a capture system.
Horizontal flue means a type of coke oven heating system used on
Semet-Solvay batteries where the heating flues run horizontally from
one end of the oven to the other end, and the flues are not shared with
adjacent ovens.
Hot water scrubber means a mobile scrubber used to control pushing
emissions through the creation of an induced draft formed by the
expansion of pressurized hot water through a nozzle.
Increased coking time means increasing the charge-to-push time for
an individual oven.
Non-recovery coke oven battery means a group of ovens connected by
common walls and operated as a unit, where coal undergoes destructive
distillation under negative pressure to produce coke, and which is
designed for the combustion of the coke oven gas from which by-products
are not recovered.
Oven means a chamber in the coke oven battery in which coal
undergoes destructive distillation to produce coke.
Pushing means the process of removing the coke from the oven.
Pushing begins with the first detectable movement of the coke mass and
ends when the quench car enters the quench tower.
Quenching means the wet process of cooling (wet quenching) the hot
incandescent coke by direct contact with water that begins when the
quench car enters the quench tower and ends when the quench car exits
the quench tower.
Quench tower means the structure in which hot incandescent coke in
the quench car is deluged or quenched with water.
Remove from service means that an oven is not charged with coal and
is not used for coking. When removed from service, the oven may remain
at the operating temperature or it may be cooled down for repairs.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.
63.2.
Short battery means a by-product coke oven battery with ovens less
than five meters in height.
Soaking means that period in the coking cycle that starts when an
oven is dampered off the collecting main and vented to the atmosphere
through an open standpipe prior to pushing and ends when the coke
begins to be pushed from the oven.
Soaking emissions means the discharge from an open standpipe during
soaking of visible emissions due to either incomplete coking or leakage
into the standpipe from the collecting main.
Standpipe means an apparatus on the oven that provides a passage
for gases from an oven to the atmosphere when the oven is dampered off
the collecting main and the standpipe cap is opened. This includes
mini-standpipes that are not connected to the collecting main.
Tall battery means a by-product coke oven battery with ovens five
meters or more in height.
Vertical flue means a type of coke oven heating system in which the
heating flues run vertically from the bottom to the top of the oven,
and flues are shared between adjacent ovens.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination

[[Page 18040]]

thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.
As required in Sec. 63.7350, you must comply with each applicable
requirement of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) as shown in the following table:

Tables to Subpart CCCCC of Part 63
[Table 1 to Subpart CCCCC of Part 63. Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart CCCCC]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to Subpart CCCCC? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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), Compliance with Standards Yes.........................
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h)(2)- and Maintenance
(8). Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(h)(9)............ Adjustment to an Opacity Yes.........................
Emission Standard.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3), (b), (c)- Performance Testing Yes.........................
(h). Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)........ Applicability and No.......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies
Performance Test Dates. applicability and
dates.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b), Monitoring Requirements.. Yes......................... CMS requirements in Sec.
(c)(1)-(3), (c)(4)(i)-(ii), 63.8(c)(4) (i)-(ii),
(c)(5)-(8), (d), (e), (f)(1)- (c)(5), and (c)(6)
(5), (g)(1)-(4). apply only to COMS for
battery stacks.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)............ Additional Monitoring No.......................... Flares are not a control
Requirements for Control device for Subpart
Devices in Sec. 63.11. CCCCC affected sources.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)............ Continuous Monitoring No.......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies
System (CMS) requirements for
Requirements. operation of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(e)(4)-(5)........ Performance Evaluations.. Yes......................... Except COMS performance
evaluation must be
conducted before the
compliance date.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)............ RATA Alternative......... No.......................... Subpart CCCCC does not
require CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)............ Data Reduction........... No.......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies
data that can't be used
in computing averages
for COMS.
Sec. 63.9.................. Notification Requirements Yes......................... Additional notifications
for CMS in Sec.
63.9(g) apply only to
COMS for battery
stacks.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1)- Recordkeeping and Yes......................... Additional records for
(b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiv), Reporting Requirements. CMS in Sec.
(b)(3), (c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)- 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(15), (d), (e)(1)-(2), (15), and reports in
(e)(4), (f). Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)
apply only to COMS for
battery stacks.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xi)-(xii) CMS Records for RATA No.......................... Subpart CCCCC doesn't
Alternative. require CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)....... Records of Excess No.......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies
Emissions and Parameter record requirements.
Monitoring Exceedances
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)........... Excess Emission Reports.. No.......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies
reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.11................. Control Device No.......................... Subpart CCCCC does not
Requirements. require flares.
Sec. 63.12................. State Authority and Yes.........................
Delegations..
Sec. Sec. 63.13-63.15..... Addresses, Incorporation Yes.........................
by Reference,
Availability of
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-5625 Filed 4-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

Local Navigation