1
EPA453/R-93-052
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oEFW
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-93-052
November 1993
Air
Enabling Document for
National Emission Standards
for Coke Oven Batteries
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L)
AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
LIBRARY
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f!
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards
Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is
not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use. The purpose of this document is to provide information
in a summary form but not to indicate the intent of any EPA
decisions. Copies of this report are available through the
Library Services Office, (MD-35), U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
27711, or from National Technical Information Services, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
11
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Summary of the Standard 2-1
2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2 Compliance Approaches 2-2
2.3 Visible Emission Limits 2-4
2.4 Startup of New, Greenfield, Cold-Idle,
Brownfield, and Padup Rebuild Batteries . 2-6
2.5 Nonrecovery Batteries 2-10
2.6 Work Practice Requirements 2-11
2.7 Controls for Bypass/Bleeder Stacks .... 2-14
2.8 Collecting Mains 2-15
2.9 Alternative Standard for Doors Under
Cokeside Sheds 2-15
2.10 Delegation of Authority 2-19
3.0 Test Methods and Performance Tests 3-1
3.1 Methods 303 and 303A 3-1
3.2 Inspection Requirements 3-9
4.0 Startups, Shutdowns, and Malfunctions 4-1
4.1 Requirements for Startups, Shutdowns, and
Malfunctions 4-1
4.2 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan . 4-1
4.3 Facility's Responsibility During Startups,
Shutdowns, and Malfunctions . . 4-1
5.0 Recordkeeping and Reporting 5-1
5.1 Initial Compliance Certification 5-6
5.2 Semiannual Compliance Certification . . . 5-6
5.3 Notifications 5-6
5.4 Report for Bypassed Emissions 5-7
6.0 Existing Regulations 6-1
111
-------
Appendices
A Major Dates Associated with the
Coke Oven NESHAP A-l
B List of Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards Contacts B-l
C Federal Register Reprint of Proposal Preamble and
Final Coke Oven NESHAP C-l
D Questions and Answers Regarding the
Coke Oven NESHAP D-l
E List of Batteries and their Operating
Characteristics E-l
IV
-------
I
I
I
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Overview of NESHAP for Existing
By-Product Batteries 2-3
™ 2-2 Overview of NESHAP for Batteries
that are Restarted 2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
v
I
-------
1
1
1
•
1
1
w
1
w
I
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
TABLES
number
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
5-1
Emission Limits for Existing
Limits for New and Rebuilt By-Product
Work Practice Plan and Procedures Checklist
for By— Product Coke Oven Batteries
Visible Emission Exemptions under Method 303 . .
Requirements for Observing Door Emissions . . .
Requirements for Observing Emissions from Topside
Lids and Offtake Systems
Batteries with Cokeside Sheds
Summary Checklist for Compliance Determinations
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for
Coke Oven Batteries
vi
Page
2-2
2-5
2-7
2-12
2-17
. . 3-3
3-4
. . 3-5
Port
3-6
3-8
. . 3-13
5-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On October 27, 1993 (58 FR 57898), the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated national emission standards
for the control of emissions from all existing and new coke oven
batteries. This document serves to assist enforcement and
permitting personnel in EPA and State or local air pollution
control agencies with implementing the regulation and responding
to questions and comments on the rule and its requirements.
Chapter 2.0, "Summary of the Standard," provides an overview
of the requirements included in the Clean Air Act (Act) and the
rule to provide a quick reference tool for determining applicable
requirements for each type of battery. Visible emission limits,
dates, exemptions, alternatives, and rolling average calculation
procedures also are discussed, as well as work practice
requirements and provisions for obtaining an alternative standard
for coke oven doors under sheds.
Chapter 3.0 discusses the provisions in the rule for
conducting daily performance tests. Requirements, inspections,
payment responsibilities, and Method 303 observation and
certification procedures also are described.
Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions are discussed in
Chapter 4.0. In addition to a summary of plan requirements, this
chapter defines actions required to be taken in the event of a
malfunction.
Chapter 5.0 provides a summary of recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, followed by a more detailed description
of the information required and applicable dates for records and
reports.
Chapter 6.0 describes the relationship of the NESHAP to
existing regulations.
1-1
-------
More detailed information may be found in the appendices.
Appendix A lists the dates and responsible party for actions
required in the rule and the Act to implement the NESHAP.
Informational contacts are included in Appendix B. The proposal
preamble and the final NESHAP (preamble, regulation, and test
methods) are reprinted in Appendix C. (The proposal preamble
provides details on the background and development of the rule.)
Questions and answers developed from inquiries from States,
Regions, local agencies, and industry representatives are
included in Appendix D. Appendix E contains a list of batteries,
their operating characteristics, and a map to indicate their
location.
1-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 SUMMARY OF THE STANDARD
2.1 OVERVIEW
Section 112 of the Act requires the EPA to establish
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
listed under section 112(b), one of which is coke oven emissions.
In addition, several individual components of coke oven emissions
are listed separately. Provisions specific to the regulation of
coke oven emissions also are included in sections 112(d), (f),
and (i) of the Act. The requirements of the NESHAP and the Act
extend over the next 20 years and include obligations affecting
coke plant owners or operators, EPA, and delegated State or local
agencies. A complete list of these actions, required dates, and
the responsible party is included in Appendix A. The key dates
from this list are summarized in Table 2-1.
The rule applies to all coke oven batteries, whether
existing, new, reconstructed, rebuilt or restarted. It also
applies to all batteries using the conventional by-product
recovery process, the nonrecovery process, or any new recovery
process.
The rule establishes visible emissions limits for doors,
lids, offtakes, and charging operations for all new and existing
coke oven batteries and also includes control measures for
bypass/bleeder stacks and collecting mains. Test methods 303
(for by-product batteries) and 303A (for nonrecovery batteries)
are provided for measuring levels of visible emissions to
determine compliance. Work practice training programs also are
required and are enforceable under specified conditions.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. KEY DATES FOR THE COKE OVEN NESHAP
October 27, 1 993
November 15, 1993
March 31, 1994
December 31, 1995
January 1 , 1 998
October, 2001
January, 2002
January 1 , 2007
January 1 , 2020
Promulgation of NESHAP
Begin inspections for extension track limits;
prepare work practice plan and startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan
Install flares on bypass/bleeder stacks or
commit to shutdown
Begin inspection for MACT track limits
Elect to meet LAER (extension track) or risk
standards
EPA promulgates risk standard
Comply with risk standard unless on LAER
extension track or 2-year waiver granted
EPA to review/revise LAER limits; compliance
within 3 years
All batteries must meet risk standard
2.2 COMPLIANCE APPROACHES
The requirements of the NESHAP are displayed schematically
in Figure 2-1. The figure illustrates that three compliance
approaches are available under the rule: the "MACT (Maximum
Achievable Control Technology) track," the "LAER extension
track," and straddling both tracks (until January 1, 1998.) If
the MACT track is selected, the coke plant owner/operator must
comply with the MACT track visible emission limits and other
requirements in the rule by December 31, 1995, and meet residual
risk standards required to be promulgated by the year 2001.
However, under section 112(i) of the Act, the owner/operator may
obtain an extension of the compliance date for residual risk
standards until the year 2020 by choosing the extension track.
Under the LAER extension track, the owner/operator must meet a
series of increasingly stringent emission limits by November 15,
1993; January 1, 1998; and January 1, 2010, and meet the risk
standard by January 1, 2020. These limits are called lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER) limits.
2-2
-------
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I_
1
1
1
I<
All existing
i
I
1. MACT track
'
By November 15, 1993:
- Submit work practice plan
- Develop SSM Han
- Subject to WP implementation
\
Install flares on bypass stacks
by March 31, 1994
i
\
By December 31, 1995:
- Start inspections and
meet MACT limits after
30 observations
\
Meet Jan 1, 2003 MACT limits ••-
i
Meet risk standard in 2003
within 2 years of promulgation)
batteries must
i
2. Straddle
i
choose compliance track
i
both tracks
By November 15, 1993:
- Submit work practice plan
- Develop SSM Han
- Subject to WP implementation
- Start inspections and
meet limits after
30 observations
1
f
Install flares on bypass stacks
by March 31, 1994
1
By December
- Start insp
meet MA
30 obser
XDec
>/by Jan 1
y°_/ Continue
^v. extensio
|
3. LAER extension track
i
By November 1 5, 1 993:
• Submit work practice plan
- Develop SSM Han
- Subject to WP implementation
- Start inspections and
meet limits after
30 observations
1
Install flares on bypass stacks
by March 31, 1994
(alternative)
i
31,1995: ^
ections and
CT limits after
nations
ide ^-v
, 1998: ^Vy
with LAER J^S-J
n track? .x^
/
i
'
Meet Jan 1, 1998 LAER limits
i
Meet Jan 1, 2010 LAER limits
(unless LAER revised to be
more stringent)
1
Meet risk standard by Jan 1 , 2020
ISSM = startup, shutdown, and malfunction
Figure 2- 1. OVERVIEW OF NESHAP FOR EXISTING BY-PRODUCT BA TTERIES
1
-------
Up to January 1, 1998, an owner/operator on the LAER
extension track may choose to comply with residual risk standards
by the required date rather than comply with the LAER and revised
LAER standards. In this way, the owner/opera tor can "opt out" of
the LAER extension track, but must meet the 1995 MACT standards
and the residual risk standards in 2001 (with a 2-year extension,
2003). If EPA has not finalized residual risk standards by then,
the Agency must promulgate residual risk standards for those
batteries that choose to meet residual risk standards. If the
owner/operator chooses to continue on the LAER extension track,
compliance with residual risk standards is deferred until 2020.
The owner/operator can also "straddle" until a binding
declaration is made in 1998. This means the owner/operator has
chosen to meet both the MACT and LAER limits, and monitoring
would begin in November 1993 rather than December 1995. The
owner/operator may continue to straddle both tracks by meeting
all applicable requirements of each track until January 1998. At
that time, the owner/operator must choose to meet the MACT limits
and comply with the residual risk standard in 2003 or meet the
LAER limits of the extension track.
In addition to the visible emission limits, the rule
requires that controls be installed on bypass/bleeder stacks used
to vent raw coke oven gas. A work practice (WP) plan and
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan also must be
prepared. The rule also specifies under what conditions the work
practices are enforceable.
2.3 VISIBLE EMISSION LIMITS
The visible emission limits for percent leaking coke oven
doors, topside port lids, and offtake systems are based on a 30-
run rolling arithmetic average. Charging limits are based on the
30-day rolling logarithmic average of the seconds of visible
emissions per charge. Compliance is determined on a daily basis
using the calculated average of the observations for that day
averaged with the previous 29 daily observations. Each daily
2-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
exceedance may be considered a violation. The first compliance
determination is made after 30 daily observations are performed.
The visible emission limits for existing by-product
batteries are summarized in Table 2-2 for both compliance tracks,
TABLE 2-2. EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING BY-PRODUCT BATTERIES
Emission
points
Tall doors, PLD
Foundry doors, PLD
All other doors, PLD
Lids, PLL
Offtakes, PLO
Charging, s/charge
MACT track
limits
12/31/95
6.0
5.5
5.5
0.6
3.0
12
01/01/03
5.5
5.0
5.0
0.6
3.0
12
LAER extension
track limits
11/15/93
7.0
7.0
7.0
0.83
4.2
12
01/01/98
4.3
4.3
3.8
0.4
2.5
12
01/01/10
4.0
4.0
3.3
0.4
2.5
12
Note: The dates in the table are the compliance dates for
existing batteries. PLD = Percent leaking doors; PLL = Percent
leaking lids; and PLO = Percent leaking offtake.
The limits shown in the table for door leaks depend on the type
of battery. "Tall doors" are those on batteries that have ovens
6 meters or more in height. "Foundry doors" are doors on
batteries that were not owned or operated by an integrated steel
producer as of January 1, 1992 and had an annual capacity less
than 1.25 million Mg/yr as of that date.
As part of the negotiation of the rule, special provisions
were included for two coke plants owned by integrated steel
2-5
-------
producers that might be sold to foundry coke producers:
Bethlehem Steel's coke plant in Lackawanna, New York and Rouge
Steel's plant in Dearborn, Michigan. If either of these plants
is sold to a foundry coke producer before November 15, 1993, the
plant(s) would be considered to be a foundry coke battery subject
to the emission limits for "foundry" doors.
The door leak limits include an alternative for batteries
that have 30 or less ovens. These small batteries may elect to
comply with a limit of 2 leaking doors (maximum) based on a
30-day rolling average instead of the limits for percent leaking
doors.
2.4 STARTUP OF NEW, GREENFIELD, COLD-IDLE, BROWNFIELD, AND
PADUP REBUILD BATTERIES
The rule specifically addresses batteries that are
restarted, either after cold-idle, reconstruction, or new
construction. The "new" category is based primarily on the
concept of creating new coke capacity or expanding existing
capacity. The limits for new and rebuilt by-product batteries
are summarized in Table 2-3. Figure 2-2 provides an overview of
the NESHAP for batteries that are restarted or that commence
operation for the first time.
2.4.1. New and Greenfield Batteries. A new by-product
battery is one constructed or reconstructed at an existing coke
plant on or after December 4, 1992, that results in an increase
in the plant's coke capacity. A greenfield by-product battery is
one constructed on or after December 4, 1992, at a new coke plant
where no batteries previously existed. New and greenfield
by-product batteries must meet the MACT limits for new batteries,
or the risk standard (if it has been promulgated), and cannot
qualify for the extension of the risk standard. In other words,
new and greenfield batteries cannot choose the LAER extension
track. If the new or greenfield battery represents a new
technology, the limits or equivalent emissions must be more
stringent than 4.0 PLD (tall batteries), 3.3 PLD (short
batteries), 2.5 PLO, 0.4 PLL, and 12 s/charge. If the battery
2-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
does not represent new technology, the emission limits are 0 PLD,
0 PLO, 0 PLL, and 34 s/charge.
TABLE 2-3. LIMITS FOR MEW AND REBUILT BY-PRODUCT BATTERIES
New or greenfield batteries1
Same technology
OPLD
OPLL
OPLO
34 s/charge
New technology2
4.0 PLD (tall)
3.3 PLD (short)
0.4 PLL
2.5 PLO
1 2 s/charge
Brownfield or padup rebuild batteries
MACT track
same as for existing
batteries
(see Table 2-2)
LAER extension
track3
4.0 PLD (tall)
3.3 PLD (short)
0.4 PLL
2.5 PLO
1 2 s/charge
1 New (expansion in coke capacity) and greenfield batteries
cannot qualify for the LAER extension track and must meet the
risk standard by 2003.
2 Case-by-case limits are determined by the Administrator
and must be more stringent than the limits shown or less than the
equivalent level of mass emissions.
3 Includes batteries that were shutdown on or after November
15, 1990. Those that shut down prior to November 15, 1990, must
apply to be considered for the LAER extension track.
2.4.2. Cold-Idle Batteries. Batteries that were placed on
cold-idle prior to November 15, 1990, must either meet the MACT
track requirements and the risk standard in 2003 or make an
application to qualify for the LAER extension track. The intent
of the application is to have the battery's capacity included in
the coke plant's capacity as of November 15, 1990, which has the
effect of qualifying the cold idle battery as an existing
battery. The EPA can accept applications for this process up to
a total design capacity of 2.7 million Mg/yr. As shown in
2-7
-------
New, greenfield,
padup rebuild,
brownfield, cold-idle
batteries
Achieve less than 4 PLD (tall),
3.3 PLD (short). 2.5 PLO, 0.4 PLL,
12 s/charge; risk standard in 2003
Greenfield
or expansion
in capacity?
technology?
Achieve zero PLD, PLL, PLO, and
34 s/charge; risk standard in 2003
Follow the MACT track - see Figure 2-1
Apply to
include as
11/15/90
city
Cold idle prior
to 11/15/90?
Application
approved?
Brownfield or
padup rebuild?
Follow tracks for existing batteries
See Figure 2-1
Yes
i
Follow MACT track OR
meet 4 PLD (tall),*
3.3 PLD* (short), 2.5 PLO,
0.4 PLL, 12 s/charge and
risk standard in 2020
*The rule includes alternative limits for
3 batteries under specific conditions
(see text).
FIGURE 2-2. OVERVIEW OF NESHAP FOR BATTERIES THAT ARE RESTARTED
2-8
-------
I
I
Figure 2-2, batteries approved by this process are treated in the
rule the same as those batteries that were placed on cold idle
after November 15, 1990. Applications for approval will be
processed on a "first-come-first served" basis. If an approval
lapses (i.e., a serious intention to use the capacity has not
been demonstrated), the capacity of the battery is not included
in the 2.7 million Mg/yr cap. An approval can lapse in one of
two ways. If a construction permit is required, the approval
will lapse if a construction permit is not issued within 3 years
of approval or if the construction permit lapses. If a
construction permit is not required, an approval will lapse if
the battery is not restarted within 2 years following approval.
If a cold-idle battery has been rebuilt, provisions described in
the following paragraphs apply.
2.4.3. Brownfield and Padup Rebuild Batteries. Batteries
that are rebuilt (e.g., padup rebuild) or that are brownfield
batteries (new construction without an increase in the coke plant
capacity) may qualify for the LAER extension track or may elect
to meet the limits in the MACT track. A brownfield battery is
one constructed on or after December 4, 1992, at an existing coke
plant that does not result in an increase of the design capacity
of the coke plant as of November 15, 1990. A padup rebuild
battery is an existing battery completely reconstructed on or
after December 4, 1992, on the same site and pad that does not
result in an increase of the design capacity of the coke plant as
of November 15, 1990. If questions arise, the EPA or delegated
State or local agency is to determine if a project is a "padup
rebuild." The visible emissions limits for padup rebuild and
brownfield batteries on the LAER extension track are 3.3 PLD for
short batteries and 4.0 PLD for tall batteries, 0.4 PLL, 2.5 PLO,
and 12 s/charge.
Three brownfield or padup rebuild batteries were identified
in the rule as exempt from the above limits and subject to the
limits for existing batteries if construction starts no later
than July 1, 1996, or 1 year after a construction permit is
2-9
-------
obtained, whichever is earlier. If construction starts as
indicated, these three batteries would be subject to the limits
described earlier for existing batteries:
• Bethlehem Steel-Burns Harbor, Battery No. 2;
• National Steel-Great Lakes, Battery No. 4; and
• Koppers-Woodward, Battery No. 3.
Cold-idle batteries that are padup rebuild or brownfield
batteries may also choose the LAER extension track if they were
placed on cold idle on or after November 15, 1990, or if the
previously-described application is approved. These batteries
would be subject to the emission limits given previously for
other padup rebuild or brownfield batteries. As shown in Figure
2-2, batteries that are restarted that were not shut down prior
to November 15, 1990, or that are not new, greenfield,
brownfield, or padup rebuild are treated as existing batteries.
2.5 NONRECOVERY BATTERIES
In September 1993, there was only one nonrecovery coke plant
in operation (the 4 batteries at Jewell Coal and Coke in Vansant,
Virginia). No new nonrecovery batteries were under construction.
Existing or new nonrecovery batteries on either compliance track
must achieve 0.0 percent leaking doors, or monitor and record the
pressure in each oven or common battery tunnel to ensure negative
pressure operation. Monitoring must be performed and recorded at
least once per day.
For charging operations on an existing nonrecovery battery,
the following work practices must be performed each day as
included in the work practice plan:
• Procedures for charging coal into the oven, including
any special procedures for minimizing air infiltration
during charging, maximizing the draft on the oven, and
for replacing the door after charging.
• Procedures for the capture and control of charging
emissions (if applicable).
2-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Procedures for cleaning coke from the door sill area
for both sides of the battery after completing the
pushing operation and before replacing the coke oven
door.
• Procedures for cleaning coke from the door sill area
after charging and before replacing the push side door.
• Procedures for filling gaps around the door area with
sealant material (if applicable).
• Procedures for detecting and controlling emissions from
smoldering coal.
Performance must be recorded as required under the work practice
rules.
For charging operations on a new nonrecovery battery, an
emission control system for the capture and collection of
emissions from charging is required. Limits of 0.0 percent
leaking topside ports or offtake systems also are included, if
the new battery has topside ports or offtakes.
2.6 WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS
All owners or operators are required to prepare and submit
to the delegated agency a written work practice plan for each
battery by November 15, 1993. The plan components are summarized
below and a checklist is provided in Table 2-4:
• Initial and refresher training program for all coke
plant operating personnel with responsibilities that
impact emissions, including contractors.
• Procedures for controlling emissions from doors,
charging operations, topside port lids, and offtake
systems. Special procedures are included for
nonrecovery batteries.
• Procedures for maintaining a daily record of the
performance of plan requirements; and
• Any additional work practices or requirements added by
the Administrator according to the provisions for
revisions to the plan contained in the rule.
2.6.1 Plan Implementation.
2.6.1.1 LAER Extension track batteries. For batteries on
the LAER extension track, the work practice requirements become
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-4. WORK PRACTICE FLAN AND PROCEDURES CHECKLIST
FOR BY-PRODUCT COKE OVEN BATTERIES
Initial and refresher training course
D List of personnel to be trained
D Training course outline
D Description of training methods
D Duration/frequency of training
D Methods to demonstrate completion
D Procedure to document plan performance
Procedures for Door Emission Control
D Door inspection program
D Leak identification
D Door and jamb cleaning
D Supplemental gasketing and luting
D Luting and reluting
D Inventory of spare doors and jambs
D Monitoring of collecting main back pressure
Procedures for Charging Emissions Control
D Equipment inspection and repair program
D Larry car hopper filling process
D Larry car alignment
D Staged or sequential charging
D Coal leveling
D Offtake system inspection and cleaning
Procedures for Topside Port Lid Emissions Control
D Equipment inspection and repair program
D Leak identification
Procedures for Offtake System Emissions Control
D Equipment inspection and repair program
D Leak identification
D Dampering off ovens procedure
Procedures for Record of Plan Performance
D Recording procedures
D Certification of accuracy
D Any additional work practices or procedures specified
by the Administrator (if applicable)
2-12
-------
enforceable following the second independent exceedance of the
visible emission limit for a particular emission point in any
consecutive 6-month period. The second exceedance is independent
if:
• it is separated from the first exceedance by at least
30 days, or
• the 29-run average, calculated after deleting the
highest observation in the 30 day period, still exceeds
the applicable emission limit.
The owner/operator must implement the work practice
requirements for that emission point by no later than 3 days
after written notification of the exceedance and must continue
implementation until the limit for the emission point is achieved
for 90 consecutive days.
2.6.1.2 MACT track batteries. For batteries on the MACT
track, the owner/operator must implement the work practice
requirements following the second exceedance of a federally
enforceable emission limit in any consecutive 6-month period.
Consequently, the work practice standard for batteries on the
MACT track can become enforceable on November 15, 1993, even if
the limits in the NESHAP are not in effect. The work practice
requirements must be implemented within 3 days of receipt of
written notification of the exceedance and must be continued for
90 consecutive days after the most recent written notification of
an exceedance. The implementation of work practices for
batteries on the MACT track is triggered by exceeding any
federally enforceable limit in effect on November 15, 1993,
because the MACT limits do not become effective until December
31, 1995. After December 31, 1995, implementation can be
triggered by exceeding the MACT limits or any other federally
enforceable limits.
2.6.2 Revisions to the Work Practice Plan. The
Administrator may require changes to the plan if there are
2 independent exceedances in the 6-month period starting 30 days
2-13
-------
after the work practices are required to be implemented. No more
than 2 revisions a year may be requested.
The owner/operator must notify the EPA that a revision is
not necessary because the work practices are not related to the
cause or the solution of the problem. This notification must be
made within 10 days of receiving a notification from the
enforcement agency concerning the second independent exceedance.
The EPA has the authority to disapprove a finding that a
revision is not needed. Changes made in response to a
disapproval of a revision, voluntary revisions, and statements
that a revision is not needed do not count toward the limit of 2
revisions per year.
2.7 CONTROLS FOR BYPASS/BLEEDER STACKS
By March 31, 1994, the owner/operator must install, operate,
and maintain a flare system for the bypass/bleeder stack of each
existing by-product coke oven battery that will be in operation
as of December 31, 1995. New batteries must meet the control
requirement when production operations start; flare systems for
brownfield or padup rebuilds must be in place at startup.
The rule prohibits venting coke oven gas to the atmosphere
through bypass/bleeder stacks, except through the flare system or
approved alternative control system. A special report also is
required in the event of a venting episode. [See Chapter 5.]
The flare system must be:
1) capable of combusting 120 percent of the normal gas
flow generated by the battery;
2) designed for a net heating value of 8.9 MJ/scm (240
Btu/scf) if steam-assisted or air-assisted, or a net
value of 7.45 MJ/scm (200 Btu/scf) if the flare is non-
assisted;
3) designed to meet requirements for failsafe operation
(which means that the flame detection thermocouples
operate independently of the electronic ignition system
and cannot prevent ignition), and
4) operated with no visible emissions, except for periods
not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2
consecutive hours.
2-14
-------
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
The control requirements do not apply if the owner/operator
makes a written commitment within 2 weeks of promulgation to
close the battery permanently on or before December 31, 1995.
Instead of using a flare, the owner/operator may apply to use an
alternative control device or system that achieves at least 98
percent destruction or control of coke oven emissions vented to
the system.
2.8 COLLECTING MAINS
The owner/operator is responsible for conducting inspections
of the collecting main for leaks. Leak inspections begin for all
by-product batteries by November 15, 1993, regardless of the
compliance track selected. The basic requirements are given
below:
• Leak inspections are to be conducted at least once
daily using the procedures in Method 303.
• Any leak must be temporarily sealed within 4 hours of
detection. Repairs must begin within 5 calendar days
of initial detection of the leak and completed within
15 days unless an alternative schedule is approved by
the Administrator.
• Daily inspection records are required. Note the time
and date a leak is first detected, the time and date of
initial repair, and the time and date of complete
repair.
2.9 ALTERNATIVE STANDARD FOR DOORS UNDER COKESIDE SHEDS
The owner/operator may apply for an alternative emission
limit for percent leaking doors for a new or existing battery
equipped with a shed and emission control device. The
alternative limit must achieve a reduction in coke oven emissions
from the doors controlled by the shed that is equal to or greater
than the emission reduction that would be achieved by the
emission limit that would otherwise be applicable. The
determination of equivalency is based on maintaining an
equivalent or lower mass emission rate for coke oven emissions
emitted from the shed's control device. An equation in the rule
is used to compensate for the additional emissions of benzene,
toluene, and other volatile compounds that are not removed by the
2-15
-------
shed's control device. As the allowable door leak rate under the
shed increases, the emissions of these volatile compounds
increases.
There are two basic approaches provided to determine an
equivalent emission limit. Both require measurement of the
control device efficiency. In one approach, the ratio of
benzene, toluene, and xylene to benzene soluble organics (BSO) is
assumed to be 0.4. In the other approach, the owner/operator
measures the ratio and uses this value in a second equation.
Following is a list of actions required to obtain approval
of an alternative standard.
• Submit a test plan to the Administrator for measurement
of emissions describing procedures to be used for
particulate matter measurements, parameters to be
measured that affect the shed exhaust rate (e.g.,
damper settings, fan power), procedures for measuring
parameters that affect the exhaust rate, and (if
applicable), the procedures for the measurement of BSO,
benzene, toluene, and xylene emitted from the control
device for the shed.
• Using the test methods and procedures in the rule,
measure the efficiency of the control device for
particulate natter removal, the visible emissions that
escape capture from the shed, and the opacity of
emissions from the control device. Also conduct an
inspection of each air cleaning device for proper
operation and signs of malfunction.
• The owner/operator may choose to measure the ratio of
benzene, toluene, and xylene to BSO, or Equation l can
be used, which assumes a ratio of 0.4.
• Using the measured test results, determine the
allowable percent leaking doors under the shed using
one of two procedures in the rule. The allowable
percent leaking doors is not to exceed 15 percent (yard
equivalent). A sample calculation using each of the
equations given in the rule is given below.
2.9.1 Procedure 1. This procedure is based on control
efficiency for particulate matter. Equation 1 in the rule for
this case is:
2-16
-------
1
1
1
f 1.4 (PLDsed)^
[ (1.4 - eff/100)
where
PLD = Allowable percent leaking doors
standard.
10.4
(Eq. 1)
for alternative
PLD,... = Applicable visible emission limitation of percent
leaking doors that would otherwise apply to the coke
1
1
oven battery, converted to the single-run limit
according to Table 2-5.
eff = Measured percent control efficiency for particulate
matter for the emission control
device .
TABLE 2-5. CONVERSION TO SINGLE-RUN LIMIT
30-run limit Single-pass limit
(98 percent level)
7.0 11.0
1
6.0 9.5
5.5 8.7
•
5.0 8.1
* 4.3 7.2
• 4.0 6.7
™ 3.8 6.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.3 5.8
Assume that a control efficiency of 95 percent was measured
for the control device. For the 1993 extension track limit of
7.0 PLD, the single pass limit from Table
Substituting into Equation 1:
' •
1.4 (11. O)2-5
(1.4 - 95/100) J
2-17
2-5 is 11.0 PLD.
0.4
-------
PLD = [1.4 (401.3)/0.45]]°-4
PLD = 17 . 3
The allowable limit calculated from Equation 1 is 17.3 PLD;
however, the allowable limit for this case is 15 PLD, which is
the maximum allowed as an alternative for doors under sheds.
2.9.2 Procedure 2. This procedure is based on control
efficiency and measured ratio of benzene, toluene, and xylene to
BSO. In this case, Equation 2 is used:
std- (Eg. 2)
[ (R + 1 - eff/100) j
where
R = Ratio of measured emissions of benzene, toluene, and xylene
to measured emissions of BSO.
For the example calculation, assume that the measured ratio
(R) is 0.3 and the measured control efficiency is 95 percent.
Assume that the applicable standard is 3.3 PLD, which yields a
single-pass limit of 5.8 PLD from Table 2-5.
Substituting into Equation 2 yields:
PLD = [ (0-3 + 1) (5.8)2-5 ]°'4
[ (0.3 + 1 - 95/100) J
pLD.r (1.3X81..
0.35
PLD = 9.8
2.9.3 Requirements of the Alternative Standard. The
owner/operator must submit a report to the Administrator
including the measurements and calculations used to derive the
2-18
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
alternative door standard, the parameter(s) to be monitored, and
other information specified in the rule. For a new shed/ the
application also must include:
• The modeled concentrations under the shed; or
• Particulate (including BSD) measurements at shed's
perimeter, control device, and at bench level.
Quarterly inspections are required for the structural integrity
of the shed, operation of the control device, and leaks.
Upon approval of the alternative standard, the
owner/operator must monitor the visible coke oven emissions from
the shed weekly using a certified observer. This limit is not to
be exceeded for any single observation and is not in the 30-run
average format of the other emission limits. If the alternative
limit is achieved for 12 consecutive observations, inspections
may be performed monthly rather than weekly. The owner/operator
must also monitor the opacity of emissions from the control
device using a continuous opacity monitor or daily visible
emission observations. The continuous opacity monitor must meet
the requirements of Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR part
60, appendix B, and be operated and maintained according to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 52. The owner/operator must perform
quarterly visual inspections of the structural integrity of the
shed for defects, monitor the parameter(s) affecting the shed
exhaust flow rate, and maintain records.
2.10 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The authority for implementation and enforcement of several
provisions of the rule will be retained by EPA and not delegated
to the States. The authorities not delegated to the States
include:
• § 63.302(d) Case-by-case limits and requirements for a
battery utilizing a new recovery technology
• § 63.304(b)(6) Request for restarting a cold-idle battery
that shutdown prior to November 15, 1990
2-19
-------
§ 63.305(b) Approval of test plan, application, and
S 63.305(d) numerical limit for alternative door standard
§ 63.305(e)
S 63.307(d) Approval of equivalent alternative to flare
system for bypass/bleeder stacks
Section 2 of Observer certification
Method 303
2-20
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 TEST METHODS AND PERFORMANCE TESTS
Daily inspections by a certified observer are required to
assess the emission control performance for charging emissions
and leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes. This section describes
the procedures for visible emission observations (Method 303 and
Method 303A) and provides details on the inspection requirements.
3.1 METHODS 303 AND 303A
Method 303 is the inspection method for by-product coke oven
batteries and Method 303A is for the one existing nonrecovery
coke plant. Method 303A focuses only on doors at nonrecovery
plants whereas Method 303 includes inspection procedures for
charging, doors, lids, and offtakes.
3.1.1 Observer Certification. The NESHAP requires all
Method 303 performance tests to be conducted by a certified
observer. The observer cannot be an employee of the coke plant
or parent company and also must complete any reasonable safety
training course offered by the owner or operator before
conducting an inspection. Certification requirements include:
• First-time observers must attend the lecture portion of
the Method 9 certification course.
• The trainee must successfully complete the Method 303
training course, consisting of at least 12 hours of
field observations prior to the certification course;
classroom training including lecture, training
materials, a demonstration video, and written test; and
a demonstration of proficiency in the application of
the method to a panel of experienced certified
observers. See section 2.1.3 of Method 303 for panel
member requirements.
• Certification is valid for 1 year from the date of
issue. Annual recertification requirements include
viewing the training video and successful completion of
the written certification test. The observer must
3-1
-------
successfully complete the proficiency demonstration
test every 3 years to maintain certification.
Certification is not required for performance test
observations under Method 303A. Training requirements
for nonrecovery batteries include attending the lecture
portion of the Method 9 certification course for first-
time observers and a minimum of 4 hours of
familiarization with nonrecovery battery operations
prior to conducting any performance test.
The schedule of certification courses for Method 303 is
given below:
September 27 - Gary, IN
October 1
Certification course at USX,
Gary, IN
November 1-5 Birmingham, AL
Certification course at ABC
Coke, Tarrant, AL
November 8-12 Pittsburgh, PA
Certification course at USX,
Clairton, PA
December 6-10 Indianapolis, IN Certification course at
Citizen's Gas,
Indianapolis, IN
The delegated enforcement agency also must maintain records
reflecting a certified observer's successful completion of the
proficiency test, including the completed proficiency test
checklists used for the certification runs during the
demonstration of proficiency for the certification panel.
3.1.2 Procedures. The procedures in Method 303 require the
observer to determine the total time visible emissions occur from
the charging operation and to traverse the battery at ground
level to count leaking coke oven doors on the ovens. The
observer also is required to walk the topside center line of by-
product batteries and count the number of topside port lids and
offtake systems from which any visible emissions are observed.
Method 303 procedures for observing charging, door, topside port
lid, and offtake systems are summarized below. Exemptions for
each of the emission points are listed in Table 3-1.
3-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-1. VISIBLE EMISSION EXEMPTIONS UNDER METHOD 303
Charging Observations
Door Observations
Topside Port Lids
Offtake Systems
Do not include visible emissions from burning or smoldering coal
spilled on the battery surface, from doors or the leveler bar
operations, or from emissions that drift from the top of a larry car
hopper if the emissions were observed at the drop sleeve.
Do not include visible emissions from ovens with doors removed,
from ovens taken out of service, or from fugitive emissions not
originating from the door area, such as from hot coke spilled on the
bench.
Do not include visible emissions from between the brickwork and
oven lid casing, from cracks in the oven brickwork, from topside
ports involved in a charging operation, ports undergoing
maintenance, condensing water from wet-sealing material, and flue
inspection ports and caps. Lid leaks on a recently charged oven
cannot be counted until 5 minutes after charging was completed.
Do not include visible emissions from standpipe caps open for a
decarbonization period or standpipes of an oven being charged.
3.1.2.1 Requirements for Observations. The following
tables summarize the required procedures for observing charging
operations (Table 3-2), door emissions (Table 3-3), and topside
port lids and offtake systems (Table 3-4).
Two options are available for blocked doors: (1) stop the
stopwatch and wait for the obstruction (i.e., equipment) to move
or for the fugitive emissions to dissipate before completing the
traverse, or (2) stop the stopwatch, skip the affected ovens, and
move to a position to continue the traverse. If using the second
option, the observer must return and inspect the affected ovens
after completion of the traverse. If the equipment or fugitive
emissions still prevent the observer from viewing the doors, then
the affected doors may be counted as not observed. If the second
option is used because of doors blocked by machines during
charging operations, then, of the affected doors, the observer
3-3
-------
Table 3-2. REQUIREMENTS FOR CHARGING OBSERVATIONS
Record required information on the top of the charging system inspection sheet (e.g., oven
being charged, beginning time of the charge, etc.).
Obtain an unobstructed view of the emission points, including the tarry car hoppers, drop
sleeves, slide gate, and topside ports of the oven being charged. Any emissions from these
points and from an open standpipe cap on the oven being charged during the charging
period are counted as charging emissions.
The charging period starts when coal begins to flow into the oven and ends when the last
changing port is recapped.
Using a stopwatch, determine the total time visual emissions are observed during the
charging period. Record the total time that visible emissions were observed on the charging
inspection sheet.
Observe 5 valid consecutive charges; 3 or 4 charging observations are considered valid only
under specific conditions. Do not include incomplete charges in a daily set of observations
that are lower than the lowest reading for a complete charge. If both complete and
incomplete charges are included, the daily set of observations includes the 5 highest values
observed.
Calculate and record the daily 30-day rolling logarithmic average of seconds of visible
emissions from the charging operation for each battery using the recorded data and the 29
previous valid daily sets of observations.
3-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-3. REQUIREMENTS FOR OBSERVING DOOR EMISSIONS
Record all information requested at the top of the door inspection sheet.
Conduct a traverse of both sides of the battery by walking the length of the battery on the
outside of the pusher machine and quench car tracks at a steady, normal walking pace.
The walking pace should not exceed 4 seconds per door plus 10 seconds per leak for
recording, excluding time spent moving around obstructions.
Conduct one complete run of each battery; a single run includes 2 timed traverses, one for
each side of the battery. Record observations on the door inspection sheet. A door is
considered leaking if visible emissions are detected in the coke oven door area. Multiple
emissions from the same door area (e.g., the chuck door and the push side door) count as a
single door leak.
Measure actual traverse time using a stopwatch. A walking pace of about 3 seconds per
oven is typical. Exclude interruptions required for waiting for obstructions to move or
moving around stationary obstructions. Record the actual traverse time on the door
inspection sheet.
Calculate the maximum time allowed to observe the ovens using the applicable equation in
Method 303. If the total traverse time allowed is exceeded, conduct another run. (4
seconds per oven plus 10 seconds per leak observed)
Determine the total number of doors for which observations were made and calculate the
percent leaking doors. For batteries subject to an approved alternative standard for coke
oven doors controlled by shed, calculate the push side and the coke side separately. Use
the equation in the method to calculate a yard-equivalent reading.
For each day a valid observation is obtained, calculate the daily 30-run rolling average for
each battery using the daily data and the 29 previous valid daily observations using the
applicable equation in the method.
3-5
-------
Table 3-4. REQUIREMENTS FOR OBSERVING EMISSIONS FROM TOPSIDE
PORT LIDS AND OFFTAKE SYSTEMS
Record all required information at the top of the topside inspection sheet.
Conduct one traverse while walking the topside center line of the battery- Simultaneous or
separate runs for the topside port lids and offtake systems may be conducted. To observe
offtake systems, allow 2 traverses for batteries with double mains.
To observe lids of ovens being charged, wait 5 minutes after completion of the charge.
Count the number of topside ports, not the number of points, exhibiting visible emissions.
To observe offtake systems, count visible emissions from (1) the flange between the
gooseneck and collecting main, (2) the junction point of the standpipe and oven, (3) the
other parts of the offtake system (e.g., the standpipe cap), and (4) the junction points with
ovens and flanges of jumper pipes. [If any part of an offtake system have visible emissions,
count it as one emitting offtake system. Each stationary jumper pipe is considered a single
offtake system. All visible emissions from closed standpipe caps count as offtake leaks,
but emissions from open standpipes of an oven being charged count as charging
emissions.]
Record observations, the actual traverse time, and if any oven is dampered off from the
collecting main for decarbonization on the topside inspection sheet.
Calculate the maximum time allowed to observe the topside port lids and/or offtake
systems using the applicable equations in the method. If the total allowable traverse time
(4 seconds per oven plus 10 seconds per leak) is exceeded, conduct another run.
Calculate the percent leaking topside port lids and the percent leaking offtake systems on
each battery using the applicable equations in the method. Do not include topside port lids
or offtake systems with visible emissions from the following ovens in determining the
percent leaking value: (1) empty ovens (including ovens undergoing maintenance, which
are properly dampered off from the main), (2) ovens being charged or pushed, (3) up to 3
full ovens that have been dampered-off from the main prior to pushing, and (4) up to 3
additional full ovens in the pushing sequence that have been dampered off from the main
for cleaning, decarbonization, safety reasons, charging scheduling, or maintenance near the
end of the cycle.
For each day a valid observation is obtained, calculate the daily 30-run rolling average for
each battery using the daily data and the 29 previous valid daily observations using the
applicable equations in the method.
3-6
-------
must exclude the door from the most recently charged oven from
the inspection. The rule prohibits the owner/operator from
deliberately blocking doors for the purpose of concealing door
leaks during an inspection.
Following each daily performance test, the certified
observer must compare the collecting main pressure during the
inspection to the collecting main pressure during the previous
8 to 24 hours. The observer is to record:
• The pressure during the inspection.
• The presence of pressure deviation from normal
operations.
• An explanation of any pressure deviation from normal
operations, if any, offered by the owners or operators.
The rule prohibits the owner/operator from adjusting the
pressure to a level below the range of normal operation during or
prior to the inspection. (Temporarily decreasing collecting main
pressure temporarily decreases leaks from the battery.) Upon
request by the observer, the owner/operator must demonstrate the
accuracy of the pressure measurement device. Method 303 requires
the owner/operator to maintain the pressure recording equipment
and conduct quality assurance/quality control as needed to ensure
reliable pressure readings. The owner/operator must maintain
these records for at least 6 months from the date of each record
and provide access within 1 hour of the observer's request to
check the records to determine their completeness.
The test method also addresses observation of doors that are
covered by cokeside sheds, which may preclude observations
outside the quench car tracks. In this case, observations are
made from the bench and a correction factor of 6 PLD is
subtracted to produce a "yard equivalent" (to account for the
fact that more door leaks are observed from the bench than from
the yard).
As of April 1992, there were a total of 6 plants with 13
batteries with cokeside sheds. (A single shed may cover multiple
3-7
-------
batteries that are constructed in a line.) These batteries are
listed in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5. BATTERIES WITH COKESIDE SHEDS
Bethlehem Steel,
Lackawanna , NY
Geneva Steel,
Pr ovo , UT
Inland Steel,
East Chicago, IL
Shenango,
Pittsburgh, PA
USX,
Clairton, PA
Wheeling-Pittsburgh,
East Follansbee, WV
Batteries 7,8
Batteries 1, 2, 3, 4
Battery 11
Batteries 1, 4
Battery B
Batteries 1, 2, 3
3.1.2.2 Collecting Main Inspection. The owner/operator is
responsible for daily leak inspections of the collecting mains.
To perform the inspection, the observer traverses both the
collecting main catwalk and the battery topside along the side
closest to the collecting main. For a battery with a double
main, conduct two sets of traverses for each run (i.e., one set
for each main). If any visible emissions are noted, record the
source, the approximate location of the source of the emissions,
and time and date the leak was first detected. The owner/
operator must also record the time and date of temporary sealing
(required within 4 hours of detection) and the time and date of
permanent repair (required within 15 days).
3-8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
3.2.1 Daily Inspections. The rule requires a daily
performance test for each coke oven battery to determine
compliance with the visible emission limitations for coke oven
doors, topside port lids, offtake systems, and charging
operations. Performance tests for compliance with the visible
emission limitations for by-product coke oven batteries are
conducted by Method 303; Method 303A is for use with doors on
nonrecovery batteries. Methods 303 and 303A are reprinted along
with the rule in Appendix C of this document.
Daily tests for existing batteries begin on the applicable
dates specified in the rule (i.e., November 15, 1993, for
batteries on the extension track or straddling both tracks and
December 31, 1995, for batteries on the MACT track alone). Daily
performance tests for new, greenfield, brownfield, or padup build
coke oven batteries apply on the first day the battery commences
normal operation, excluding startup time. The startup period is
determined by the Administrator and may not exceed 180 days. For
each daily test, the observer must:
• Monitor and record five consecutive charges from each
battery.
• Conduct one valid and complete inspection of all doors,
topside port lids, and offtake system on each battery
and record observations using the log sheets (or the
equivalent) included in Methods 303 and 303A.
• Compute and record the 30-run rolling average of the
percent leaking coke oven doors (or, if applicable, the
number of leaking coke oven doors for a by-product coke
oven battery subject to the alternative emission
limitation for small batteries), topside port lids, and
offtake systems on each battery.
• Compute and record the logarithmic 30-day rolling
average of the seconds of visible emissions per charge
for each by-product coke oven battery.
3-9
-------
• Provide a copy of the daily test results to the owner
or operator and the implementing agency by the end of
the day. Also provide a copy of the calculated rolling
average for each emission point to the owner or
operator as soon as practicable after each test.
• Perform collecting main pressure check.
3.2.2 Inspections for Alternative Standards. If the
battery is subject to an approved alternative emission limitation
for coke oven doors controlled by a shed, performance tests for
the doors are conducted on a weekly or monthly basis (if
compliance on a weekly basis is achieved for 12 consecutive
weeks). Under the alternative standard, the certified observer
calculates and records the percent leaking coke oven doors under
the shed. Each observation is compared to the limit because the
alternative is based on a single run limit that is not to be
exceeded. There is no rolling average used for the alternative
standard. Method 9 is used to determine the percent opacity of
visible emissions from the control device for the shed and Method
22 is used to determine the level of visible emissions from the
shed.
3.2.3 Inspection Fees. All performance tests must be
conducted by a certified observer at the expense of the owner/
operator. Inspection fees are paid to the enforcement agency
each calendar quarter unless enforcement authority is not
delegated or is withdrawn. In this case, the EPA Regional Office
is responsible for performing the inspections, but the owner/
operator must enter into a contract and pay for the inspections
and performance tests by a Method 303 certified observer during
the period that EPA is the implementing agency. The inspection
fee is determined according to the following formula:
F = Ex S
where
F = Fees to be paid by the owner or operator,
3-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H = Total person hours for inspections: 4 hours for 1 coke
oven battery, 6.25 hours for 2 coke oven batteries,
8.25 hours for 3 coke oven batteries. For more than 3
coke oven batteries, use these hours to calculate the
appropriate number of person hours, and
S = Current average hourly rate for private visible
emissions inspector in the relevant market.
The value used for total person hours for inspections (H)
can be revised by the enforcement agency up to 3 years after
promulgation of the NESHAP. The owner/operator is not required
to pay any part of an inspection fee for any required monitoring
or inspections that are covered by other fees collected by the
agency.
3.2.4 Compliance Determinations. Following each daily
performance test, the certified observer must calculate the 30-
run rolling average of the percent leaking doors, topside port
lids, and offtake systems for each battery and the 30-day rolling
logarithmic average of the seconds of visible emissions per
charge. For small batteries (fewer than 30 ovens) subject to the
2 leaking door limit, the observer must calculate the 30-run
rolling average of the number of leaking doors.
If a run is invalidated (e.g., if the time requirements for
conducting a traverse are not met), the observer may perform an
additional run as needed to obtain and record a valid visible
emissions value. For charging, three or four charging
observations may be considered a valid set (instead of five) if
it is not possible to obtain five charging observations because
visual interferences or inclement weather prevent a clear view of
the charging operation. The 30-day rolling log average is based
on a total of at least 145 individual observations.
The rule requires that observations be made every day,
including holidays, which allows up to 5 missed charging
observations within the 30-day period. (See Section 3.9 and
Equation 303-1 in Method 303.) Inclement weather that precludes
visible emission observations may cause a daily inspection to be
missed. If the regular observer is ill or there are other
3-11
-------
problems, an alternate observer should be available to conduct
the inspection. Observations should also be made during an event
that may be a malfunction, unless safety considerations dictate
otherwise, because the determination of whether a malfunction
actually occurred is made later. If the observer misses an
observation for a day, no compliance determination is made for
that day; calculation of the rolling 30-run average (30-day for
charging) proceeds with the next valid observation made by the
observer.
For some sources such as collecting main leaks,
bypass/bleeder stacks, and nonrecovery batteries with alternative
standards (e.g., installing a charging hood and control device
for charging emissions, daily oven pressure monitoring), the
owner/operator must perform the monitoring and inspections.
Table 3-6 summarizes the actions to be taken during the
performance tests and at other times for compliance
determinations.
3-12
-------
Table 3-6. SUMMARY CHECKLIST FOR COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS
By-product Batteries
Requirement
Coke oven doors, topside port
lids, offtake systems
1 valid run daily
Calculate 30-run rolling average of PLD, PLL, PLO
Charging operations
5 valid consecutive charges
Calculate logarithmic 30-day rolling average of the
seconds of visible emissions per charge
Alternative door limit for doors
under sheds
• 1 valid run weekly (or monthly)
• Compare to single pass limit
• Determine opacity of visible emissions from control device
by Method 9 and visible emissions from the shed by
Method 22
Shed physical integrity, shed
maintenance, shed opacity
monitor, shed flow rate
monitor
• To be performed by owner or operator
• Compliance determined by enforcement agency according
to review of records and inspections
Small battery limit (30 or fewer
ovens)
• 1 valid run daily
• Calculate 30-run rolling average of the number of leaking
doors
Collecting main pressure
Pressure check after test
Bypass/bleeder stack
Visible emission observation by Method 22 to be
performed by owner or operator
Compliance determined by enforcement agency according
to review of records and inspections
Collecting main leaks
Daily inspection to be performed by owner or operator
Compliance determined by enforcement agency according
to review or records and inspections
3-13
-------
Nonrecovery batteries
Requirement
Doors
• 1 run daily
• Calculate 30-run rolling average of the PLO for existing
batteries OR
• Daily pressure monitoring by owner or operator
• Compliance determined by enforcement agency according
to review or records and inspections
Charging
• For existing batteries, owner or operator performs and
records work practices
• Compliance determined by enforcement agency according
to review of records and inspections
Other
Requirement
Work practice plans; startup,
shutdown, and malfunction
plan
• Owner or operator develops and implements plans as
required
• Compliance determined by enforcement agency according
to review of records and inspections
3-14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 STARTUPS, SHUTDOWNS, AND MALFUNCTIONS
4.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR STARTUPS, SHUTDOWNS, AND MALFUNCTIONS
These provisions require the owner/operator to develop a
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan that
provides for the operation of the source in accordance with good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions, and for
procedures for correcting the malfunction as quickly as
practicable. Associated reporting and recordkeeping provisions
also are included. These provisions are particularly important
because the visible emission limits in the rule will not apply if
the enforcement agency determines a period of operationto be a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Malfunction means any sudden,
infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures caused in part by
poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
4.2 STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION PLAN
Each owner/operator of a coke oven battery must have a
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes
the following:
• Procedures for operating the battery, including
associated air pollution control equipment, during a
period of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction in a
manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
• Procedures for correcting malfunctioning process and
air pollution control equipment as quickly as
practicable.
4.3 FACILITY'S RESPONSIBILITY DURING STARTUPS, SHUTDOWNS, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
The owner/operator is responsible for operating the battery
in accordance with the procedures specified in the SSM plan, as
4-1
-------
well as in accordance with good air pollution control practices
for minimizing emissions. Malfunctions must be corrected as soon
as practicable after their occurrence, in accordance with the
plan. Notification of a startup, shutdown, or a malfunction must
be made by the owner/operator to the certified observer if the
observer is at the facility during the occurrence. If not, the
owner/operator must notify the enforcement agency, in writing,
within 24 hours of the occurrence first being documented by a
company employee, as well as an explanation of why no such
notification was made to the certified observer. Within 14 days
of the notification or after a startup or shutdown, the
owner/operator must submit a written report to the applicable
permitting authority that details the following:
• Description of the time and circumstances of the
startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
• A description of the actions taken that might be
considered inconsistent with the startup, shutdown, or
malfunction plan.
If the owner/operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that a startup, shutdown, or malfunction has
occurred, the visible emission observations made during the event
cannot be used for compliance with the standard. The
owner/operator must maintain a record of internal reports that
form the basis of each malfunction notification. Visible
emission observations are made on a daily basis (even if a
potential malfunction occurs) if there are no safety problems
associated with the inspection.
4-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 RECORDKEEPING AMD REPORTING
The rule requires that all reports and notifications be sent
to the Administrator until the owner/operator has an approved
permit under 40 CFR part 70. After the effective date of an
approved permit, the owner/operator must submit all notifications
and reports required in the rule to the State permitting
authority. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
rule are summarized in Table 5-1. Records must be maintained
onsite for at least one year and must thereafter be accessible
within 3 working days for at least 5 years. Copies of the work
practice plan and the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
must be kept onsite at all times. Records and reports required
under this rule must be made available by the owner/operator to
the authorized collective bargaining representative of the
employees at a coke oven battery, for inspection and copying.
The owner/operator must produce the reports for inspection and
copying within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 30
days.
There are two main reporting requirements for compliance
with the coke oven NESHAP: an initial compliance certification
and a semiannual compliance certification. In addition, the
regulation requires the owner/operator to submit certain
notifications and a report of bypassed emissions.
5-1
-------
n
H
UIREMENTS FOR COKE OVEN BATTERI
Ot
H
OS
(9
X
H
EH
OS
0
P<
H
OS
o
g
n
i
i_i
P,
H
H
i*»
Q
*
o
o
«
•
H
m
H
J
••^
§
EH
Information required
*
CO
O
"5
O
o
0)
w
C
ft
Q.
£
H_
O
0)
a
>.
X
C
co
.0
"o
0)
a
>
° .* > - ei
0) w ~Ti w ^. -i
>- <» c a> ££ .* Q) t 5
o 2 o .0 2 o £ »£
C^SE^-SBS c *
•l-o^^plHgfcxi-O j§ «
5 5 •'S »^S go 5-o^-s
oPo^T-.S^CBsiS
f^^^^-1— '^ ,A ._ 7> CO m a)
Written notification of (1) the election to meet (
emission limitation(s) as follows: (a) received or
November 1 5, 1 993, notification of election to
LAER extension track limits either in lieu of or ii
MACT track limits; or (b) received on or before
31, 1995, notification of election to meet the N
limits; and (c) received on or before January 1 ,
notification of election to meet the LAER extern
limits or election to meet residual risk standard:
developed and (2) the intention to construct a r
(including reconstruction of an existing battery
construction of a greenfield battery), a brownfu
or a padup rebuild including the anticipated dat<
CO C
> ,_ 05 2
f °- 8
T5 . -~. Q)
>s;«
en """— * f"»
S in c 2
8" w a
•- ^ in c
5-5=6
*• ffi m O
OT » CO 0
3 •£ ?g 0
5 « - 3
_
OT "^
C O
.2 ^
"^ __
CO
O CO
•§ "
*^ to
o ^
Z —
d>
O
o> S
.£ .£
8 «
0 c
— CO
< a
V
-*
8s
is
CD
*1
2«
O) _
If
*- O
o ¥
C £
5 *'
o£
o>
•g ts
Q. co
-s —
O "O
II
11
5 o£
^) .£ >
S C •
•c 2 c -^
10 9- o «
- £ ~ S
« w o 3
9 C
= Eg
Slg5
T3
E « a
G3 » 3
?^IS
> w to ™
I c j?
01 JS i_
o H- o
«»
s
cfili
.£
fc
OT 5
~ x
> •
•° -o
IS
.15
c 5
o >
'5 w
CD m
O S
| "S'B
I 5s S
o o «5 >
S 5 «-o
_I ^ «« co
2 •» 2 C
10 «' 5 §
S Sc I
S tr o »
> m a a
c £-i
o w « a>
••" *^ ^ W
o « c 5
. c £ co 3
•2 ^ = w
• « ° S g
c TJ o .y
^.2 o tJ
? a>2 2
CD Q. *D Q.
C O
g «5
C M
€*5J
S-S8.I
•-S = S
» » a
.- a c
' « 0-2
I ~ «
® > c
•£ *: 3
.£
-
c
Q)
o
I ° Si s
5 = co » rf
w .0 c *g I
g JS w w o
tJ 2 3 co 2
iSsSl
V
2 s _
^ CO O
£ = 7,
2 a 5J
«? a ID
O
(O
§
UJ
(O
•w «v v w C
8*8181
irM'si
SlllII
"5 ?» o —
Ills
« O 0) w.
C/2 o o _
«
o
to __
^ c S
E-2-
8 « -
^ .o co
« ~ CO
^ C {O
18s
0)
o
53
o »-
O
a>
_
— co
a>
o
81
= co
< a
5-2
-------
on required
format!
-£
0
4-*
re
O
•o
o
u
0
w
C
o
Q.
0
k»
»4-
O
0
a
>
0
4*
TO
.Q
«4-
O
0
a.
>•
to
£.
CD
3
0
k.
.c
4-»
to
m
CD
1
0
0
o
u
!*•
o
CD
_c
"4^
0
X
re
«4-
O
C
o
a.
£
<
0
4^
2
c
o
a.
0
QC
O»
c
'43
C
0
>
•o
£
~o
k.
+rf
O
u
c
c
0
o
0
-*
o
o
4*
t)
3
•o
o
Q.
>
m
£
.CO
0
4^
>.
r»
•O
0
"5
k»
c
O
u
4^
o
c
(0
*"•
(D
*^
u
re
*-•
to
0
T3
0
0
=°
to
to
re
a
>•
.O
C
O
o
CO
(A
Administrator a:
0
^~
»•—
n.
CO
CO
<«l
^^
0
•o
o
to
'o.
0
to
.9?
*w
0
C
re
i>
•o
c
re
*j
0
0
0
jz
4^
^^
O
c
o
"^5
a.
o
to
0
•o
re
0
•o
3
U
_c
^
o
£
CO
t:
o
Q.
0
k.
1
k.
$
0
C
as practicable a
CO
O
•s
re
N
re
c.
re
^_
o
»4-
c
g
'i^
re
o
'•^
'4?
o
0
•£
«*-
o
Q.
O
O
re
0
A
re
o
"5.
Q.
re
14-
0
•£
^
the beginning o
e release
u
re
4rf
to
£>
3
to
k.
0
2
0
t->
A
*rf
0
0
o
CO
c
than 24 hours;
written report
submitted with!
c
0
0
0
4»*
"o
M
re
•o
II
to
0 .
a a
o .£
o c
TJ
re -
•5 § -
_£ Q. 0 .2
0
_c
i
Is
3 c •* g * 5 J «* E
—•'« «« 0 rr .2 * ~ S -2.
-i:Sa£ito»-o^
V5 o 8-
C '5 .S C a .E
m o
a. ^
to c
t s to o
'E II
re . to w
•= to c »-
IM-2
:1> is-
0 C
ex 0
.s o a I
S S-&-5
£ =
« .jo
J2 .2
^ c
t 0
O «-
« re
we
w re
1*
m c
c o
3 « 'S
•S*S
T3 O ° £
0 >*- T3 JS
.? C W H-
to O - O
0 -^ to
•o re p £
*- — >•
.
o -o
3
0 re
•£ TJ
« S
M C
m 3
o »
O
o
•o
5 ? • Js"0 o
•-•££— c >.
§J»S?I
JSISSS
*{*:**
?l|*55
S <5 ^ & *• *-
aE re ° g-S
E 0 E E .o M
R -° o 2 .2 "S
" S* 5» > o
3c«£c-cS«
I -i « E •§ 5 S o
H»S1
n°:-
.t; co co
• 0 re
c co re £
m •? C Q-
JS E fc c
a. 0 o .E
u
re
w •- a « c »
to 3 3 o re T3
0 O" «0 'i- "S *
O 0 0 O °- £
o «- •- re 0 s
3^^ fcs 1
5 o p-S^-E
H-?njn>ajo)>^-P
ot=<»£2.£:s2..£
CO
O
co
05 _ .
.— 0 c *-
-°
£ fe
0
_5 Jj c ^ H- _? .2
- i .21 ° -1
O * CO t CO C C
c § > •§ ^ 5 1
O 2 £ S -S i: <
_re
a _
0 Tt
« "c ~
C.2^
re co *~
•
>-CD
i ""
re *—
c
0
o
55
S *
» c
= re
< £
5-3
-------
Information required
«
re
O
•o
o
u
£
c
a
£
CD
a
H
CD
C
re
.O
"5
CD
a
1-
.c
It
~ re
d that describes the
ence and actions th
CD t
C 3
Written report must be submi
and circumstances of the occ
+*
t •
o >
CO »
re o
•o c
^ -S
*~ re
c u
IE £
5 o
CO
o
-0 co
t; c
*%
CO tS
si
3 "ra
C £
ra c
(/3 0
CD
o
* CD
si
— ra
< J3
O
. ra
C Q. -C
5 • ra
0 • S
S go
« «-s
&|2
C E ®
3 w •£
*S E
CD TO t
*|-8
£ 0 J=
.*i < o
be considered inconsistent wi
malfunction plan. The owner
record of internal reports whi
«^
•^
o
^
+*
» i
I?
1.C
&1
S£
o
CD
—
malfunction notification
CD
es an methods for t
h-
3
k-
"o
3
m
a
CO
CD
X
c
"a
2
.ti
J
W
CD
n
c
CD
"re
•o
CD
o
k.
a
<
c
CD
O
O
u
<
^
•o re ^
* "x ~
al of alternative star
rs that indicate the
able, records of opa
2 *^ ;s
P CO n
performance test. After appi
monitoring records for param
flow rate is maintained; if api
CD to
o 2
tp CD
a u
$n
•o 5 o
CO CD "5
j-, O. £
«o >. 8
CO p
® re. 2
in
O
O CO
•^ acity monitor for th
that demonstrate it
ystem meets the
0 % o
readings from the continuous
device for the shed and recoi
continuous opacity monitorin
CO
.*
£
h.
0
•o
£
CD
*^ >• .52
ill
z. ro *•"•
K 3 fl)
•o ^"°
C *Q "
«- •§ re
ill
O .» j.
w i 5
requirements of Performance
operation/maintenance requir
visual inspections, including 1
o
(0
£
o
|
CO
•o
5
detected and repaired; and a
corrective actions taken
g specifications
c
•c
Design drawings and enginee
W ,_r
CO
o-g
•M
*-« fc
| CD^
£ 5 2
U
*J
a u. ».
C CD 0
1"S E
|||
» > re
IT JD *:
c
CD
CD
0
U
O
3 (0
T3 CD
O 'C
CD 5
CD
.> "0
« s £
E '= r^ =
" 1 « S S
TD -o re to *~
5 — p «" U
1 S « «S
Q. O > C „
re o 10 3 —
5-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
equired
2
to
Q
o
a
CD
03
.
Q) Q
« I
QJ Q)
« «
•O .12
?*
to _CD
CD «5 Q.
£ re CD
«- -o «-
"g -o "Q
8 re «
m -. *I
j^ Q? ni
2 '«= "o
U. "^ «*
2-c E
5 g c
CD . CD
Q. -n -C
O « *"
t > -o
Ssg
H. § d
-k 0) w S u
Q) y (0 ™- CO
= i -^ R «
(0 n> 4^ o
CD § 'C "g o
i- Q qj c w
h- SC co
Jl § ? E S
f
o w cr Q <" !t
a> w a> o ~ "
•; li 'C 5> a
S ? o w c c
" § co «^
c s « o
*
o
c
.2 S
Sz
«D ,_ CO
^* (D O)
g «; o>
i m i-
15
re ** c
o
CO
2
o
0)
a>
M
•o
o —.
o ~*
CD —
O
CD
O
U
+J
u
3 CO
1-2
a2
^ «••
0)
>.®
CD CD
> t-
si
CD •"
M
*rf
a>
U
CD
CD
M
£
re
M
O
T3
0)
O
a
a.
re
m
"o
2
m
•O
CD
CD
CD
0)
£
m
3
re
a>
C
|
CD
Q.
re
CD
in
C
o
a
£
•o
m
CO
o
re
o
*- T3
*
c o
CD
o
u
•D
CD
o
re
_CD —
If
'5 »-
2^
.h T)
3 C
O" W
£
Q. a
CD CO
's
CD
C »
P £
c ®
CD o
o5
*- o
0) m
a
O ^
o
o
CD
CD
U
LU
I |
11
CD O
w CD
I1
o .*:
a>
a
*- <«
3
a-
CO CO
t- ep
t/t 5?
•o >•
8|
CD E
w CD
* CD
re •£
E-
*- o
II
II
I!
si
£ S
5-5
-------
5.1 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
The owner/operator of an existing or new coke oven battery
must provide a written statement(s) for initial compliance
certification attesting to the following:
• The installation of either a bypass/bleeder stack flare
system or an approved alternative control device.
• Preparation of a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) plan.
This certification statement must be submitted to the
Administrator within 45 days of the applicable compliance date
for the emission limitations or requirements. For existing
batteries, the certification for the flare system must be
submitted by May 15, 1994, and the certification for the SSM plan
must be submitted by December 30, 1993.
5.2 SEMIANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
The owner/operator of a coke oven battery must submit a
signed semiannual compliance certification attesting to the
following:
• No coke oven gas was vented.
• Coke oven gas was vented through the bypass/bleeder
stack flare system which operated properly.
• A venting report was submitted because of problems with
the bypass/bleeder flare system.
In addition, this must include certification attesting that:
• No startup, shutdown, or malfunction event occurred
during the reporting period or that a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction event did occur and a report
was submitted.
• Work practices were implemented, if applicable.
5.3 NOTIFICATIONS
The owner/operator must provide written notification to EPA
of the intention to construct a new coke oven battery, a
brownfield coke oven battery or a padup rebuild coke oven
battery, including the anticipated date of startup. The
Administrator must also be notified of the owner/operator's
decision for the compliance track election for each battery.
5-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
These elections are as follows:
• On or before November 15, 1993, intent to meet the 1993
extension track limits [§63.304(b)(1) or 63.304(c)]
either in lieu of or in addition to the MACT track
limits [§63.302(a) or §63.303(a)]; or
• On or before December 31, 1995, intent to meet the 1995
MACT track limits [§63.302(a)(1) or 63.303(a)]; and
• On or before January 1, 1998, intent to meet the 1998
extension track limits [§§63.304(b)(2) through (4) and
§63.304(c)] or intent to meet residual risk standards.
5.4 REPORT FOR BYPASSED EMISSIONS
The owner/operator must report any venting of coke oven gas
through a bypass/bleeder stack that was not vented through a
flare system to the Administrator as soon as practicable, but no
later than 24 hours after the beginning of the event. A written
report describing the event must be submitted within 30 days of
its occurrence.
5-7
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 EXISTING REGULATIONS
The provisions in the rule for existing regulations
primarily address two issues: (1) the control of short-term or
peak emissions and (2) the use of Method 303 results to enforce
existing regulations. The format of the NESHAP with a 30-run
average is designed to ensure control of long-term average
emissions. Existing regulations are written in terms of not
exceeding a limit for a single observation; consequently, a
battery in compliance with the NESHAP may exceed a State's short-
term limit on occasion. The effect may be most pronounced for
charging emissions because the NESHAP is based on a 30-day
average (of five observations per run) and a logarithmic
approach, both of which dampen the effect of high readings.
These provisions keep the existing short-term limits in effect
and clarify the use of Method 303 to enforce them.
Emission sources at coke oven batteries are already
regulated to some degree by State authorities or other
agreements. Consequently, the coke oven NESHAP requires the
owner/operator to comply with all applicable State implementation
plan (SIP) emission limitations and (subject to any expiration
date) all federally enforceable emission limitations contained in
an order, decree, permit or settlement agreement in effect on
September 15, 1992, for the control of emissions from charging
operations, topside port lids, offtake system(s), and coke oven
doors. Any change to these existing regulations must ensure
that:
• the applicable emission limitations and format in
effect on September 15, 1992, will continue in effect;
• the change includes a more stringent monitoring method
and that no emission increase will occur; or
6-1
-------
• the change makes the emission limitations more
stringent while holding the format unchanged, makes the
format more stringent while holding the emission
limitations unchanged, or makes both more stringent.
These aspects of the rule also allow for flexibility in
monitoring. For example, the rule provides for limits based on a
30-run observation average for the rule while maintaining single-
run limits for SIP's and consent decrees.
In other ways, the rule works to improve enforcement of
regulatory controls now in place. Data collected by Method 303
that are consistent with the SIP or consent decree inspection
method can be used to enforce the SIP or consent decree.
Any industry application to make a SIP revision or other
adjustment to account for differences between Method 303 and the
State's method must be submitted by September 1994. Finally, a
provision is included that states the modification requirements
in the Act [section 112(g)] do not apply to these coke oven
sources, except for batteries constructed with a new technology
[§63.302(c)].
6-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
MAJOR DATES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COKE OVEN NESHAP
-------
1
1
w
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
•1
1
1
I
•
1
i
IMPLEMENTATION OF COKE OVEN NESHAP
DATE ACTION EPA /INDUSTRY
12/4/92 Coke oven NESHAP proposal
12/4/92 Receive and review requests
onward for shed alternative standards
Receive and review applications
for case-by-case determinations
of limits for new/ reconstructed
by-product batteries using new
technologies
12/31/92 CAAA requires promulgation of
MACT, LAER, and work practice
standards
10/27/93 Date of promulgation
Establish certification panel
and observer training course
Receive and review requests for
for State delegation of authority
Develop startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan
11/10/93 Submit commitment for battery
closure for flare exemption
(2 weeks after promulgation)
11/15/93 Submit notification and comply
with extension track limits
Begin daily performance tests
Begin collecting main inspections
Submit work practice plan to EPA
and comply with work practice
standards (as applicable)
Submit initial compliance certifi-
cation for startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (45 days after
required date or 12/30/93 for existing
batteries)
A-l
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Industry
Industry
Industry
Delegated
agency
Industry
Industry
Industry
-------
ACTION
EPA/INDUSTRY
11/15/93
onward
12/30/93
3/31/94
4/15/94
5/15/94
6/30/94
10/27/94
11/15/94
11/15/94
12/31/95
12/31/95
Maintain specified records and Industry
submit reports as required
Receive, review, and approve or EPA
disapprove requests for inclusion
of cold-idle battery in design
capacity of plant for LAER track
Submit initial compliance Industry
certification for 11/15/93
requirements
Install flare system on bypass/ Industry
bleeder stacks
Submit initial compliance Industry
certification for flares
Estimated deadline for approving or EPA
disapproving the delegation of
authority to State programs (within
180 days after receipt)
Submit first semiannual compliance Industry
certification for 11/15/93 require-
ments
Estimated deadline for industry Industry
application to make SIP revision
to account for differences in
Method 303 and State method (within
12 months after promulgation)
Deadline for waiver of certification EPA
requirement for Method 303 panel
member
Estimated date for submission of Industry
permit application (within 1 year
of approval of State program)
Permanent battery closure pursuant Industry
to flare exemption
Submit notification of election Industry
to meet MACT and meet existing
source MACT limits
A-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACTION
EPA/INDUSTRY
10/27/96
1/1/98
1/1/98
1/1/2000
10/27/2001
1/27/2002
12/31/1999
1/1/2003
1/1/2003
10/27/2003
1/1/2007
Specified brownfield or padup Industry
rebuilds must begin construction
to retain exclusion from limits
for new batteries (or within 1
year after obtaining construction
permit, whichever is earlier)
Deadline for enforcement agency
to revise inspection fee (within
3 years of promulgation date)
Submit notification of election to
meet either LAER or residual risk
standards
Meet more stringent LAER standard
(if on extension track)
Distribute any EPA risk assessment
to surrounding communities (if on
LAER extension track)
Promulgate residual risk standard
(8 years from promulgation)
Comply with residual risk standards
(if not on LAER extension track)
unless 2 year waiver granted
Promulgate MACT standards for pushing,
quenching, combustion stacks, and
other emission points and sources
Promulgate residual risk standards
for individual batteries if industry-
wide residual risk standards are not
promulgated by 2003
Comply with more stringent MACT Industry
(unless residual risk standards are
more stringent) if not on LAER track
Comply with residual risk standard Industry
(if not on extension track) and if a
2 year waiver is granted
Review/revise LAER standard EPA
EPA/State
Industry
Industry
Industry
EPA
Industry
EPA
EPA
A-3
-------
DATE ACTION EPA/INDUSTRY
1/1/2010 Comply with more stringent LAER Industry
standard or revised LAER standard
(if on extension track)
1/1/2020 All batteries meet residual risk Industry
standards
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS CONTACTS
-------
List of Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards Contacts
I
I
I
m Telephone/FTS Number Fax Number
I Agnew, Amanda (919) 541-5268 (919) 541-4028
Couturier, Dan (703) 308-8678 (703) 308-8739
• (Enforcement)
Huntley, Roy (919) 541-1060 (919) 541-1039
(Test Method)
| Roy, Sims (919) 541-5263 (919) 541-4028
Walton, Tom (919) 541-5331 (919) 541-4028
• (Economic Impacts)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B-l
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
REPRINT OF PROPOSAL PREAMBLE AND FINAL COKE OVEN NESHAP FROM
FEDERAL REGISTER
-------
i
I
I
•
I
•
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
Friday
December 4, 1992
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories; Coke Oven Batteries;
Proposed Rule
-------
37534
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 234 1 Friday. December 4. 1992 / Proposed Rule*
*
I*
ENVmONMENTALPROTECnOK* '
AGENCY .. ' •-
40 OH Part 63
(AD-FRU4S40-4)
RIN 2060-AM7
National EmlMlon Standard* for
Hazardous Air Pollutant* for Source
Categories; Coke Oven Batteries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would establish visible emission
limitations, equipment and performance
standards, ana work practice
requirements for new and existing coke
oven batteries. Test Methods 303 and
303A for the determination of visible
emissions from byproduct and
nonrecovery coke oven batteries also are
proposed for addition to the regulations.
Trie proposed national emission
standards for hasardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) Implement section 112 of the
Clean Air Act as amended, which.
requirea the Administrator to regulate
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
listed In section 112(b) of the Act. one
of which Is coke oven emissions. The
proposed standards also implement
section 112(dM8) of the Act. which
contains provisions specific to the
regulation of coke oven emissions.
DATES: Comment*. Written comments
must be received on or before January 4.
1993. if there is no request for a public
hearing. If there is a request for a public
hearing, comments must be received on
or before January 22.1993.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing oy December 18,1992. a public
hearing will be held on December 28.
1992. beginning at 10 a.m. Persons
interested In attending the hearing
should call Ms. Julia Stevens at (919)
541-5578 to verify that a hearing will be
held.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony at the
public hearing must contact EPA by
December 18.1992.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to Air Docket Section (A-131).
Attention. Docket No. A-79-1S. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M Street. SW., Washington. DC 20460.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting a public hearing, it will
be held at the EPA Office of
Administration Auditorium. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons
• Interested In attending the heating or -
wishing to present oral testimony.—-' -•
should iMUfy Ms. ftttta Stsvensvc:.-^
Standards Development Branca (MD- • •
13). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. North.
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-5578.
Background Information Document
The background information AM-HHVMIJ .
(BID) for coke oven standards proposed
by EPA in 1987 contains information.
gathered through 1985. The BID baa not
been updated and does not reflect the
current regulatory negotiation process.
A copy of the BID may be obtained from
the docket or from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35). Research Triangle Pack. North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to "Cok* Oven .
Emissions from Wet-Coal Charged Cok*
Oven Batteries—Background
Information for Proposed Standarda"
(EPA-450/3-85-028a). Additional
background information used to support
today's proposed standards may be . -
obtained from the docket
Docket Docket No. A-79-15.
containing supporting information us*
in developing the proposed standard,
available for public inspection and .
copying between 8:30 a.m. and 340
p.m.. Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Air Docket Section. Waterside Mall.
room 1500.1st Floor. 401M Street. SW.,
Washington. DC 20460. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER MFORMATWN CONTACT.
For information concerning ths> ;
proposed standard, contact Ms. Amanda
Agnew at (919) 541-5268. Standarda
Development Branch, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13). US. .
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711.
•UPPlfMENTARY MFOAMATON: The
information presented in this preamble
ia organized as follows:
{.Background
A. Coke Oven Emissions
B. 1990 dean Air Act Amendments
C. Regulatory Negotiation Approach
D. Summary of Proposed Standards
D. Development of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Selection of Emission Points
C Selection of Visible Emission Format
D. Selection of Regulatory Format
B. Selection of Emission Umlts
P. Alternative Standard for Doors
Controlled by Sheds
C. Work Practice Requirements
H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Requirement!
I. Standard* for Bypa**/Bleeder SUcka
J. Collecting Main Leaks
K. Performance Test* and Procedures
L Selection of Test Method
M. Reportlnf and Recordkeaplaf
Requirement*
. H. Deletatloa of Authority
' O, ReUtioathlp to General Provistooe
rjL Summary of unpects
IV. Admlnumtlve RaqulreaeoU
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C Executive Order 12291
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Reguletory Flexibility Act
t. Mlacelbneoua
L Background
A. Cola Onn Emifsioiu .
Coke is one of the basic materials -
used in blast furnaces for the conversloi
of Iron ore to Iron. In this country, the
conversion of coal to coke Is performed
primarily in by-product coke oven -
batteries.
A by-product coke oven battery
consists of s group of ovens connected
by common walls, tn this process, coal
undergoes destructive distillation und«
positive pressure to produce coke and
coke oven gas. from which by-products
(AC., tar, benzene, toluene, xylene. light
oil) are recovered downstream In theby
product plant.
- • Cok* used In ironmaking is also
produced by one plant with
nonrecovery coke oven batteries. In the
nonrecovery process7the coke oven gas
is burned but by-products are not
recovered. Nonrecovery coke oven
batteries operate under a negative
• pressure; consequently, there is little
outward leakage of hazardous
emissions, only the Inward leakage of
air.
During the coking process, coke oven
emissions escape from different
emission points on the coke oven
battery as leaks that can change in size
and location over time. Raw coke oven
gas Is also emitted from bypass/bleeder
stacks for by-product coke oven
batteries when gases are vented direct!]
to the atmosphere to relieve excess
pressure. Nationwide coke oven
emissions from coke oven batteries and
bypass/bleeder stacks are estimated at
1.700 Mg/vr at the current level of
control This estimate Includes ben ram
soluble organic* (BSO). which is a
measure of organic paniculate matter, i
well as benzene, toluene, xylene. and
hydrogen sulfide.
Although each of the 29 plants with
82 by-product coke oven batteries are
subject to emission limits via State
regulations or consent decrees, the
applicable emission limits and
requirements vary widely. Of the 10
States currently regulating by-product
coke oven emissions, limits on chargin
operations range from an average of 11
to about 60 seconds of visible emission
I
I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1092 / Proposed Rule* S753S
per charge, based on four to savea
charging observation*. The current
baseline limits for by-product batteries
range from 5 to 16 percent leaking
doors: limits on topside pott lids and •
offtake systems very from 1 to 5 percent
and 4 to 10 percent, respectively. The
limits for percent leaking doors, topside
port lids, and offtake systam(s) are
standards that are not to be exceeded
based on any single observation. Coke
oven emissions also are subject to
regulation by the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.1029);
unregulated release* of coka oven
emissions exceeding 1 pound also are
subject to EPA hazardous substance
release notification requirements (40
CFR 302.6) under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act.
The oily, yellow-brown smoke
characteristic of coke oven emissions
contains organic particular matter such
as benzo(e)pyrene and other polycyclic
organic compounds as wall as
hazardous pollutants that are volatile
organic*, including benzene and
toluene. Other component* include
toxic gase*. such a* hydrogen sulfide
(HiS) and carbon monoxide (CO), and
metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium.
chromium, lead, and nickel). As
discussed further in the EPA report,
"Carcinogen Assessment of Coke Oven
Emissions" (EPA-600/6-82-003F),
occupational exposure studies hava
shown statistically significant excess
mortality from cancers of the respiratory
tract (lung, trachea or bronchus).
kidney, prostate, and all cancer sites
combined.
The EPA listed coke oven emissions
as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112(bKlKA) of the Act on
September 18.1984 (49 FR 36560). This
listing decision was followed by
proposal of a NESHAP for the control of
coke oven emissions from wet-coal-
charged batteries (52 FR 13S66. April
23,1987). These proposed standards
were not promulgated because Congress
revisited the issue during development
and passage of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. These
amendments supersede the 1987
proposal, which EPA is consequently
withdrawing in favor of today's
proposed rule. A separate notice
announcing withdrawal of the 1987
proposal is included in today's Federal
Register.
B. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 establish specific requirements for
the development of regulations
governing cnke oven emissions. Under
Section 112(dM8). EPA must promulgate
standards based on maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
for coke ovem batteries by December 31,
1992. MACT standards for existing
sources can be no less stringent than the
best performing 12 percent of existing
source* and standards for new sources
cannot be lets stringent than the limit
achieved in practice by the best
controlled existing source. In addition.
the MACT standards for coke oven
batteries nust require at a minimum
that coka oven emissions from each
battery not exceed the following short-
term limits: 8 percent leaking doors. 1
percent leaking topside port lids. 5
percent hexing offtake system(s). and 16
seconds of visible emissions per charge
(with no exclusion for emissions during
the period after the closing of self-
seeling oven doors). In establishing the
standards. EPA must evaluate the use of
luting compounds to prevent door leaks
(Section 112(d)(8)(A)(i)). The EPA also
must evaluate use of Thompson
nonrecovery coke oven batteries and
other nonrecovery technologies es the
basis of standards for new batteries
(Section 112(d)(8XAXU)). The EPA is
also to promulgate work practice
regulations for new and existing coke
oven batteries. These regulation* are to
require, as appropriate, the use of
sodium silicate (or equivalent) luting
compounds if EPA determines that the
use of sodium silicate is an effective
means of emissions control and is
achievable), taking into account costs
and reasonable commercial warranties
for doors and related equipment and
jamb cleaning practices.
In addition to these technology-based
standards. EPA is required to
promulgate standards to address the risk
remaining after technology-based
standards are imposed. The EPA is to
issue these standards for coke oven
batteries within 8 years of promulgation
of the MACT standards (Section
112(0(2X0)).
- Existing coke oven batteries must
comply with the MACT standards by
December 31.199S (5112(d)(8)(AJ). The
compliance date for meeting residual
risk standards is within 90 days of
. promulgation, which may be extended
tor up to 2 years under certain
circumstances (Sections 112(0 (3H4)).
However, the Act provides an extension
of the residual risk standards for coke
oven batteries until January 1. 2020.
provided the owner or operator of a
coke oven battery complies with
technology-based standards on an
accelerated basis, and that these
technology-based standards become
more stringent over time.
Under this so-called extension track.
to receive the deferral of the compliance
data until the year 2020, the owner or
operator must achieve the following
short-term emission limitations by
November 15.1993: (1) 16 seconds of
visible emissions per charge. (2) 8
percent leaking coke oven doors. (3) 1
percent leaking topside port lids, end (4)
S percent leaking offtake systems. In
addition, by January 1.1998. the battery
must meet an emission limitation that
reflects the lowest achievable emission
rate (IAER). as defined in section 171 of
the Act The LAER regulations, also to
be promulgated by December 31.1992.
may be no less stringent than the
following short-term limits: 3 percent
leaking doors on batteries with doors
less than 6 meters (m) in height (i.e.. a
"short" coke oven battery) and 5 percent
leaking doors on batteries with doors 6
m or more in height (i.e., e "tall" coke
oven battery); 1 percent leaking topside
port lids; 4 percent leaking offtake
systems; and 16 seconds of visible
emissions per charge. (The
Administrator may consider an
exclusion for emissions from doors
during the period after the closing of
self-sealing doors or the total mass
emissions equivalent).
In the LAER rulemaklng. EPA must
establish "an appropriate measurement
methodology" for determining
compliance for coke oven doors. The
measurement methodology must
consider alternative methods "that
reflect the best technology and practices
actually applied in the effected
industries" and must ensure that the
final test methods are consistent with
the performance of such best
technologies and practices. If the LAER
standard is not promulgated by January
1,1998. section 112(i)(8) states that the
following short-term limits must be
achieved: (1) 3 percent leaking doors
(for short coke oven batteries). (2) 5
percent leaking doors (for tall coke oven
batteries). (3) 1 percent leaking topside
port lids. (4) 4 percent leaking offtake
system(s). and (5) 16 seconds of visible
emissions per charge, or the total mass
emissions equivalent, with no
exclusions for emissions during the
period after the dosing of self-sealing
doors (section 112(i)(B)(B)(ii)).
The EPA must review and revise the
LAER standard, as necessary, by January
1.2007 (section 112(i)(8)(Q). To
continue to qualify for the deferral of
the compliance date for the residual risk
standards, the owner or operator must
meet any revised LAER limits by the
year 2010 (section 112(i)(8)(O). The
owner or operator also must make
available to the surrounding community
by January 1.2000. the results of any
-------
S7S36
Federal fcegbtar / VoL 87, No. 234 / Friday. December 4, 1992 / Proposed Rules
risk assessment performed by EPA to •
determine the appropriate level of e
residual risk standard (section
U2UXSXED.
Section 112(0(8X0) of the Ad
provides that at any time prior to
January 1.1998, an owner or operator
may elect to comply with residual risk
standards under section 112(0 by the
required date rather than comply with
the LAER and revised LAER standard*
and compliance date*. Thus, coke oven
batteries can opt out of the extension
track, However, the owner or operator
would be legally bound to comply with
the 1995 MACT standards and the
residual risk standards as of January 1,
2003. If EPA has not promulgated
industrywide residual risk standards by
that time, the Agency must promulgate
residual risk standards for those
batteries that choose to meet residual
risk standards by 2003.
e. Regulatory Negotiation Approach
The EPA recognizes the need for
Federal regulation of coke oven
emissions and the many issues and
challenges posed la developing.
proposing, and promulgating standards
to meet the requirements of the Act
During the spring and summer of 1991.
EPA met with representatives of the
Industry, labor unions. States, and
environmental groups to discus*
available data to be used e* the basia of
the new regulations. A workshop format
was used to explore and clarify the
varying viewpoints. Following these
informal discussions. EPA announced
its Intention to establish a committee to
negotiate a new approach for the control
of coke oven emissions (57 FR 1730.
January 15.1992). and conducted formal
meeting* and informal workshop* over
the next several months to identify and
resolve the many issues assodatea with
the regulation of coke even emissions
(57 FR 4025. February 3.1992:57 FR
5267. February 13.1992:57 FR 6830.
February 28.1992:57 FR 19295. May 5.
1992). The Committee members are
listed in Table L
TABLE 1.—COKE OVEN BATTERIES
ADVBORY CCNMTTEE MEMBERS*?
TABU 1.—COKE Ovw BATTEME* Aow
SPRY COMMrrTg McMPcnaiBf Conftn
ued
OevU AnOMm.
vnumi
LanyDra
OttrtM Drevne
M«/«nOuMl_
Sim Ceel Conpeny.
OM a Co*» M%.
BpHtittf
ChertM KMUM —
AMecMton of toe* A* PoV
OevUttoMM —
TomRwtt -
JrtnStftt --
Mkftatf Stapfco _
BiweSWner —
SNitoy VhwMi _
MD 0«pe«nem ol »•
fetter a
tie tt
MU
US*. A
Mronnawtil r*nx*c6c* Agin*
cy.
VHUd
Using various forums. tKf Committee
discussed many challenging issue*.
including the emission data to be used
to select a standard, potential regulatory
formats and numerical emission *>"«**•,
visible emission monitoring methods.
coats and economic*, other emission
sources, end work practices. Associated
issues such, as enforcement and
implementation needs, legal aspects.
future research, and integration of the
proposed rule with EPA'* new
permitting system also were Identified
Several of the Committee meetings
were attended by representatives of
local citizens groups and members of
the unions representing the workers et
several coke plants. The union
representatives made useful
presentations to the Committee on
several Issues.
At the final negotiating session, the
major issues wan resolved
conceptually. Thereafter, the Committee
reviewed drafts of the regulatory
language and the preamble, and
resolved remaining issues. The
Committee members here agreed to
support the standard aa long as EPA
proposes and proomlgates a regulation
end preamble with the same substance
end effect of (he regulation and
preamble mat an the subject of the final
agreement.
It is important to note that the parties
to the negotiation concurred with the
regulation and preamble when
considered aa a whole. Inevitably in *
negotiation, this means that some
parties may have made concessions li
one area in exchange for concessions
from other parties m other areas. .
D. Summary of Proposed Standards
Applicability. The proposed stands
would apply to all existing coke oven
batteries. Including by-pcod
nonrecovery coke oven oetti
toner* ft*
of MX Co*
tonrecovery
all new col
end Ceri
BtMkMifcMB oT A*ef
iuctand
etteries. and
n batteries construct
on or after December 4.1992. A "by
product coke oven battery" la define*
a source consisting of a froup of ovei
connected by common walla, where i
undergoes destructive distillation uo
positive pressure to produce coke an
coke oven gas. from whlchhy-produ
en recovered. Table 2 in Section tt-.
would be used to resolve any disput
application of this definition to thee
batteries.
Emission standards. The propose!
standards would require that by
December 31. 1995. coke oven
emissions from each existing by-pre
coke oven battery not exceed: (l) 54
percent leaking doors tar short batti
end 64) percent leaking doors lor ta!
batteries, (2) 04 percent leaking tor
port lids. (3) 10 percent leaking oft
systam(s), and 12 second
seconds of viribh
January 1,2003. leaking doors fort
by-product coke oven batteries wot
limited to SJ percent, end emistio
from short batteries would decreas.
54) percent leaking door*. These 21
" & • .•• ^ «
vueesmon
based standi
standards wiD ap
stringent
ere promulgated under section 113
Unless otherwise noted, compliant
with visible emission standards w
be determined on a SO observation
miiinn average basis.
Viable emission limitations for
by-product coke oven battery
constructed at a new coke plant
("greenfield'' construction) and th
construction of a new battery at an
existing coke plant if It results In i
increase in the plant'e coke capac
would be based on AM emission c
performance achieved by nonrect
coke oven batteries, which an 04
percent li>tMr>g ^o***. topside pa
end offtake system(s). and to 34 s
of visible emissions per charge.
The proposed standard* also «
by-product recovery batteries tha
use a new technology in the futu
as larger ovens, operation under
negative pressure, or e pioueu w
emission points different from tl
identified in this rule. After Dea
1992. en owner or operator who
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1992 / Propped Rule*'" 5733'.
constructs a new by-product cob oven
battery or reconstructs • by-product
coke oven battery and uses a new by-
product recovery technology must apply
tor a case-by-cas* determination of
applicabla amiuion limitations. These
case-by-case Unit* must ba mora
stringent tban 4.0 percant leaking doors
for tall battarias. 3.3 percant laaking
doors for short batteries, 0.4 percant
laaking lids. 23 percent laaking
offtakes, and 12 seconds par charge, or
lass than the equivalent level of mass
•missions associated with these visible
emission limits.
For door emissions from new and
existing nonracovary coke oven
batteries, the proposed NESHAP
provides an option of either (l) meeting
and recording an emission limitation of
0.0 percent leaking doors, or (2)
monitoring and recording the pressure
in each oven or common battery tunnel
at least once each day to ensure that the
ovens are operated under a negative
pressure. For charging on existing
nonrecovery battarias, the owner or
operator must implement specific work
practices. New nonrecovery batteries
must Install, operate, and maintain an
emission control system for the capture
and control of charging emissions. If
new nonrecovery batteries are
constructed with lids or offtake systems.
these batteries must meet limits of 0
percent leaking lids and 0 percent
leaking offtakes.
Standards Jot extension of
compliance. As provided under section
112(i)(8) of the Act. the owner or
operator of an existing coke oven battery
may choose to comply with alternative
emission standards to qualify for an
extension of the compliance data for
residual risk standards, By November
15,1093. coke oven emissions from
existing by-product coke oven batteries
could not exceed 7.0 percent leaking
doors. 0.83 percent leaking topside port
lids. 4.2 percent leaking offtake
system(s). and 12 seconds of visible
emissions per charge. For nonrecovery
batteriea seeking an extension of the
compliance date for residu
-------
57538 Federal Rtgister / Vol. 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1M2 / Proposed Rules
limit will be approved If it it shown that
the alternative achieves i reduction in
coke oven emissions from the doors
equal to or greater than the emission
reduction that would be achieved by
door leak emission controls installed to
meet the emission limitations in the
proposed standards. The determination
of equivalency would be based on
maintaining an equivalent or lower
mass emission rate for coke oven
emissions emitted from the shed's
control device. Inspections for door
leaks under the shed would be
performed by the applicable
enforcement agency on a specified
schedule (weekly or monthly).
Inspections. Each performance test
would be conducted by a visible
emission observer, certified according to
the requirements of the test method and
provided by the applicable enforcement
agency at the company's expense. (The
formula for payment of expenses
included in the proposed standard may
be revised after a. specified period to
adjust the workload assumption, based
on the enforcement agency's
experience.) State agencies will be
delegated authority ensuring that the
inspections are conducted as required
under the proposed rule.
Each of the proposed visible emission
limitations is based on a 30-run average.
To determine compliance, a daily (once
a dav for 7 days) performance test
would be conducted for each coke oven
battery using proposed Test Method
303. "Determination of Visible
Emissions from By-product Coke Oven
Batteries," or proposed Test Method
303 A. "Determination of Visible
Emissions from Nonrecovery Coke Oven
Batteries."
For each daily test, the observer
would monitor and record five
consecutive charges from each battery
and conduct one valid and complete
inspection of all doors, topside port lids.
and offtake systems on each coke oven
battery. The daily test results end the
calculated 30-run average would be
provided to the owner or operator by the
observer. If the observer missed an
observation for a day. no compliance
determination would be made for that
day; calculation of the rolling 30-run
average would proceed with the next
valid observation made by the observer.
The inspection requirements for the
alternative standard for sheds is
different in that inspections will be
conducted once a week for safety
reasons. If compliance with the
alternative standard is achieved for 12
consecutive weeks, the inspection
frequency would be reduced to monthly
observations. If the limit is exceeded in
any monthly inspection, the monitoring
frequency would Increase to once a
week. Because of the reduced Inspection
frequency. Ihe alternative standard is
not to be exceeded for any single
observation and is not based on e 30-run
rolling average.
Work practices. The proposed work
practice standards would require the
owner or operator of an existing or new
coke oven battery to develop a written
plan describing emission control work
practices to be implemented for each
battery. The plan, required by November
IS. 1093. must include provisions for
training and procedures for controlling .
emissions from coke oven doors.
charging operations, topside port iids.
and offtake system(s) on by-product
coke oven batteries. Similar
requirements an proposed for work
practices at nonrecovery batteries for
door leaks and charging emissions.
Under specified conditions, the Agency
may require revisions to the plan or the
inclusion of additional work practices
or requirements. The Agency expects
work practice plans prepared for this .
rule and for OSHA requirements to be
compatible and that the company will
comply with both requirements.
For coke oven batteries subject to -
visible emission limitations under the
NESHAP on November IS. IMS. (i*.,
extension track batteries), the work
practice requirements would become
applicable following the second
independent axceedance of the visible
emission limitation far a particular
emission point in any consecutive 6-
month period. The second exceedance
is Independent if it Is separated from the
first by at least 30 days, or if the 29-run
average, calculated after deleting the
highest observation in the 30-day period
still exceed the applicable emission
limit A similar procedure is used to
calculate the independence in the case
of charging emissions, under which the
rolling logarithmic average la
recomputed, excluding the daily set of
observations with the Highest daily
arithmetic avenge. The owner or
operator would be required to
implement the work practice
requirements applicable to the emission
point by no later than 3 days after
written notification of the exceedance.
The rule would require that the work
practices be implemented each day until
the visible emission limitation for the
emission point is achieved for 90
consecutive day*.
The owner or operator of a coke oven
battery not subject to visible emission
limitations under the NESHAP until
December 31.199S. (l.e.. a battery not
on the extension track), would be
required to implement the provision of
the work practice plan for a particular
emission point subject to visible
emission limitations under this
NESHAP (I .a., coke oven doors, topside
port lids, offtake system(a). and chargin)
operation's) following the second
exceedance of a federally enforceable
State or local ordinance, regulation.
order, or agreement for than emission
point The proposed standards would
requin that the work practice
provisions be implemented within 3
days of receipt of written notification
from the applicable enforcement agenq
and continued until compliance with
the visible emission limitation is
achieved for 90 days from th«* Ust
exceedance.
For coke oven batteries with an
approved alternative standard for sheda
work practices for doors under the shec
must be implemented based on
exceedances of the alternative standard
for percent leaking doors under the
shed. If one side of the coke oven
battery does not have a shed, work
practices for coke oven doors must be
implemented based on exceedances of
the applicable emission limitation for
that side of the battery.
The Administrator may require
revisions to the work practice plan for
a particular emission point if then an
two Independent exceedancei in the fr
month period starting 30 days after thi
work practices an required to be
implemented. The owner or operator
must notify the Administrator of any
finding whether the work practices an
not mated to the causa or the solution
of the problem within 10 days of
receiving a notification from the
enforcement agency concerning the
second independent exceedance. The
Administrator may disapprove a
revision or a statement utat a revision
not needed. No man then two revisio:
per year may be requested; however, i
revision in nsponse to a disapproval <
a revision, voluntary revisions, and
statements that a revision is not need«
do not count toward this limit.
flans. The proposed standards als<
would require the Installation.
operation, and maintenance of a flan
system (or equivalent alternative cont
device or system) by March 31.1994.
the bypass/bleeder stacks of each
existing by-product coke oven batten
operation as of December 31.1995. u
is capable of combusting 120 percent
the normal gas flow generated by the
battery. New batteries must meet the
flan requirements when production
operations start
The flan system would be requires
be designed to meet EPA flan
specifications in part 60 (New Souro
Performance Standards), with certain
modifications to take into account th
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No., 234 / Friday. December 4> 1W2 /Proposed Rule*:.-. .57539
spedsl characteristics of the gts stream, •
For example, the ipeclflfatlon for Ml1, ,:
heating values In 40 CFR 60.1S(cM3) U .'•
revised under the proposed rule to .• -
establish a design specification for the .,
net healing value of coke oven •
emissions lor steam-assisted or air*
assisted flues of 8.9 Ml/son (240 Btu/
act) or greater. Instillation of the flan
will not constitute a physical or
operational change for the purposes of
determining the applicability of new
source review requirements. To qualify
for an exemption from the Bare
installation requirement, the owner or
operator must submit, by April 30.1993.
a formal commitment to permanent
closure of the battery. In no case may a
battery for which the owner or operator
has submitted such a closure
notification operate past December 31. .
1995.
Collecting main. The collecting main
would be inspected for leaks at least • ;
once daily under the proposed
standards. Any leaks detected would be
temporarily sealed within 4 hours.
permanent repair would have to be
initiated within S calendar days of
detection and complete repair within 19.
calendar days of detection unless
extended by the Administrator. The .
time and date of collecting main leaks.
temporary sealing, and repair also .
would be recorded.
Startups, shutdown*, end
malfunction*. These provisions would
require the owner or operator to develop
a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, which provides for
the operation of the source in
accordance with good air pollution
control practices lor minimizing
emissions, and for procedures for
comctlna the malfunction, as quickly as
practicable. Associated reporting ana
recordkeeptag provisions also are
included.
Reporting and ncordkecping
requirements. The proposed regulation
would require that certain records be
maintained and the following reports be
submitted: Compliance certifications.
notifications, and report* of
uncontrolled venting episodes and
certain startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions.
These requirements have all been
tailored to reflect the fact that the
enforcement agency (or its designated
agent) will be responsible for
conducting almost all of the
performance tests and compliance
determinations required under the rule.
Thus, then is no need for owners or
operators to inform the enforcement
agency about these matters. Moreover.
requiring owners or operators to report
back to the enforcement agency
^formation reported by the •• - >' .-/...:
- enforcement, agency to them would be ^.
poinUets. and impose unnecessary
additional financial burdens. In light of ,
these considerations, the compliance •
certification, reporting and . ....
• recordkeeping requirements address •
information needed by the enforcement
agency, that will be generated by the .
owner or operator.
For each 6-mooth period following
promulgation, the owner or operator
would submit a semiannual compliance
certification attesting that (1) No coke .
oven gas was vented through the
bypass/bleeder stack. (2) coke oven gas
was vented through the bypass/bleeder •
flare system, which operated properly.
or (3) a venting report-was submitted
because of problems with the bypass/ .
bleeder flare system. Semiannual
compliance certifications are also
required to attest that- (1) No startup.
shutdown, or malfunction event.
occurred, or such an event did occur
and a report was provided as required;
and (2) work practices were
implemented according to the work
practice provisions, if applicable.
The notification provisions include •
requirements for owners or operators to
notify the Administrator of the
compliance treck.etecUon that has been
made for each battery. In general these
provisions allow batteries to "straddle"
.(i.e.. elect both tracks) up until 1998.
when a binding commitment to one -
compliance track or the other must be .
made.
The recordkeeping provisions require
owners or operators to keep specified
records and make them accessible to the
Administrator. These include certain
monitoring records, records reflecting .
the Implementation of work practice
plan provisions, and records related to
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
Records also would be maintained of
data for the alternative emission
standard for doors, including opacity . •
data of the shed's control device.
parameters that Indicate the evacuation
rate is maintained, records of visual •
inspections, and operation/maintenance
records for a continuous opacity
monitoring system. For nonrecovery
batteries, records would be required for
daily pressure monitoring and work
practice* for charging or. for new
nonrecovery batteries, design
information for the charging emission
control system. In addition, design
information for flares or approved
alternative control devices or systems
would be maintained
Provisions are also included requiring
the owner or operator to make records
or reports required to be maintained or
required to be submitted to the
enfnirenent ananry anriahle 11 the •
euthorbvd collective bargaining ..-L. . .
.representtllve. far Inspection and ». . -
copying. The owner or operator most
respond to a request within a reasonable
-period of time. Except lor emission data
as denned in, 40 CFR part 2. documents
(or parts of documents) containing trade
.secrata^ confidential business,.. _. .
information do not have to be produced.
and the inspection or copying of .
documents will not affect any
• intellectual property rights of the owner
or operator in the documents. . •
Relationship to exttiaf refutations
and reqnirements. Provisions also an .
included in the proposed NESHAP that
would require the owner or operator to
comply with all applicable State ...
implementation plan (SIP) emission
limitations (or sub)ect to any expiration
date, federally'enforceable emission
limitations contained In en order.
decree, permit or settlement agreement)
for the control of emissions from
charging operations, topside port lids.
offtake system(s). end coke oven doors
in effect oo September IS. 1992. As
discussed further in Section D-D. any
change to these existing regulations
must ensure that the applicable .
emission limitations and format in effect
on September IS. 1992. will continue in
effect: that the dung* includes a more
stringent monitoring method and that
no emission increase will occur: or that
such modification make* the emission
limitations more stringent while holdinf
the format unchanged, makes the formal
more stringent i
emission limitations unchanged, or
makes both more stringent A provision
also Is included which addresses the
relationship of the coke even NESHAP
to $1l2(g) and which concludes that.
except In one specific instance. $ 112(g)
rements will not apply to sources
require
subject
to the code oveo. NESHAP,
II. Development of Proposed Standard)
A. Applicability •
1. Which Batteries Can Be Subject to
New Source Standards?
The proposed standards would applj
to new ana existing coke oven batlwiei
All types of coke oven batteries would
be subject to the NESHAP. including b;
product coke oven batteries (using
current or new technology) and
nonrecovery coke oven batteries. By-
product coke oven batteries operate
under a positive pressure and recover
by-products from the coke oven gas.
Nonrecovery coke oven batteries open
under a negative pressure and bun thi
coke oven gas for its fuel value; by-
products an burned and an not
recovered from the coke oven gas.
-------
57540 Federal latfatar / VoL 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4, 1992 / Proposed
Section 112(a) of UM Ad defines tn
"existing source" M toy stationary
source other than • new source. Tie
stationary source to which UM proposed
standard* apply U tech coka oven
battery at a plant site. There are 30
existing coke plants in operation (some
consisting of several coke oven
batteries). The EPA does to expect many
new sources to be constructed.
Under today's proposal, the
Committee agreed that two types of coke
oven batteries, with one exception.
would be subject to new source MACT
standards based on performance
achievable) by nonracovery coke oven
batteries. The first type Includes any
coke oven battery for which
construction 1s commenced after the
date of this proposal at a plant site
where no other coke oven batteries have
existed prior to this proposal This type
of battery is termed a "greenfiald"
battery. The second type of binary
subject to such standards is a new or
reconstructed battery built at s plant site
where other bstteries are located which
results in expansion of coka production
capacity there. (The only situation in
which new batteries of either the first or
second types would not be subject to
standards based on nonrecoveiy
technology would be a new batten
using a new recovery technology (see
S 63.302(c)). Performance standards for
such a battery would be developed on
a case-by-case basis, under section
112(g)oitheAcL)
The Committee also agreed on other
standards, based on performance
achievable by by-product recovery coke
oven batteries, for certain new or
reconstructed batteries bulh within
plant sites where existing coke ovens
are located. These Include a "pedup
rebuild" of en existing battery, or a new
battery constructed to replace one or
more existing batteries (a brownfield
battery), so long es the design capacity
of the padup rebuild or replacement
does not exceed that of the existing
battery (or batteries) that is rebuilt or
replaced. fTbe term "padup rebuild" is
discussed in section I-D. above.) The
Committee further agreed to subdivide
these batteries into two groups.
The first of these groups, composed of
several designated batteries, is subject to
standards identical to the standards for
existing batteries on the extension track.
For the second group, which includes
other padup rebuilds and brownfield
batteries the standards Include a more
stringent emission limitation for doors,
but are otherwise identical to the
existing battery extension track
standards.
The following considerations support
these distinctions. First, section
112(dM3) states that, at a minimum, new
source MACT standards shall reflect the
emission limitation achieved In practice
by the best controlled similar existing
battery. Section 122(dM8XA) further
states that EPA must consider basing
new source MACT standards for coke
ovens on the performance of
nonracovery coke ovens. Section
112(i)(8KB) and (Q specify that the 1993
and 2010 standards for coke oven
batteries on the extension track must be
based on the lowest emission rate that
is achievable for a coke oven battery that
is rebuilt or a replacement at a coke•
plant for an existing battery.
Finally Section 112(i){»)(F)
establishes the following special rule
that reconstruction of any source of coke
oven emissions qualifying for an
extension under thai paragraph shall not
subject such source to emission
limitations under subsection (f) more
stringent than those established under
subparagnphs (B) and (Q of the LAER
standards until January 1,2020. For the
purposes of that subparagnph, the term
"reconstruction" includes the
replacement of existing coke oven
battery capacity with new coke oven
batteries of comparable or lower
capacity and lower potential emissions.
After much discussion of these
provisions end the appropriate basis for
new source MACT standards, the
Committee agreed upon different
standards for the various types of new
and reconstructed batteries described
above. When a new battery Is buih at
a new plant site, or when cokemaking
design capacity Is increased at a plant
site when then have been existing
batteries, the new source standards an
appropriately based on nonracovery
technology (unless a new recovery
technology is being used and standards
are developed under Section 112(g)).
For the first group of "padup rebuilds"
or replacement batteries (several
batteries scheduled to be rebuilt in the
near term), the Committee decided that
the standards should be equivalent to
the standards for existing batteries on
the extension track. For the second
group of "padup rebuilds" or
replacement batteries, the Committee
agreed upon a more stringent limitation
for doors, recognizing that these
batteries an capable of a greater degree
of control for door emissions than
existing batteries on the extension track.
These standards, tn effect, tailor the
traditional "reconstruction" definition
to the special needs of the coke oven
emissions standards. Currently, a
reconstruction occurs when components
of e source era replaced or refurbished
to such an extent that (1) the fixed
capital cost of the replaced or
refurbished components exceeds SO
percent of the fixed capital cost that
• would be required to construct a
comparable new source, and (2) it Is
technologically and economically
feasible to meet the relevant standard(s).
alternative emission Umilation(s), or
equivalent emission limitation(s)
established by the Administrator or
Stste authorities. Today's proposal uses
this traditional definition when such a
project results In increased capacity at
the coke plant Although today's
proposal includes a definition of
'•padup rebuild" that differs from the
current reconstruction definition, this
rule will establish no precedent for
other categories of emission sources.
Industry representatives wen
concerned about the possible
application of section 112(g) of the
statute to sources subject to the coke
oven NESHAP. Section 112(g) indicates
that after the effective date of the Title
V permit program in a State, major
sources in the State that an modified.
constructed, or reconstructed may be
subject to case-by-case MACT
determinations. However section 112(g)
clearly requires such case-by-case
determinations of MACT only "when
no applicable emission limitations have
been established by the Administrator-.
The EPA will establish MACT standards
for coke oven batteries m this
rulemaking. and once a MACT standard
exists, case-by-case MACT
,
determinations for sources subject to a
national standard an not required. The
EPA also views case-by-case MACT
determinations for con oven batteries
as potentially disrupting the detailed
compliance schedule for these sources
established In section 112(d). which is
another reason to avoid making such
determinations. Therefore, except for
one specific instance noted below, the
Committee agreed that section 112(g)
should not apply to coke oven batteries.
2. Standards for Cold-idle Batteries,
Innovative Recovery Batteries, and
Foundry Coke Oven Batteries
• Some bstteries have been shutdown
because of reduced demand for coke.
repairs, or other reasons. Those
shutdown batteries that have not been
dismantled era referred to in the
proposed rule as "cold-idle'* batteries.
Cold-Idle batteries that an shutdown on
or after November 15.1990. an
considered existing batteries that may
qualify for the extension track, and
these batteries must meet the applicable
LAER limits when coke production
starts again. As discussed above, the
LAER limits that apply will be
determined by the general applicability
rules that govern the extension track.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / VoL 67. No. 234 / Friday, December 4. 1M2 1 Proposed Rdes 57541
For example. If • padup rebuild wu
undertaken, the more stringent limits
applicable to p«dup rebuilds would
apply, except for severe! coke oven •
batteries specified In the rule (See
Section 1-D •bow). Cold-Idle batteries
that shutdown before November IS,
1900. must request ipedal permission
to quality for the extension track, and
only • limited number will be approved.
(No more than 2.7 million Mg/yr—10
percent of the Industry's coke capacity
as of the end of 1990.) Once again, the
applicable LAER limits will be
determined under the general
applicability rules that govern the
extension track. The Committee also .
agreed to procedures lor determining
how to allow the limited number of .
cold-Idle batteries that qualify for the
extension track. In general, these
procedures allocate capacity on a "first-
come, first-served" basis, and Include
provisions to rescind allocations of
capacity where a serious intention to
utilize the allocation has not been
demonstrated.
If a new recovery cokemaklng process
is constructed In the future, case-by-case
emission determinations would be made
under section 112(gX2XB) to establish
emission limits that represent a level of
•mission control performance more
stringent than LAER. Examples of
potential technologies include larger
oven designs, ovens that operatdyunder
negative pressure, and new processes
that may nave emission points different
from those on conventional by-product
recovery ovens. The case-by-case
determinations for these batteries must
result In a level of emission control that
Is more stringent than that obtained by
LAER.
Under the proposed rule, the LAER
limits for door leaks from a battery that
Is owned or operated by a foundry coke
producer an slightly less stringent than
the LAER limits for other coke oven
batteries. In order to qualify for the
foundry coke producer LAER limits, a
battery also must have been owned by
a foundry coke producer on January 1,
1992. For the purposes of this
limitation, a foundry coke producer is
defined as a coke producer (i.e.. a
producer of coke of any kind) that is not
and was not on January 1,1992, owned
or operated by an integrated steel
producers, and had on January 1.1992.
an annual coke design capacity less than
1.2S million Mg/yr. Specified batteries
owned or operated by an Integrated steel
producer on January 1,1992. that an
sold to a foundry coke producer before
November IS. 1993, are considered to be
owned or operated by a foundry coke
producer on January 1.1992.' -
•
The proposed regulation c
product coke oven battery" i
The applicability section of the
proposed rule also specifies when coke
oven batteries that are new, padup
rebuild, brownfield. or cold-idle (If
production is resumed) are subject to
compliance determinations. The
requirements of the proposed rule
become applicable in a period after
startup that is to be determined by the
Administrator, but the period may not
exceed 180 days from die time that
production starts.
3. Definition of By-product Coke Oven
Battery
i defines "by-
as:
"(Al source cocuUUof of • group of ovens
connected by coauaon walls, worn coal
undertow destructive distillation under
positive pressure to produce cok* and coks
oven gas. from which by-product* an
recoveredL
x
The Committee recognized that there
mey be Instances where this language
does not precisely describe sources that
were considered during the negotiations
to be a single coke oven battery.
Accordingly, the Committee agreed that
Table 2 given below and titled
"Operating By-product Coke Oven
Batteries as of April 1992" would be
used to resolve any disputes that may
arise concerning whether particular
groups of ovens should be regarded as
a single battery under these regulations.
In adopting this definition oi "by-
product coke oven battery", the
Committee recognized that different
definitions an being used in other
programs. There was agreement that the
selection of the definition for this
regulation was not to be interpreted as
indicating that other definitions were
Inappropriate, or that these other
definitions should be conformed to the
definition in this regulation.
TABLE 2.—OPERATINO BY-Pftooucr COKE
OVEN BATTERIES AS OF APRIL 1,1992
TABLE 2.—OPERATINO BV-PROOUCT COM
OVEN BATTERIES AS OF APAC 1.1992-
Conflnued
No.
ABC Cok*. Tanvt. AL .-
Acme SUM. Chkago.«.
A/max Inc, MkWMown. OH
A/meo. me, A*Ntn& KY
BcMehini Si** B«thl**»m. PA
B«tfik*»m Suet. Bum* Hartx*.
•«.
BeMtfwn StML Uduwwa.
NV.
CHLnrv OM. Indtancpolfc. M —
B*B*«y
He.
t
10-
flM
HO* ruMM PA
USX. Owy. W
Wlmofaig r c««i Slav
•^AM.^MA UA/
vViVBV. ffwv.
B*s«y
f
2
A
2
3
4
2
3
•
t
10
11
1 .
2A-
2B
48
S
7
Pi
P2
P3N
P3S
P4
2
4
S
A
1
IB.
*9
2
1
4
3
4
S
c
1
1
2
3
7
e
13
14
IS
IS
20
B
23
5
7
t
2
3
B. Selection of Emission Points
Six emission points associated with
by-product coke oven batteries would b
subject to the proposed NESHAP. Then
emission points include the charging
operation, coke oven doors, topside pot
lids and offtake systems on the top side
of the battery, collecting mains, and
bypass/bleeder stacks. Charging and
doors an potential emission points for
nonrecovery batteries: however.
-------
S7542
JL^tsl.r /Vol. ^7. fe 2^4
• *
\
I
'•i
fi
lu
•ftbattanatdoaot
aanracoverv. coke oven batteries <
have topside port Uds. offuka sys
collecting mains, or bypassA>leeder
stack* with the potential leakage points
typical of by-prod act batteries.
During the coking cycle, cok* ovea •
emissions are released from leaks
around the doors at the ends of each
oven on by-product batteries. Leaks
from coke oven doors account for the •
majority (about 81 percent) of
nationwide emissions from coke oven
battedes at the baseline level During
the coke oven production cycle,
emissions can escape during the
charging operation when the hot oven is
being filled with coal and during the
coking period when the coal is beaked.'
Nationwide BSO emissions from the >
charging system account for about S
percent of national BSO emissions from
coke oven batteries at the baseline level.
Fugitive emissions from topside
battery leaks on by-product batteries
may occur from the offtake system that
ducts the off-gases to the collecting
main(s). from the topside or charging
ports that an covered with lids during
the coking period (but which may not be
sealed completely), and from the
collecting oMin. Because the offtake -
system Is composed of numerous "
closely associated emission points, the '
combined system (standpipes and caps,
goosenecks, stationary jumper pipes.
and connection flanges) is considered •
single emission point under the
proposed standard. Emissions boa
topside port lids and offtake systems
account for about 14 percent«
nationwide BSO emissions from by-
product coke ovea batteries it the
baseline level
No data are available to estimate a
mass emission factor and associated
nationwide emissions from collecting
mains. However, leak detection and
rape ir procedure* similar to those
promulgated for coke by-product
recovery plants and other industries can
be applied to ensure that leaks era
repaired promptly when or if they do
occur.
Raw coke oven gas also may be
released from bypass or bleeder stacks
on by-product batteries, usually due to
a process upset or an eouipment failure.
These releases are to relieve pressure
and to vent gas. which otherwise could
result In damage to the battery or the by-
product lecovery plant These events era
unpredictable, and the frequency and
duration an expected to vary widely
from battery to battery. Emission
estimates based on venting information
received from one local agency mdicsta '
that the BSO emissions from
uncontrolled bypassing of coke oven gas
are about the seme order of magnitude
a* the combined BSO emissions
the other emission points. •'. • ..•/.<..-
Por nonncovery batteries, charging
emission* can originate from the ovea .
when tt I* being charged by a coal
conveyor. Limited testing of charging
•mission* fton • nonncovery battery
yielded BSO meesunmenU below .
delectable lavek However, emission .
control equipment has been Installed at
the existing nonrecoveTy plant to collect
and captun any charging •mission* and
to route then to a control device. Doors
on nonncovery batteries do not teak ••
because the ovens in the battery an
maintained under negative pressure far
most or all of a* coking cycle.
Bniseion tests of tba combustion
stacks of nonncovery oven* Indicate'
that although BSO •missions an below
detectable Wvsk.«ther pollutants, such
as particulate matter end sulfur dioxide
(SOi). can be emitted from an ...
uncontrolled stack. However, pollution
control equipment I* available to control
tha •tniselons efpartSculate matter and
SOa a* neadedTh* testing data '•'•
currently avaflabw Indicate that the
nonncovery process has lower ' '• ' -.
lostoxkalrpoDutantcthan •.
theby-prodoctrw
TbeCotunttiM
.••-.•/»».•»•* »»•»•«!••; •• •» «:>».J--» •••
i battedea. Aaotbar potential source s* the
open etandpipee*adampand-6ff oven -
if the OMB to Ml completely or property
dampend-ofi from th« colUcUnginaia.
Pushing. waMaing, combustion
stack*, and the minor omission points
wen act selected a* omission point! far
regulation under the prapoMd NESHAP.
However. Iheea •mission WHUOM an
listed u a category for which EPA wiO
develop tad promulgate MACT .
standard* befon the year 2000 (57 FR
J1578, July U. 1902).. r .'•.".,.
CSaleettea ef Vrdfcit ftnitsten Poimt
Secttao*U2Q>Xl) 61 the Act altowi
EPA to ptOBWgate • design, equipment.
***** ^T^S5iot °Py^5M^ standard If
tt to not fbaafblt to prescribe or enforce
an emission Handera. Under section
. 11200(2). "no* feasible to prescribe or
•afore* an emlaskm standard* nemt
that tlM poDntant cannot be emitted
through t conveyance designed tnd
constructed to mot or ceptun the
pollutant (or (hat such • conveyance
would be inconsistent with Federal
State, or heal law). or (2) tha •• • •
methodology lo • partfcalar das* of
U pot practicable due to
iErVlhsa ooodudad thatvisiUe
ftiltu* or ooroMi«Uon.1f
oven, crack* develop la tha
or If tha erven is pushed out of
or U on aa accelerated schedule.
«MB,
co
iimi t» I^Mtillimlltttw CMVWtmd tO
an this happens, Inadequately
il (called ngnon eokO may be
pushed from the oven. L „
emissions from inadequate coking or
green coke an likely to contain BSO and
the organic carcinogens typical of coke
oven emissions. These compounds may
continue to be emitted when the green
coke is quenched with water. If cracks
develop in the oven well, raw coke oven
gas can enter the flue system and be
transported out of the stack.
Other minor emissions points wen
identified as potential but very
infrequent sources of coke oven
emissions. One is flue caps on top of the
battery that cube used to examine tha
flue system for gas combustion. If then
en creek* hi the oven well and these
caps have any openings, raw coke oven
gas can seek from the oven. Leaks also
can occar from crack* in tha brickwork
on the top of the oven or between the .
nfractory and the Md ring casting. These
leeks an very infrequent and are not
usuallyr
MoreoverTthe data considered by (he
Committee in developing the proposed
* 1 «• •- - - - - Vt ^ J t __
onusraa nmMs were CQUocted oy
visible emisdea %aet arooedarea.
Section lMUX«KB)of the Act
reqalres EPA to develop the LAER
standards using • oues amission
reduction fbmat unless the
Adminlstretor finds that «uch a mass
•mission standard would not be
practicable or enforceable. The EPA has
concluded, however, that • mass
•mission reduction format is not
practicable far the proposed MACT or
LAER standard* becaua* of the
technological and •conomlc difficulties
ogtc
din
Involved in the coDecUon and
measurement of coke oven emissions.
Except in special situations, such as tht
captun ana control of emissions by a
shed and Us control device. EPA views
a mess emission reduction standard tor
coka oven emissions as unenforceable
because the extant of ma mass amissioi
reduction could not be-measured
consistently er reliably. •
Generally, poOmanC emissions an
tha maas.cnncentratio
and flow rate of the pollutant stream.
Emission limit* that allow the n+tf rat
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / VoL 57. No, 234 / Friday, December 4. 1992 /.Proposed Rule*
57543
of emiuionf to be correlated with
material throughput or other production
parameter! can then be established. The
nature of the emission ratee
characteristic of the coking process doea
not allow the development of a strong
correlation between the mast of
emissions and production parameters.
Pint the concentration of pollutants
from the batteries varies with time aad
the concentration of coke oven gasea
may vary from battery to battery. Even
if the concentration could bewail -. -
characterized, thete would be . . •
difficulties in assessing the flow rate. .
Given these factors, a visible emission .
format la proposed for charging. •
emissions and for leaks from doors, lids.
and offtakes.
Although EPA is proposing an
emission derived standard for air.. •
pollution control devices on sheds that
capture pushing emissions, there la no
inconsistency with the Agency's general
determination to use a visible emission
compliance methodology. .Some
batteries use sheds to capture pushing
emissions and to route them to a control
device. Those sheds that an designed
with a high capture efficiency may also
capture and collect leaks from doors
under the shed. Consequently, the • .
emissions vented from the shed's • . .
control device can be measured and
attributed to the combined emission
points (leaking coke side doors and
pushing). However, the primary control
for door leak emissions is pollution
prevention by maintaining the doors
and seals and not allowing the leaks to
occur. Preventing the leaks will control
the emissions of caseous pollutants that
ere not controlled by the shed's
emission control device, and will avoid
the generation of waste from the control
device. The most direct and efficient
way of assessing the success of the door
leek control program is to count the
doors that are leaking under the shed.
Emission data collected during the
late 1970's and early 1980's for coke
side sheds Indicate that when doors
were not well maintained under the
sheds, very high leak rates were
observed (for example, up to 70 percent
leaking doors), and the control devices
wen not efficient at removing BSO. The
early test data indicated that emissions
from the shed's control device could be
higher than the emissions from well-
controlled doors without a shed. More .
recent shed designs increase the .
evacuation rate and have improved
emission control devices; however, no
new test data have been obtained that
separate the contribution of door leaks
and pushing emissions or that show
improved emission control for the BSO
from leaking doors. Visible emission
observations provide sound • -'
confirmation of the effectiveness of door
leak controls; consequently, a visible •
emission format was chosen for door
leeks under a shed. However, mass
emission sampling is necessary to
determine the shed's control device
effectiveness; consequently, a standard
based on mass emission reduction is
included in the proposed regulation for
The EPA la proposing an equipment
standard for bypass/bleeder stacks for
by-product coke oven batteries rather
than a visible emission standard. . •
Measurement of releases from these
slacks would not be practicable because
the frequency and magnitude of the
releases are not predictable and may
vary widely from battery to battery
depending on the reason for the release.
However, once emissions are released,
flares are effective in destruction of the
gases. Designed in conformance with
EPA specifications (modified for Btu •
content of coke oven gas). EPA estimates
flares achieve at least a M percent -
destruction efficiency. A performance •
standard la also included in the
proposed rule to allow a control device
or system that would provide 98 percent
or more control
The Agency la not proposing a visible
emission limit for collecting main leaks'
because of their Infrequent and sporadic
nature. The rate of leakage and number -
of leaks depend on many (actors, such
as the size and number of openings, the
condition of the collecting main, and
the frequency and magnitude of
pressure excursions or other process
and operating upsets. However, once a
leak from the collecting main Is
detected, the leak can be repaired withr
elative ease and certainty. For these
reasons, a work practice format is
proposed for this source.
D. Selection of Regulatory Format
Visible emission limit. One of the
major issues examined by the
Committee early in the negotiation
process was the regulatory format of the
visible emission standard. Should the
standard be based on any single
observation, the average of three
observations, everages over some longer
period, or a combination of these?
Would one. exceedance automatically -
Indicate noncompllance with the
standard, or would there be some
provisions for the owner/operator to
take corrective actions before an
exceedance would indicate
noocompliance?
Several Committee member* favored a
format modeled after the current State
regulations, which an not-to-be-
exceeded standards based on any single
observation for leaks and the sum of '
. four to seven observation! for charging.
Standards in SIPs and consent decrees
have traditionally been written as a
limit based on one Inspection. Some
Committee members felt that this type
of standard had been effective In the
past in reducing coke oven emissions. In
addition, the enforcement agency could
inspect a battery and assess Its
compliance status In a single day. If this
type of standard were strictly enforced.
ibis one-run "cap" would ensure that
the facility would maintain a low -
average performance to avoid any
exceedancea. IN contrast, depending on
the final numbers used In the limits, a
standard based on long-term averages
could be weaker than current State
regulations. •
Other Committee members favored an
averaging approach, such as a 30-day .
average. They believed that a 3O-day
average would more appropriately
reflect long-term emissions and long-
term exposure to coke oven emissions
and would ensure that total emissions
are maintained at low avenge levels.
This averaging approach would permit
the operator to detect trends of
deteriorating emission control
performance on a day-to-day basis and
to take corrective action to re verse (he
trends before a violation occurred. The
. avenging approach would tend to "-
dampen any variability In readings.
whether due to the process or human
observers. This approach would require
that the monitoring be performed every
day to determine compliance.
After much discussion there was • •
general agreement that the structure of
the standard and the stringency of the
numbers wen Interrelated, The relative
stringency of the two formats depends
upon the level of the numerical
standard selected. The Committee
agreed to a national emission standard
biased on the rolling average of 30
observations. Compliance would be
determined on an ongoing, essentially
daily basis using the observation for that
day avenged with the previous 29 daily
observations.
Inspection format. The Committee
agreed that the visible emission observe!
would be provided by the State or other
applicable enforcement agency and
would be funded by the company that
was being inspected. The cost billed to
the company would be based on the
current rate for an independent
consultant and labor hours would be
based on the number of batteries at the
plant (4 hours for one battery. 6.25
hours for two batteries. &2S houn for
three batteries, and appropriate
combinations of these for more than
three batteries). The enforcement agenq
-------
57544 Federal Register / VoL S7. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1802 / Proposed Rolos
may revise the payment formula baaed
on expenses actually incurred after 1 •
year of experience, and tht company • •
may request that tba agency provide.
information on tha actual cost*
incurred. Tha timing for tha initial
payment and tha frequency of payments
will ba determined in tha permitting
process. Stataa with approvad pannlt
process. State* with approved pen
program* and approved delegations
under section 112(1) of the Act are
responsible for conducting the
inspection* a* (pacified in the proposed
rule. No provisions in this proposed .
rule affect tha provisions for citizen
suits in section 304 of the Act-
The Committee agreed that the
effective and fair implementation of • >
these rule* requires that the
Administrator (or delegated agency) •
must perform all specified inspections, •
either by means of its own personnel or
contractors. Except where another
schedule is expressly provided, eech
emission point at each battery must ba
inspected every day. Industry will have
paid the coat of performing dally
inspections and will expect that they ba
performed eech day. Members of the .
public will rely on daily inspection* to
ensure compliance with the standards.
Thus, while the regulations provide
methods for addressing day* on which
inspections of one or more-emission .
points cannot be performed («£.. in
cases of bad weather). U is expected that
inspections will occur eech day.
Prior to a delegation of responsibility
for carrying out the inspections and
performance testa required under
section 309 of these rules under section
112(1) of the Act the regulation*
provide that the Administrator shall
carry out daily Inspections of each .
emission point et each battery, either
through EPA staff or a contractor. After
the inspection responsibility is
delegated to a State agency, the
Administrator shall resume carrying out
such responsibility whenever he teams
that a delegated agency ha* not done so.
The Committee agreed that the
Administrator's responsibilities to
perform daily inspections in both ca*aa
are mandatory duties that may be
enforced through citizen's suits under
section 304 of the Clean Air Act
Relationship to existing regulation*
and requirements. The Committee
discussed the relationship of the coke
oven NESHAP to SIP* that limit
emissions from coke ovens, m general.
the SIP limits ara lobe achieved et all
times. Although inspections for
compliance with SIP emission
limitation* could ba conducted dally, in
practice, inspections have occurred we*
frequently. The most frequent
inspection by agency personnel ia about
once a week and tha beat frequent isr' •*
eboutonceayear.TbaOirnnritta*).»-.rt>
agreed to a 7-day week inspection *
program for anfaning the NESHAP, to •
be conducted by die enforcement
egendee. When the coke oven NESHAP
Uimplementedbagmnlnilnl993or •
199S. depending en which regulatory
option the company selects, the daily
Method 303 monitoring program wiu
begin. Each day, for each battery and
emission source, a compliance
monitoring observation will be obtained
by a certified observer using Method
S03. Th« nsuto of each observation wiD
be avenged with the 29 previous
ervaaon*
Ions and • 30-run average -•;
calculated each day. • -' •'••'-•••
During the <<>«^"•»<«•»•. attention was
focused on the possibility of using these
same dairy monitoring observations to
determine compliance with the existing
SIPt, which are baaed on a single-pass -
standard. Many of the Statea that have) •
coke ovens currently use monitoring - •
methods for charging, lids, offtakes, end -
doors that are similar to the Method 303
that is being required for the MACT end
LAER standards under the coke oven /.
NESHAP. In some cases, however, th*)
Stale methods are incompatible with •-.
Method 303. Consequently, industry •* •
repreesmUtivee raised the question of
whether tha use of daily Method 303 -•
data would sabfact industry sources to '•'
more stringent enforcement of SIP • •''
standards than before the negotiationa.
Also, tn many cases, tha existing SlPa
require control of source* that ere not
addressed in this coke oven NESHAP. •
. For example, pushing emissions are not'
addie»ed in Method 303. Therefore, -
even if States wanted to use Method 303
for* cosnpUance, may would have to *•
obtain other compliance information for •
some emission points.
Two potential scenarios face the
States regarding the use of Method 303
readings to enforce SIP*. The first
scenario is one In which Method 303
fulfills the requirements of the SIP
monitoring method for the emission
points being considered by this
proposed rue. hi this situation the State
could use Method 303 reeoha for SIP
enforcement Tha second potential
scenario is one in which the State
monitoring method la substantially
different from Method 303. m this Utter
case the State could: (1) Continue using
Its own monitoring method, (2) revise
the SOP to allow die use of Method 303
to enforce the SIP. and/or (3) make
appropriate adjustments to the Method
303 data to account for the difference
between the methods. '
If Method 303 to substantially .
consistent with the SIP monitoring
method, or if the SIPs are revised to ••
aflow thsjmssj of Method 303 results'
feJChtttallQwuig Method 303 data to -
to tsedoireolry'or by specifying '-•-•' ^
appropriate modification* to Method •
303 deta),then the SIP limits pertaining
to charging, lids, offtake*, and door* •
could be enforced using Method 303
dairy consistent with the States'sufhi
pasahmta. • • • • - ' '••• - '
The Committee also discusser! some
issuee that would ariae from using
Method 303 data to enforce the SIP* on
• daily basis. On* of the mater industry
concern* we* how to ensure that tha •-
•vaibhllity.of more data doe* not after
the we^m which SP compliance, is--• •
currently determined. HhtoricaHyr^ •
State* have wed discretion In punning
violation* and sneering penalties based
on tha severity of BoncompUanoa. The
industry foele that ft ha* been able to
comply with the SIP under existing- •
enforcement policies and that SIP -
enforcement procedure* were not a perl
of the coke oven NESHAP. The State* •
pointed out that enforcement under tha
existing SIP* could occur move •••<•-.
frequently when compliance wtth the
SIP we* questionable. OB thi* issue, thi
Committee decided that« change in thi
r i-..i..«>n.i. —»...i.f..«rf •
_^
constitute an increase In the stringency
of the SIP. An eiooeptioo would be -.; •
Umcrod^ to a particular SIP.
freouencyofobearvationewilllncreaai
if Method SOS te compatible with the .
SIP monitoring method,** the ' '.'••
enforcement policy In using the data fa
left to the discretion of the anforoamet
The Co
• 2. ~ »•
litt*
id that the level
m agreed
of SIP emission Hnritation* «nd formal
(sfatgle-pasa ». munVdav) far coke ora
oraiot to teviaad to be tees stringent
than they were prior to September IS.
1992 (Le, no backstidiog). Thus, SIPs
that are more stringent than section 11
standards (or SIPs containing
requirement* not direcUv required by
aaction 112 standards affecting tha sai
source) need not be modified to confc
to those section 112 standards. In
addition, the atatnte creates constrain
on modification of certain SIP*. Sectt
193 provide* that any SIP* In effect a
the data of enactment of the 1990
amendments in any aree which is a
nonatlalnment area for any air polhit
may not be modified after such
f^ffffiifnj Jn may manner unless the
modification ensure* auuivalent or
greater emission reductions of such <
pollutant*. • •
The Committee agreed that
backslidmg abouki not occur IB
attainment areas. The Committee ab
agreed that if • SIP to revised to chan
the monitoring method then fcmeyl
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1991 / Proposed Rule*
5754S
appropriate to revise the SIP at the same
time to maintain a comparable level of
stringency. Thus, under this approach.
EPA would use the statutory provisions
and the agreements reached by the
Committee to disapprove any SIP
revision that represents backsliding.
This does not mean that changes to die
SIP are not permissible. A modification
can be made if the modification Is
consistent with other requirements of
section 110 of the Act In addition, the
modification must: (1) Ensure that the
applicable emission limitations aad
format ta affect oa September IS. 1991.
will continue la effect, or (2) Include a
change la the method of monitoring
(except frequency unless indicated la
the SIP) that to more stringent than the
monitoring method used prior to
September IS. 1992, and that ensures
coke oven emission reductions greater
than the emission reductions required
prior to September IS. 1992. (for such
changes, the burden of proof falls upon
the initiator of the change and must be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Administrator), or (3) make the emission
limitations more stringent while holding
the format unchanged, make the format
more stringent whfle holding the
emissions limitations unchanged, ar
make both more stringent This last '
provision does not preclude futuit
emissions a foraging, with the approval
of the permitting authority, at a cola
plant that win meat battery-by-bettery,
the individual emissions limitations and
format in effect on September IS. 1992.
For example, if at some point in the
future a State revises its SIP to lower
emission limitations for one or more
batteries (while holding the format
constant), the State could allow
emissions averaging to meet the lower
limits, provided that each battery did
not exceed the applicable emissions
limitations and formats in affect oa
September IS. 1992.
The Committee also discussed me
relationship of the coke oven NESHAP
to section U2(g) of the Act which
establishes requirements for
modifications of existing sources
Industry raised concerns regarding the
potential for application of eectioa
112(g) to sources subject to the coke
oven NESHAP. The Committee agreed
that section llZfc) should not apply to
such sources and that 0*^f conciusioa Is
supported by the statute. The sUrste
creates an elaborate compliance
schedule for sources subject to these
regulations under sections! _
112(0. Application of section 112(g)
wooid disrupt that schedule and would
be contrary to congressional Intent The
section 112(g) regulations are yet to be
proposed, and application of section
112(f) would create tremendous
uncertainty and potential delay far
sources planning changes. Therefore.
the Committee concluded that section
M2(g) should not apply to sources
subject to the coke oven NESHAP. .
except in one specific instance
discussed below.
E. Selection ef Emission LUnltt
Data bast end con/kfence fevecs. The
Committee next dealt with the major
issue of the numerical enisstan limits
for the 30-day average. The initial
discussion concerned die choice of
confidence level to be used to establish
the limits. The industry representatives
stated that a level based on the 95 or 99
percent confidence level does not
represent the parforsaanca of the beet
batteries because batteries controlled as
wrell as moaeon which the kmit was
based would exceed the standard 4 to
conditions. However, there were a •• •
limited number of observations n*de
(generally over a few days of operation).
and these dsta do not necessarily reflect
current emission control performance.
The second data base consisted of .
recently collected data that had been
-qualified- Car this effort These data
were collected by companies as they
monitored their performance, and by
State or local agencies during _
compliance Inspections. The data were
qualified for use in this' rulemakmg
effort by determining that the test
methods wed to collect the data were
reasonably dose to tt*f proposed
Method 303. The recently collected data.
Included many snore obeanationsthaa
were obtained in the earlier EPA. .
inspections, end the) observations • •'
covered Be ma! months of operation. •.
For example, eeverml hundred
*A**^^^^tA*^^m AltAft Ao««aft ^^^^M . 99J9
percent) wen inappropriate. After some
discussion, dn Committee agreed to a
relatively high confidence level (greater
than 95 percent) in establishing
•mission limlu.
The Committee reviewed available
data bases U characterize emiasloe.
control performance. One data base.
which was used in EPA's 1987 proposal.
consisted of observations made by EPA
bom 1979. to 1903. This data base was
well documented with respect to the
method used, emission controls that
were ia place, and the battery operating
the November t993 limits to 3
-------
57546
1
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 234*7 Friday. December .4. ' 1992 I Proposed RulMr..:. _ . . .
TABU 3—PWOSED Uurrs FOR EXSTMQ BY-PRODUCT BATTER««^ :/ *; .^'"'.' '*..!? V
MACT
I2O1W
11/1 s/n
ouovto
A» o*»»*xx»,ru>
OnttkM.PU>
•.0
*4
14
04
10
If
u
S4
M
04
M
12
T4
»JO
10
043
«4
1*
'• 44
• 44
S4
.04
14
Vtt
4J
4J
X
0.
a.
11
Ml oM ^p^M VI Vb) IMH tM e
The November 1993 fUtutory limit of
8 percent leaking doon was determined
to represent a battery with a long-term
average performance of S J percent
leaking doors. This long-term Average -
yield* a limit of 7 A percent for the 30-
run average (based on the Polsson
distribution, a high (greater than 95
percent) confidence level, one
observation per day for 30 days, and 100
doors per battery). For offtake systems,
the S percent limit was converted using
the same assumptions to a long-term
average of 34 percent, which yields a
30-run average limit of 4.2 percent. The
November 1993 limit of 1 percent .
leaking topside port lids would require
a long-term average performance 010.45
percent, which yields a 30-run average
limit of 0.83 percent The charging limit.
16 seconds of visible emissions per
charge, was derived from a long-term
average of 10.1 seconds per charge. This
long-term average converts to a 30-run
calculated as a log average of 150
observations (five per day for 30 days)..
Approach/or MACTojidlAER. The '
Committee reviewed and was aware of
the Act's requirements that MACT is to
be based on a level that is no less
stringent than the average emissiorl
limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of sources and
that LAER is to be based on the level of
performance described in section 171 of
the Act The Committee considered
these requirements in their evaluation of
the data.
The batteries with the best emission
control performance were used to
develop a data base that would Include
the top 12 percent of all batteries with
respect to emission control The data
base included the batteries at the USS
coke plant in Qairton, Pennsylvania;
Geneva Steel in Provo. Utah; Sharon
Steel in Monessen. Pennsylvania; LTV
Steel In Chicago. Illinois; and
Bethlehem Steel. Bethlehem.
Pennsylvania.
The Committee agreed that the
proposed emission limitation for coke
oven door leaks, the most difficult of the
various emission points to control.'
should distinguish between doors on
short ovens and those on tall ovens.
Distinctions were made for door leaks •
on short batteries (batteries with oven*
less than 6m la height) and tall ' .
batteries (batteries with ovens 8 m or
more in height) with a slightly less
stringent standard for coke oven doon
on tall batteries because they are more
difficult to control (The statute in {set
draws b«tteries by
January 2010. As an alternative to th
door standards (o be met in 1998 ant
2010, the owner or operator of a coki
oven battery with fewer than 30 ovei
could elect to comply with a standai
leaking obi
oftwoorfowei
d<
per battery. Emission limitations for
other emission points (4*2 percent
leaking offtake system*. 0.83 percen
leaking topside port Bds, and 12
seconds of visible emission per chai
by November 1993). were negotiate)
be reduced to 2.5 percent leaking o<
port lids. ano*12 seconds of visible
emissions per charge by January 19
-------
Federal ftcejbtsjr / VoL 57. No. Q4 f Friday. December 4. 1W2 / Proposed Rules
57347
The Comaiittoealao agreed that
padup rebuilds and brownfie*d cote
oven batteries could remain oo the
extension track established by the
battery or battery design capacity DMA
•hey replace. Tlw Unite discussed above
also epply to certain designated
brownfield tad padup rebuild batteries.
These batteries (Bethlehem Steel's
Burnt Harbor Number t battery.
National Steel's Great UkM Number 4
battery. and Kopper*' Woodward
Numb** S battery) were nandfethered.
because the Committee decided that tht
planning process far these batteries was
already weU underway and (hat these
protects should be treated differently
than protects far which planning to act
so Eu *lont> Comment is specifically
invited oo wk«tner companies. mot
represented ta those negotiations (etther
directly ot through trad* associations).
have otbar comparable coka oven
projects underway which ahouldha
added to das 11*4. For these Units to
remain applicable. these battalia* must
commas oMMfeuctlon before fuly 1.
1996. or ana year aftar receiving a
coostiucuoa ponasX whichever it •
earlier. Slightly •en stringent door teak
standard* apply. to all other browafietd
or padan rebuild ooka oven batteries.
Thaaa emission Hafts ara pcopoead at
4.0 perrert bating
-------
37548
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4, 1M2 / Proposed Rule*
and its control device control fi'td
of hazardous air pollutants aa well as or
better than the applicable limit on the
percent of fa doors that ere allowed to
leak. One fact that waa considered by
the Committee waa that coke oven
•miuiona consist of paniculate matter.
Including BSO that the control device
would capture. The principal gaaeoua
components of concern are benzene,
toluene, and xylene. The Committee
decided that any equivalency
comparison of the use of sheds to
control coke oven gas should include
the consideration of this fact Under the .
proposal, an owner or operator desiring
to obtain approval of en alternative
standard must first submit a plan to the
Administrator. A complete test plan is
deemed approved if not disapproved
within 60 days.
Two options are presented for testing
the shed end Its control device. The first
option requires the owner or operator to
determine the control device's removal
efficiency for paniculate matter by
sampling at the inlet and outlet of the
control device. This resuk is then used
in an equation to calculate the allowable
percent leaking doors under the shed.
The basic assumptions of the equation
to determine the alternative limit are
that: (1) Door leek emissions ere
exponentially proportional (2J power)
to the level of percent leaking doors, (2)
hazardous pollutants such as benzene,
toluene, end xylene that escape capture
are accounted for In the equation, (3) the
control efficiency for BSO is
approximately the seme as the control
efficiency for perticulate matter, and (4)
the weight ratio of benzene, toluene,
and xylene to BSO to 0.4,
The second option allows the owner
or operator to measure the ratio of
hazardous air pollutants that escape
capture to the uncontrolled BSO
emissions instead of using the ratio of
0.4. This measured result for the ratio is
used in an equation to calculate the
alternative standard for the door* under
the shed.
The owner or operator must submit
the results of the test to the
Administrator, along with other
information, in support of its
application for an alternative standard.
Except in one situation, the
Administrator must affirmatively
approve the application for the
alternative standard to apply. The
exception coven applications for sheds
other than new sheas at extension track
batteries seeking an alternative standard
replacing the 1993 LAER standard
(5 63.304(bXD) for doors. Because the
compliance date for these standards to
so close, the Committee agreed to a "fast
track" approval process for these
applications, under which en • -
application filed by e specified iWedltne
to deemed approved, if not disapproved
within 60 days. The resulting alternative
standard, however, to valid for only one
year, after which an affirmative
approval to needed. The doors under the
thed will be Inspected once e week by
the applicable enforcement agency. The
exceedance. The hazards associated
with inspecting doors from the bench
were considered in fashioning this
inspection scheme. The standard to
expressed as e not-to-be exceeded
standard because of the reduced
sampling frequency. An edhistment wee
made 10 the equation for the alternative
standard to account for the conversion
of e 30-run Umit (00.7 percent
confidence level) to en equivalent limit
baaed on one inspection per week and
the 08 percent confidence level m
addition, a cap of IS percent leaking
doors to included to omit the upper end
of the number of allowable leaks. This
PLD limit would be based on reeding
from the yard and therefore would be
equal to 21 PLD reed from the bench
under the shed.
The Committee also wanted to ensure
that the shed and its control device were
properly operated end maintained to
consistently echieve the level of control
demonstrated during the emission test
During the teat to determine control
efficiency, the owner or operator must
thoroughly inspect the emission control
systems to ensure that it to operating
properly, monitor for visible emissions
theteecape capture by the ahed when
coke to not being pushed, and monitor
the opacity of the shad's exhaust The
owner or operator must provide data
and propoee an opacity standard for the
exhaust from the control device based
on the highest 0-minute opacity during
the performance test, if an opacity of 0
percent to not achieved during the test
m addition, the exhaust from the
control device must be monitored for
opacity either by continuous opacity
PtOft1 *OTT^ft e¥TeA9QUI OT OJrtUsVBfl leUKuOQ
0 observers, and certain parameters
must be monitored to ensure that the
evacuation rate to maintained at the
level observed during the test The shed
will be observed weekly for coke oven
door emissions that escape capture. If
visible door emissions are detected, the
Administrator may require a
performance last to evaluate the shed's
capture efficiency. In addition to these
specifications, the Committee agreed to
certain design criteria for new sheds and
their air *»«»«in«j systems. The purpose
of these criteria to to ensure appropriate
capture of coke oven emissions In order
to minimize worker exposure to coke
oven emissions, In order for aa
alternative standard tu be approved for
a new shed, one of two demonstrations .
must be made. The options open for e
new shed are to submit e demonstration
modeling the concentrations under the
shed or a showing that the shed to
designed in accordance with generally
accepted engineering principles far the
effective capture and control of
particular emissions (including BSO) aa
measured at the shed's perimeter, its
control device, end at the bench level.
m applying the second tact, the
Administrator will be looking et
whether the cost of additional
engineering controls that may be
technologically feasible bear e
reasonable relationship to protected
additional reductions In concentrations
of perticulate emissions (including
BSO). For example, if the evacuation
system for e proposed new shed to
designed for a particular evacuation
rate, a higher rete would not be required
if this higher rate significantly raised
^B ooetSj but bad no
DDoct GO u&o cevtuio
of the shed, or on expected
concentration of perticulate emissions
(including BSO) et the beach level
Quarterly inspections ere required to
check the structure! integrity of the shed
end control device) end to inspect for
Failure to meet the requirements for
the ahed and its control device will be-
considered e violetton. Bxceedancea of
both the alternative standard end/or the
applicable •*n*>flfl*1 limitation far coke
oven doors not covered by e shed on the
same day to one violation. For purposes
of the triggers for implementation or
revision of work practice plans, each
side of a battery subject to the
alternative standard to treated
independent exceedance (see discussion
below) does not apply to the abedded
side of the battery. Thus, if the shed to
only on one side of the battery, work
practices must be implemented on the
side of the battery without the shed if
the applicable emission limitation for
that side to exceeded. Exceedance of
percent leaking doors timUs either alone
or together to e violation.
C. Work Practice Jtequireaients
The Committee considered severe!
approaches to meeting the requirement
for promulgation of work practice
regulations pursuant to Section
112(d)(8)(B) of the Act In general, the
work practice requirements could be
specific to each Individual battery or a
net of universal work practices could be
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1992 / Proposed Rule* 57549
developed. The Committee also
considered requiring the Industry to
develop e written plan that Identifies
those work practices best suited to each
Individual battery. Still another
consideration was how to best
coordinate with the OSHA work
practice requirements for the control of
employeee exposure to coke oven
emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029).
The OSHA regulations require a series
of detailed engineering and work
practice controls to maintain employee
exposure to coke oven emissions below
the permissible exposure limit of 150 ug
of BSO/M1 of air (8-hr avenge). For an
existing coke oven battery (in operation
or under construction as of January
1977). the employer must apply the
engineering and work practice controls
died in the regulation; for a new or
"rehabilitated" battery (I.e.. rebuilt.
overhauled, renovated, or restored from
the pad up after January 1977). the best
available engineering and work practice
controls must be implemented. Among
the required engineering controls for
existing batteries are the use of stage,
sequential, or pipeline charging
methods; coal handling and larry car
controls; ready access to door repair
tadlltlea; and maintenance of span door
inventories.
The OSHA work practice
requirements cover charging, coking. '
pushing, and maintenance/repair. For
charging operations, the OSHA rules
require the employer to establish and
implement a written inspection and
cleaning procedure for each-battery and
a written charging procedure that
addresses each of several specified
requirements. During coking, the battery
must be operated according to a written
procedure that includes: (1) Repair.
replacement, and adjustment of coke
oven doors, chuck doors, and door
Jamba: (2) door and Jamb cleaning after
each coking cycle: (3) a door leak
inspection and corrective action
program: (4) luting of doors for each
coking cycle and reluting as needed for
leak control; and (5) checking controls
to maintain uniform pressure in the
collecting main. The OSHA rules also
require that the employer operate the
battery according to a written procedure
for pushing operations; included in the
requirements are several measures to be
taken to prevent green pushes. A written
procedure for maintenance and repair of
least every 6 months, a written
compliance program to reduce exposure
by means of engineering and work
practice controls.
All written procedures required by
the OSHA rules must be included In the
annual employee training program
required by 29 CFR 1919.102900. Each
written plan must be submitted upon
request and be available at the work site
for review by OSHA representatives.
The Committee also
the batteries also is required. This plan
must require regular inspections for
defects in the control systems; damper
system: h«V'ng system; oven brickwork;
and coke oven doors. Jambs, and seals
with necessary repairs completed at
soon aa possible. The employer also
must develop, implement, and update at
pursuant to section U2(d)(8) (A) and
(B). the use of sodium silicate as a
supplemental sealant to control leaks
from self-sealing doors. The use of
supplemental sealants on self-sealing
doors has been shown to be effective
when the material is used properly.
Proper use involves the application of
small quantities to seal small leaks, .
removal of the material at the end of the
cycle, and avoiding the application of
the material to adjusting bolts, springs.
and other door component*. Examples
of improper use, such as excessive
spraying and coating of equipment and
attempting to seal large door leak*, were
also given. In some cases, the use of a
supplemental sealant may mask a more
f«l problem that needs to be '
corrected, such as a damaged door seal
or Jamb that should be repaired. Alter
considering these factors, the Committee
decided that the use of supplemental .
sealants such as sodium silicate should
not be mandated far door leaks;
however, use of sodium silicate could
be Implemented on a site-by-eUe basis
pursuant to the work practice plan
discussed In the following paragraph.
The Committee agreed that, although ~
work practice requirements should
differ from battery to battery, consistent
implementation of work practice
requirements will be an important factor
in meeting the proposed emission limits
and in reducing coke oven emission
levels at all batteriee. Thus, the
Committee agreed that the proposed
rule would require (he owner or
operator to prepare and submit to EPA
by November 15. 1993. a written coke
oven emission control work practice
plan that includes a description of the
work practices to be implemented for
each coke oven battery. The work
practice plan would not supersede
requirements of work practice plans
required under 29 CFR 1910.1029. The
Committee expects that plans prepared
for this proposed rule and for OSHA
will be compatible and that the •-
company will comply with both. The
Committee also agreed that during any
implementation period, failure to - -
implement one or more provisions of
the plan and/or any tecordkeeping
requbement(s) during a day for a given
emission point would constitute a single
violation.
Five bask subject areas would be
covered under each plan: Training, and
procedures for controlling emissions
from coke oven doors, charging
operations, topside port lids, and offtake
systems on by-product coke oven
batteries. Work practices for
nonrecovery batteries must address
procedures to control emissions from
^•tffinfl uid from doors (e.g..
smoldering coke or coal on the door
sill). Within each subject area, the
committee agreed upon a list of priority
topics that were felt to have aa
important relationship to a work
practice program for preventing
exceedances of visible emission
limitations. Finally, plans must provide
procedures for maintaining a daily
record of die performance of plan
requirements, which would be certified
by the owner or operator. The
i part of the pi
approaches, which would reduce
burdens and costs.
For the owner or operator of a coke
oven battery subject to the visible
emission limitations for the extension
track on November 15.1993, the
proposed rule would require the
applicable work practice provisions to
be Implemented following the second
Independent exceedance of the visible
emission limitation for an emission
point in any 6-jmonth period, and to b«
Implemented no later than 3 days after
written notification of the exceedance.
This 5-month period Is a rolling 180-
-------
57550
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1W2 / Proposed Rule*
If the owner or operator is not subject
to visible emission amitstions until
December 15,199S, the proposed rote
would require that the applicable work
Eectice provision* be Implemented
Uowing the second exoeedence of e
federally enforceable State or local
ordinance, regulation, order, or
agreement for coke oven door*, topside
port lid*, offtake systems, or charging •
operation*. The owner or operator
would be required to Implement the
work practices no later than 3 days efter
receipt of written notification from the
applicable enforcement agency and
continue the work practice* until the
visible emission limit for the emission
point is not exceeded for 90 day*.
The Administrator mty require
revisions to the plan provisions for a
particular emission point, if there are
two independent exceedances in the ••
month period starting 30 days after.the.
work practices en required to be
implemented. As In the case of the
trigger* for plan implementation, the
Independence requirement doe* not
apply in certain Instance* When a plan
1* called for revision, the Administrator
may require additional subjects to be
addressed, if a finding Is made thet
without plan coverage of the additional
ere* or areas, there 1* * reasonable
probability of further erreedancea.
Within ten days of receiving notification
of a second axceedance (or a second
indepandentexceedance.es
appropriate) from the certified observer
or the enforcement agency, the owner or
operator must notify the Administrator
of any finding of whether the
exceedances ere not related to work
practices. The Administrator may
disapprove a revision or a statement that
a revision Is not needed. If the
Administrator requests a plan revision.
the owner or operator must submit a
revised plan within 60 days, unless en
extension is granted. No morelhan two
revisions per year may be requested;
however, any revisions in response to a
disapproval of a revision do not count
toward this limitation.
When the work practices are required
to be implemented for e practicnlar
emission point, specified lecord keeping
requirements pertaining to that emission
point are also triggered, and remain m
force for the duration of the
implementation period. These include
the plan provisions providing for a daily
record to be maintained showing either
the work practices performed or those
not performed, certified by the owner or
operator. Records also would be
required for training programs, audits of
the effectiveness of certain aspects of
the work practice program for the
emission point, end when applicable for
doors, records of the inventory of spare
doors mni iambs maintained oosite.
ft Startup. Shutdown.And Halfuaction
Acquirement* ' • •
The Committee found that preventing
end reducing the occurrence of
malfuncttonj that resuh m the release of
coke oven emission* or raw coke oven
gas was en Important goal of the
regulation. In addition, if a malfunction
does occur, actions can be taken to
inlntinliv the environmental •
The Committee concluded, far the
proposes of these proposed standards, to
define • malfunction as:
"any SMOOM. Infreauaai. ted sot
reasonably prewntabu aflura of air
pouuttoB (jQuoo! equipment, process
eouipmseA. or e process to opsnts in a
DORM! or usaal ananasr. Fallurss caused In
part by soar malnteaapoi or oanhMi
opemtioa art aot saaUbacttoaa."
The proposed rule would require
compliance with the coke oven
NESHAP emission limits et *Q times.
except during startups, shutdowns, end
malfunctions. This floes not saean that
owners and operator* ere automatically
excused from complying wf|)i the
emission limits) during startup*,
shutdowns, end malfunctions. First, the
owner or operator must demonstrate
that e particular event was due toe
malfunction, startup, or shutdown.
Also, the proposed rule would require .
the owner or operator to develop •
startup, shutdown, end malfunction
plan, which describe* procedures for
operating and maintaining the source
during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunctions The plan would explain
the actions thet would be taken by the
owner or operator when startups.
shutdowns, and malfunctions occur.
The pkn may address events that are
not malfunctions, and must provide
procedures for minimizing exceedancee.
using good air pollution control
practices. The plan would be
maintained onsite for Inspection and
revised upon request by the EPA.
Malfunctions must be corrected es
soon as practicable after their
occurrence according to the procedures
in the plan, and records would be kept
of any period* of startup, shutdown, or
malfunctions. In the event of a
malfunction, the owner or operator
would be required. If practicable, to
Inform the certified ooseuei when the
observer is performing his/her duties, or
inform the enforcement agency within
24-boon end include an explanation
why me certified observer was not
lotified. The owner or operator would
i with a written
' circumstances
within 14 days. The Administrator will
review the report to determine if e
malfunction occurred. If the plan was
followed, end If revisions to the plan are
required. The Committee agreed that no
acddent prevention plan would be
required. However, this decision in no
wey affect* the euthority of the
Administrator to regulate coke oven
batteries under section lUlr) of the Act.
or any obligation under the
Occupational SeJety and Health Act or
other law*. Including any obligations to
prepare acddent prevention plena.
Based on pest experiences with coke
oven batteries aad aimilar malfunction
in other regulations, EPA
not expect that there will be many
occasions on which tH* malfunction
provision* of this reguletion will be
utilized. However, if this projection
turn* out to be enoneous, EPA will give
serious consideration to **"*g'n[ the
malfunction provisions through
subsequent rutanaking. m addition,
EPA expects to look carefully st
^•ifinn-fl^ifl ^i^tm^ particularly those
that are repetitive in nature. Because of
this Increased ecrutiny, EPA anticipates
thet It will be progressively mote
difficult for an owner or operator to
sustain a malfunction claim In such
role also requires en
ttor of en affected coke
oven battery "to operate end maintain the
battery end h* air pollution control
technology aieJldaee.taiudlng
during startups), shutdowns end
MVUUWl*. «UW WTCUM VI V
follow up these reports \
report explaining the di
far miiitmt«jt»g» Ttnltrlifi
required by the eppbceble performance
standards. Those provisions apply only
to emission* end eources of emissions
affected by the proposed standards,
The EPA has need this specific
regulatory epproach to Implement
individual technology-based standards
since the early 1B70'*. This epproech
wes not intended to provide the
Administrator with the ability to force
batter performance (lower emissions)
than required by the technology-baaed
standard. Rather, this approach U
founded on the common sense view that
control technologies that are not
properly operated end maintained do
not achieve the emission reduction
required by the technology-based
standards.
Generally, this epproech eddresvu
situations where the standard does not
effectively measure compliance.
including times when a performance
test is not being conducted and during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
h i* often not feasible to prescribe or
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 234 / Friday, December 4. 1992 / Proposed Rules
S7SS1
enforce an emission sUnduti during
these event*.
The EPA nuke* the following
comments regarding the application of
this requirement. First, this provision is
applied to a source based, in part, on the
type of standard affecting that source.
For example, consider the baghouse*
likely to be used as the control
technology along with a shed for
capturing and reducing door leak
emissions. Such baghouses would be
checked for compliance, under the
proposed standards, at least once per
day against an opacity limit Rather than
requiring a continuous opacity monitor
system (GOMS). the Committee allowed
owners and operators the option of
selecting a periodic compliance measure
as a practical way to determine
compliance. In doing so, the Committee
did not Intend that the operator would
not be responsible for ensuring the
expected emission reductions at times
other than during the performance tests.
As a consequence, a requirement that
the operator use good air pollution
control practices between these daily
performance tests is needed. If an
operator elects to use a COM3, the
requirement in proposed $63.310(a) '
would have much more limited
applicability. It would apply when a
compartment in the baghouse fails and
a high opadty is observed by the
operator, the requirement In proposed
S 63.310(a) directs the operator to take
appropriate actions. e.g.. remove the
compartment from the exhaust stream.
Second, the work practice
requirements in proposed {63-306 call
for air pollution control practices like
those Intended under the requirement In
proposed 5 63.310(a). Thus, when a
work practice plan must be
implemented (or similarly if there is a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction).
then full Implementation of the
appropriate plan provisions would be
deemed to satisfy $ 63.310(a) for the
areas covered by those provisions. If the
operator fails to Implement the work
practice plan (or similarly a startup,
shutdown, or a malfunction plan), the
Administrator would pursue a violation
of the plan.
Third, in light of its experience with
provisions comparable to this provision.
EPA expects that the requirement of
proposed § 63.310(a) will infrequently
be used as the basis for an enforcement
action. It is anticipated that the
principal use of $ 63.310(a) would be to
deal with instances where there is a
failure to carry out operations or
maintenance related to compliance with
emission limitations. When it is used.
the Administrator must establish that
failure to adhere to the requirements of
this provision could reasonably be
expected to result In emission levels
higher than those anticipated by the
applicable performance standards. In
appropriate Instances, the Administrator
may elect to conduct additional
performance tests to assist in making
full evaluation of emissions
performance impacts.
Fourth. $63.310(a) provides express
guidance for dealing with situations
involving simultaneous violations of
$ 63.310U) and an applicable
performance standard or work practice
standard. The proposed regulation
provides that failure to adhere to the
requirements of § 63.310U) shall not
constitute a separate violation if a
violation of an applicable performance
or work practice standard has also
occurred.
/. Standards for Bypass/Bleeder Stacks
Bypass or bleeder stacks are used to
vent raw coke oven gas to the
atmosphere to relieve excess pressure in
the ovens. The bypass usually occurs as
a result of an equipment failure (such as
the exhauster, which Is used to move
the gas from the ovens to the by-product
recovery plant) or problems In the gas
handling processes In the by-product
plant One large coke plant experienced
12 venting incidents over a 3-year
period (1987 to 1969). During this time.
raw coke oven gas which contains BSO.
HjS. benzene, and other toxics were
emitted- Emission estimates based on
the composition of the gas, the
frequency of the bypass events, and
their duration Indicate that the. average
annual emissions from bypassing coke
oven gas has the potential to exceed the
emissions from doors, topside port lids,
offtake systems, and charging.
The emissions from bypassing raw
coke oven gas can be controlled by
flare* that ignite and destroy many of
the most toxic components. The
benzene soluble organic* and volatile
organic* are destroyed by combustion.
and HiS in the gee is converted to SOj.
Over 20 percent of the coke industry
already has installed flares to control'
the bypass/bleeder stack, and other *
plants have madeplans to install these
control devices. The cost of a flare was
estimated by a vendor to range from
$100.000 to $200.000; the upper end of
the range is for a battery requiring •
additional structural support for the •
flare. Considering the emission potential
during a bypass episode and the
reasonable cost of control, the
Committee decided to require that all
existing by-product batteries (except
those committing to shutdown) Install •
and operate flares to control bypassed
emissions.
The EPA and the Committee
concluded that there would be a
substantial reduction in the toxic
components of the raw coke oven gases
as a result of flare*. Some Committee
members felt that companies should
begin voluntary Installation of the flares
as soon as possible in order to achieve
the corresponding environmental
benefits. For the regulation, the
Committee decided to require that the
installation of the flares be completed
by March 31,1994. An exception to the
flare installation was made lor batteries
that will be shut down before December
31.1995. The Administrator must be
notified of an Intent to shut down a
battery by April 30.1993. for the owner
or operator to qualify for the flare
installation exemption. Batteries that
have not filed such a declaration must
have a flare installed and operational by
March 31.1994. Brownfield and pedup
rebuild coke oven batteries must nave a
flare Installed before startup.
The general flare requirements
developed by EPA In 40 CFR 60.18 were
considered for use in specifying flares
for coke ovens. The flaring of coke oven
gas is different than the type of flaring
situation that the general flare
specifications In 40 CFR 60.18 had been
intended to be used. First, coke oven gas
.flaring occurs only as a result of an
emergency release. Second, the coke
oven gas U generally under a relatively
low pressure and has a high hydrogen
content
accounts for slightly less than half of thi
net heating value of the gas stream and
affects the characteristics of the gas
stream. Hydrogen has a lower viscosity
and higher flame speed than
hydrocarbons typically affected by the
specifications in 40 CFR 60.18. As a
consequence, a stable flame can be
maintained at a lower heating value ani
a higher velocity than a flare operating
in compliance with 40 CFR 60.18.
Flare systems have been designed to
combust coke ovengas that contain as
low as 2SOBTU/SCF and operate at
about 60 ft/s during the flaring •
operation except possibly during the
initial surge of the emergency release.
flare stability analysis of coke oven gw
conducted by EPA indicates that theu
heat content velocity conditions provi
better than 98 percent destruction. Fla
designers have stated that due to the
low pressure of the coke oven gas that
velocities in excess of 60 ft?s an not
practical from a pressure drop- . •
standpoint for coke oven battery flam
and have also recommended desighli
a flare for about 120 percent of the^
anticipated coke oven gas Dow rate
-------
57552 Federal Register / Vol. 57. Na 234 / Friday. December 4. 1992 / Propped Rales
Flan designers have also sxpiessed a
concern that if the flan velocity U too
low then then may be a possibility of
air infiltrating back into the flan and
causing a backflash which may damage
a coke oven battery. Than are
additional safety considerations in flan
design that must be addressed such as
the necessity of shielding surrounding
areas from flame radiant neat These
safety concerns an the responsibility of
the owner or opentor of the flan.
After considering the above
information the Committee agreed that
the generic dan specifications in 40
CFR 60.18 wen not completely
applicable to the flaring of coke ovens
and certain modifications to the generic
specifications wen required. The
following flan requirements wen
agreed upon by the Committee: •
(1) Flans should be designed for an
operated with no visible emissions
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 minutes during any consecutive
two hour period (40 CFR 60.18(cXO and
(2) Each flare system must be
designed to control 120 percent of the
normal gas flow generated by the
(3) Flares should be operated with a
pilot flame present at all times and shall
be monitored using a thermocouple or
other equivalent device. (40 OK
60.18(cX2) and (0(2).) As an alternative.
electronic igniters that meet certain
requirements which demonstrate
reliable operation can also be used;
(4) Flares should be designed for a net
heating value of coke oven gasea of 8.9
MI/scm (240 Btu/ed) or greater if the
flare is steam assisted or air assisted, or
7.45 MJ/scm (200 Btu/scf) or greater if
the flare is nonassicted. There would be
no limitation on exit velocity. The net
heating value specifications are a design
parameter for the gas that the flare Is
expected to burn, not a measured value;
(5) Owners or operators should also
meet 40 CFR 60.18 (d) and (a) which
require owners or operators to monitor
the flare systems to ensure that they are
properly operated and maintained, and
require that flares be operated at all
times when coke oven gaa is being
vented to them;
(6) Owners or operators would be
prohibited from venting coke ovan
emissions through bypass/bleeder
stacks, except through the flare system
or an approved alternative control
device; and
(7) A destruction efficiency of 98
percent or higher was estimated even at
the lower Btu content for coke oven gas
because it contains a significant amount
of hydrogen. A* agreed upon by the
Committee, the proposed NESHAP also
allows the owner or operator to tpprv
for approval of an alternative control
device or system that achieves 98
percent destruction efficiency for coke
oven emissions.
Some Committee members expressed
concern that the Installation of the flares
to combust emergency releases of coke
oven gases could trigger new source
review (NSR) under part C (prevention
of significant deterioration) or part 0
(nonatUinment) of title I of the Act The
PSD regulations apply to major new or
modified stationary sources locating in
areas designated as attainment or
unclassifiable pursuant to to Section
107(d) of the Act The nonattainment
NSR regulations apply to areas
designated as nonattainment under
Section 107(d). EPA and the rammi^
agreed that installation of the flares
would not trigger NSR.
In general, a modification to an
existing major stationary source is
subject to NSR if h would resuh in a
significant net emissions increase of say
pollutant (40 CFR 52.21(bX2)). Fof
example, the significant emission rate
for NSR applicability for SOi U any rats
of emissions that would equal or exceed
40 tons per year, m the event of any
emergency release of coke oven gases at
a. coke oven battery, the installation of
the flares at the battery would result m
an Increase In SOj emissions caused by
the combustion of the coke oven gases.
Such an increase could theoretically
exceed the 40 ton per year significance
leveL
The EPA, however, does not believe
that NSR would be triggered by such a
sequence of events. Using available data
on emergency releases from coke ovens,
EPA has determined that the average
coke oven battery will have about 8
hours par year when emergency releases
will occur. The largest coke plant in the
United States uses approximately
17.000 tons of coal per day or about
5,700 tons per 8-hour period. About 10
pounds of SOi emissions per ton of coal
charged result from flaring coke oven
gases. In this example, the total SOi
emissions from flaring coke oven gases
Is about 28 tons per year. Consequently,
It is doubtful that the SOj emissions
resulting from the flaring of the coke
oven Bases during emergency releases
would ever reach levels which could
trigger NSR. Moreover, while small
upsets may occur several times in a
year, large episodes are quit*
uncommon, occurring as Infrequently as
one per tan-year period. EPA knows of
no incident where the emergency lasted
long enough to generate 40-tons of SO*
emissions. The Agency has conducted a
similar analysis for otner polhitants
subject to parts C or D of title I of the
Act
As noted above, NSR applicability
must be judged on whether the flare
would rasuh la an increase in the
source's eolations la excess of the
applicable threshold (40 CFR
32.21(b)(2)). Because these flares are
intended to operate under emergency
conditions that are inherently difficult
to predict and quantify, EPA has
determined that it would be appropriaU
to determine emissions relying on the
analyses mentioned above. This
conclusion Is supported by the fact thai
large episodes that have occurred more
often have not been severe enough to
generate an Increase above the
applicable NSR trigger levels; For the
reasons discussed, EPA believes that
future emergency episodes can ba
reasonably expected to be below
significance levels, and based on this,
EPA Is satisfied tbtt the installation of
these flares will not increase the
source's emissions over applicable
significance levels lor any pollutant
subject to part C or D of title I of the Ac
Based OB past experience, EPA does
not expect mat •missions will increase
over applicable significance levels, or
threaten the NAAQS. increments, or A
Quality Related VaJoea. Thus, EPA and
the Committee have determined that tl
installation of these control devices.
proposed under S 63*307, shall not be
considered in making new source
review applicability determinations.
The EPA ia making a finding to that
effect in this rulemaklng. Thus, EPA
will not conduct s case by-case review
of the applicability of NSR to such
projects. j •
J. Collecting Main Leaks
Using a work practice approach, the
proposed rule would require that,
starting November IS, 1993. the
collecting melnU) for by-product coka
oven batteries be inspected for leaks a
least once daily according to the
procedures in Method 303. Any leak
would be sealed temporarily as soon i
possible (but no later than 4 hours) afl
detection, permanent repairs would
have to be initiated within S calendar
days after initial detection of the leak,
and repairs would be completed with
IS calendar days (unless the
Administrator extends the deadline).
Records also would be maintained
showing the time and date the leak w
first observed, the time and date the 1
was temporarily sealed, and the time
and date of repair.
JC Performance Tests and Pmctdum
Section 114(a) of the Act authorize?
EPA to include monitoring provision
-------
Federal Register / Vol y. No. 1H / Fridiy. December 4. Ift2 /Proposed Hole* 87553
standard* developed under section 111
needed to determine compliance. Tha .
ETA also must establish an appropriate
measurement methodology purtuant to
•action ll2(i)(8)(B) and evaluate the .
feasibility o( using measurements based
on mass emissions (rather than visual
observations). Owners or operators may
be required to establish and maintain
records, make reports, install and
maintain monitoring equipment or use
specific monitoring methods, sample •
emissions, and provide additional
information as reasonably required.
Visible emission observers currently
monitor coke oven emissions at most
plants in the country a* a result of State
regulations, SIPs. end consent decrees.
Because each of the proposed emission
limitations is expressed in terms of
visible emissions, the data recorded by
the observer are needed by plant
personnel to identify and control IsnVt
and by the Agency or applicable
permitting authority to assess
compliance and identify potential
operating problems.
The Committee agreed that a visible
emission monitoring performance test is
needed every day (7 days per weak) to
determine compliance with the
proposed 30-observation tolling
averages used as the bests of the various
emission limitations. The daily •
performance test also can be used to
determine compliance with emission
limitations in State regulations and .
consent decrees under specified •
condition*.
• Only three exceptions from the dairy
visible emission monitoring
requirement would be allowed under
the proposed standard. Dairy visible
emission performance tests would not
be required for a new or existing
nonncovery coke oven battery where
the owner or operator elects to comply
with the alternative to the door leak
standard (daily monitoring of pressure)
and for charging (work practices for
existing batteries and the capture and
control system far new batteries). In
addition, less frequent monitoring
(weekly or monthly) is allowed for coke
oven doors subject to an alternative
standard under $ 63.305.
The Committee also discussed
whether to use self-monitoring, or a
system under which the enforcement
agency would run the monitoring
program. After considerable discussion,
the Committee decided that monitoring
should be performed by a certified
observer employed by the enforcement
agency or its designated agent The
owner or operator would bear the cost
for all training, field Instruction, and
certification. These expanses would be
included in the overhead component of
the fees charged by privet* visible
•mission observers (one of the
components of the formula described
below). The Committee agreed that the
owner or operator would pay e fee to the
enforcement agency to defray the costs
of ths required inspections program.
The proposed rule includes e formula
for computing this fee. The enforcement
agency may revise the workload term in
this equation within three years after
promulgation of this subpart to reflect
the amount of time shown to be
necessary for the required inspections.
The EPA will assist enforcement
agencies in considering the work load
term by gathering and distributing
relevant information from the
enforcement agencies. However, the
owner or operator would not be
required to pay for inspection or
monitoring services covered by other
fees. Procedures sre provided to obtain
information to determine if this
provision is implicated.
The applicable enforcement agency
would be required to perform one
performance test each day of the week,
except in certain limited circumstances.
If not test were performed or no valid
vahie obtained for a test, there would be
no compliance determination tot thai
day. Compliance determinations resume
with the Mxt valid observation. All
visible emission observers provided by
the enforcement egency must be
certified eccording to the requirements
in propoood Test Methods 303 or 303 A.
or Method 9 e* applicable. As discussed
further in Section L, EPA will assist the
regulated community and States in
developing guidance end training
material* for certification of visible
emission observers, ft is the
responsibility of States with approved
permitting programs to ensure that the
Inspection procedures in the proposed
rule are followed. Nothing in the
proposed rule affects the rights of
citizens to file suit pursuant to section
304 of the Act
The monitoring procedures Included
in the proposed rule would be similar
to those procedures described in the
1987 proposed rule. The observer would
make one "run" (i.e., battery inspection)
each day and record the percent (or
number* if applicable) of leaking coke
oven doors and the percent leaking
topside port lids and offtake aysteraU)
on each bettery. The observer also
would record the seconds of visible
emissions per charge for five
consecutive charges from each coke
oven battery. The Committee also agreed
that during each test, the observer
would check and record the collecting
main pressure to verify mat the pressure
is within the normsl range of opvraUon.
The obi
•y request that the
r operator demonstrate that the
at device is
operating properly.
Following each daily test the
oUerm would make available a copv of
the day's performance test results and
the calculated 30-run average for each
•mi«i«i point to the owner or operator
or their designs
representative. The enforcement egency
would have the authority to conduct
performance torts in addition to those
required under the proposed regulation.
B additional tests an performed, the
propoeed regulation provides that the
emissions values that ere obtained
would be averaged far purposes of .
making required compliance
determination*. Thus, for example, tf
two valid observation* of door leak*
wen obtained on a given day, the •
avenge of these values would be used
in computing the 30-run rolling
averages upon which compliance with
. the visible emission standard for door
leak* I* to be determined. The same
averaging approach would apply to -
detenninetiona under the work practice
provision*.
During the negotiations the
Crermintt diinitrH the Hm'^'*""* tf
' visible emission monitorinB end the
dextrabOlty of new monitonng methods.
The Committee agreed that the study of
new or innovative technologies and
approaches for monitoring coke oven
•""'•fVrit is an important are* needing
additional research. The Committee
agreed that as part of the 6-year
emission control studies authorized
under Section 112(nX2) of the Act EPA
will work with the U.S. Department of
Energy to identify, investigate, test and/
or develop new methods of monitoring
that provide man accurate detection
and measurement of emissions and
overcome limitations in the currant
visible emission method. (For additional
information on the scope of the DOE
research on coke oven technology, see
Commerce Business Daily, )une 10.
1992.)
L Setocbon of Test Method
Proposed Test Methods 303
("Determination of Visible Emissions
from By-product Coke Oven Batteries")
and proposed Test Method 303A
("Determination of Visible Emissions
from Nonncovery Coke Oven
Batteries") have been developed for use
with the proposed standards. Method
• 303 would establish • procedure for
determining the duration of visible
emissions mat occur during the
charging process for both wet •coal-
charged and dry-coal-charged bettariet.
It also would establish procedures for
-------
JS7S54 r«toral Register /;VoL 57} No, 2M / Friday, December 4. 1«92 7 Proposed Rulw
counting coke oven door an* lack*
(including coke oven doon controlled
by shads) And for datannining topside
laaks on by-product coka ovan batteries.
Test Method 303A providas procedures
for evaluating visible emissions from
coke oven door leaks at nonreoovery
coka oven batteries.
For each ovan, visible emissions may
occur from the charging system, the two
main coka oven doon on each side of
the oven, the small chuck door on the •
pusher side of the ovan. the three to five
topside port lids, the one or two offtake
systems that connect the ovan to the* •
collecting main, and the collecting
main. The methods would require an
observer to record the length of time •'-
thai visible emissions occur from the,' •
charging of by-product and nonrecovary
coke oven batteries. These emissions
may be continuous or intermittent, but
only the time during which visible
•missions are sighted is recorded and
totaled.
The procedures described in the
methods would require the observer to
walk the topside center line of by*
product coka oven batteries and count
the number of topside port lids and
offtake systems from wtuch any visible
emissions are observed. To count leak*
in the collecting main, the observer ia
required to watt along the topside edge
closest to the mala or along the catwalk
above the main. The methods would '
reroUn tha observer to count leaking
coka ovan doors on by-product and
nonncovery ovens as the observer
traverses the coke oven battery at •
ground level. All leaks (except steam)
from the doors of operating ovens are
counted, regardless of size or duration.
These emissions are generally in the
form of yellow-brown smoke. Although
some of the luting produces a white.
condensed water plume as it dries, this
is not counted as a leak under the
proposed methods. The percent leaking
coke oven doon. topside port lids, and
offtake systems is then calculated by
dividing the number of leaking coka
oven doon. topside port lids, or offtake
systems by the total number of doors.
lids, and offtake systems observed on
the coke oven battery.
The Committee-decided not to
include a precision and bias statement
in Method 303.
The certification requirements of
Method 303 include a requirement to
attend the lecture portion of the Method
9 training course, followed by classroom
training, field Inspections, and a
demonstration of proficiency in Method
303. This Method 303 training course
will be conducted by or under the
sanction of EP.V. and the field training
will include Instruction from •
experienced and certified observers.
The trainee must demonstrate that
they have completed 12 hours of field
instruction with an experienced coka
oven, observer. Due to time constraints.
the 12 houn of field instruction should
not be conducted during Method 303
certification. The trainee should
complete the field instruction at a coka
oven battery that they will be inspecting
alter becoming certified. The trainee
may complete the field instruction up to
a year before their Method 303
certification. Ownen/openton will-
work with the Administrator to make '.
their batteries available for this
instruction. No observations obtained <
during any program for training or for •
certifying observers would be used for
compliance determinations. However.
regular daily inspections by the -
enforcement agency would continue,
and compliance determinations from .
these inspections an not affected by the
plant's participation to a training or
certification program. Proficiency .will
be demonstrated during actual visible
emission testa to the satisfaction of •
panel of 3 experienced and certified
observers. However, until November IS,
1904. EPA may waive the certification
raquinmant (but not the experience
requirement) for panel members. This
provision was agreed io in order to •
account for the fact that in the first
several yean of this program, then is .
likely to be a ahortage of certified •
observers. The panel memban will be
EPA. State, or local agency personnel
who an designated by EPA as certified
and qualified panel members. • .
Another issue that arose was how to
deal with doon that an blocked and
cannot be Inspected for leaks by the
observer. Industry npneentati vee
proposed that blocked doon be skipped
and not included in the compliance
determination, although the total •
number of doon could be used in the
denominator of the calculation of
percent leaking. The EPA pointed out
that most of the visible emission data
considered in the development of the
standards included observations for all
of the doon on openting ovens.
However, most of the data probably
represent only one "recently charged"
oven per inspection because then were
no long delays Involved in nturning to
view blocked doors. The Committee
proposed to change the test method to
allow options for dealing with blocked
doon: (1) The plant opentor can move
the equipment that blocks the doon
prior to the beginning of the inspection.
which would temporarily delay the
charging operation during the
Inspection, (2) the observer may return
nun* MM wouia uiciuaa •
collecting main prescun to
t opented normally during
n. The responsibility for
on
mi
to'dbeerved doon that wen pnvlously'
blocked, but would not count door leaks
on ovens that wen charged since the
tanning of the Inspection, or, as a last
resort. (3) the observer may choose to
ignore the blocked doon and not
include them ia the denominator of the
dlryt«Hn« of percent leaking. The
Committee also agreed to add language
to the rule prohibiting the owner or
operator from deliberately blocking
doon for the purpose of concealing door
leaks during an inspection.
The Committee alao decided that the
dally performance tost should include a
check of the collecting ntito
ensure that it
the inspection.
measuring the pressure'and calibrating
the device rests with the owner or'
operator. However, the visible emission
observer can request to review the
calibration records, end the enforcement
agency can request a performance test
i the accuracy of the pressure
easurement device.
Another point of discussion for the
test method was wharetopstde
observations wen to be made. The draft
method had recommended the traverse
be conducted from "between the terry
car becks." The Working Group offered
an alternative of "as dose to the
ceoterlino as practical." but concema
wen ejcpreiied about observer safety
and die need far occasional deviations
of up to 2 Iset from the centerline to
avoid hazards. Aa agreement was •
reecbedtousetfaecenterhneasthe r
reference point for topside Inspections:
however, language was added to the
method to allow the Inspector to deviate
to avoid safety hazards, m addition.
safety hazards such as the danger of '
walking on lids will be covered in the
' ' mill , •
program.
• issue nlated to the door
i procedure was the observer's
walking pace during the Inspection. An
agreement was reached to specify a cap
baaed on an average of 4 seconds per
door and an allowance of 10 seconds for
recording a leak. For a typical battery
with 50 ovens and assuming six door
leaks, the door teak inspection would be
conducted ia 9 minutes or less.
Some Committee members requested
that coke plant operators receive
"credit" for ovens taken out of service
by Including these ovens in the
denominator of the calculation of
percent leaking, rather than basing the
calculation only on tha number of
operating ovens. The Committee
decided that this procedure would not
be consistent with the way the data used
to develop the standards wen collected:
in addition, it could weaken the
effectiveness of the proposed standards.
-------
Federal **&*« I Vol. 57. No, 234 / Friday. December 4. 1992 / Proposed Rules 57555
Consequently, the calculation of percent
leaking Is based on the number of leaks
observed end the number of emission
points on operating ovens. Ovens that
are out of service and. consequently, do
not have the potential to leak are not
Included in either the numerator or
denominator of the calculation of
percent leaking.
M. Reporting and RecordJceeping
Requirements
The proposed standards would
require three type* of reports: initial and
semiannual compliance certifications;
notifications; and (If applicable) reports
of venting episode*, and certain
startups, shutdown*, and malfunctions.
These requirements all have been
tailored to reflect the fact that the
enforcement agency (or its designated
agent) will be responsible for
conducting almost all of the
performance tests and compliance
determinations required under the rule.
Thus, there is no need for owners or
operators to inform the enforcement
agency about these matters.
Accordingly, the compliance
certification, reporting, and
racordkeeping requirements address
Information needed by the enforcement
agency that will be generated by the
owner or operaior.
The initial compliance certification Is
a one-time statement signed by the
owner or operator attesting that the
bypass/bleeder stack Dare systems have
been Installed (if applicable) and that a
startup, shutdown and malfunction plan
has been prepared. Each statement
would be submitted to the applicable
permitting authority within 45 days of
the applicable compliance data for each
requirement.
Two types of notification
requirements are included in the
proposed standard. These one-time
reports would notify the Administrator
of: (1) The intention to construct or
reconstruct a coke oven battery; and (2)
the election of various compliance
tracks. For an existing by-product or
nonrecovery coke oven battery,
notification of election to meat either
the 1995 emission limitations in
5 63.302U) or $ 63.303(a) or the 1993
emission limitations for the compliance
date extension in $63.304(b)or
$ 63.304(d). or both sets of emission
limitations, must be submitted on or
before November IS, 1993. The owner
or operator may continue to straddle
both compliance tracks by notifying the
Administrator by December 31.1995, of
election to meet the emission
limitations in $S «3.3O3taXD or
63.3O3U). A binding commitment to a
compliance track must be made by
January 1.199*.
Starting 6 months from the required
data of compliance for the applicable
emission limitations, the owner or
operator would submit a certification
attesting that: (1) No unflared coke oven
gas was vented through • bypass/
bleeder stack or a venting report was
submitted; (2) work practices wen
Implemented according to the work
practice provisions, if applicable, and
(3) no startup, shutdown, or
malfunction event occurred, or an event
occurred and a report was submitted as
required.
The proposed standard also requires
that records be maintained available for
inspection. These records would
include: (1) A copy of the work practice
plan and any revisions, including
records to demonstrate the successful
performance of requirements when
applicable for an emission point; and (2)
data for the alternative standard for coke
oven doors, including opacity data for .
the shed's control device (if applicable).
parameters that indicate the evacuation
rate is maintained, records of visual
inspections, and operation/maintenance
records for a continuous opacity
monitoring system. For nonrecovery
batteries, record* associated with daily
pressure monitoring and work practices
for charging would be required; for new
nonrecovery batteries, design
information for the charging emission
control system would be required.
Design information for flares or
alternative control systems for bypass/
bleeder stacks would be maintained for
the life of the control device or system.
Records of startups, shutdowns, or
malfunctions would also be maintained.
Provisions are also included requiring
the owner or operator to make records
or reports required to be maintained or
submitted to the enforcement agency
available to the authorized collective
bargaining representative for inspection
or copying. The owner or operator must
respond within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed 30 days. Except for
emissions data as defined in 40 CFR
part 2. documents (or parts of
documents) containing trade secrets or
confidential business information do
not have to be produced, and the
inspection or copying of documents wiD
not affect any intellectual property
rights of the owner or operaior in the
documents.
N. Delegation of Authority
Except for certain authority specified
in $ 83.313(bX EPA intends to delegate
the authority for implementing the coke
oven NESUAP to the Slate*, m addition,
it Is likely that local air pollution
control agencies will assist In the
implementation of this NESHAP. These
State and local agencies have bean
implementing Federal requirements for
coke oven* for many yean and. In the
Committee's opinion, era capable of
implementing the requirements in the
proposed standards.
Under section 112(1X1) of theCAA.
State* may submit to EPA. for approval.
a program of implementation ana
enforcement of the Coke Oven NESHAP.
Given thet Stele* end local agencies
have implemented Federal requirements
similar to those In the proposed rule.
the program should simply provide
details regarding agency resources and
its intention to Implement the various
aspects of the Coke Oven NESHAP. The
Committee agreed that the program
requirements should explain whether
the State has adopted the NESHAP by
reference or tnrougn regulatory
development and that the resulting
requirements are not less stringent than
the requirements of the coke oven
NESHAP.
Pursuant to section 112(1)(2L the EPA
is required to develop guidance to assist
States in the development of their
program submittals. Moat of the
required guidance can be found within
this preamble and the proposed rule and
Method 303 and 303A. The EPA also
intends to produce additional materials
to help the State and local agencies
Implement the Coke Oven NESHAP. For
example. EPA will organize and
conduct the required certification under
Method 303.
Under section 1120K3) of the CAA.
EPA ha* 180 days after receiving a
program submitted by the State to
approve or disapprove such a program.
EPA generally reviews and proposes
approval/disapproval in the Federal
Register. Specifically, a program may b
disapproved by EPA IF.
(1) The authorities contained In the
program are not adequate to assure
compliance by all sources within the
State with the coke oven standard;
(2) Adequate authority does not axis!
or adequate resources are not available
to implement the program;
(3) The schedule for implementing tl
standard and assuring compliance by
affected sources is not sufficiently
expeditious; or
(4) The program b otherwise not in
compliance with the guidance Issued 1
EPA for development of State program
submissions, or is not likely to satisfy
in whole or in part, the objectives oft]
CAA.
The EPA and Stale and local agenq
representative* on the Committee knc
no reason that delegation should not 1
possible when the proposed standard
-------
57556 Federal Remitter / Vol 57. No. 234 / Friday, December 4. 1892 / Proposed Rule*
an promulgated. Delegation to • State
pursuant to Mdlon 112(1) confers
authority to implement the coke oven
NESHAP in accordance with the
approved SUte procedure. Upon receipt
01 delegation of authority to implement
the coke oven NESHAP, the State shall
have the primary responsibility for
implementing the NESHAP to the full
extent of its delegated authority. The
Authorities contained in section
63.313(b) of the coke oven regulation
will be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to the State.
The EPA's current understanding of.
the States' authority of delegation is a*
follows. Several States have automatic
delegation. Other States and local
agencies must request delegation, in
writing, from the EPA Region. Two
States must go through a rulemaklng
process at the SUte level The EPA will
work with these States to facilitate these
rulemakings. The Committee encourages
States and local agencies to request
delegation as quickly es possible to
ensure a smooth implementation of this
NESHAP.
O. Relationship to General Provisions
As a general matter, the Committee
attempted to resolve as many issues
related to coke ovens as possible to
ensure that the rule would be
comprehensive end provide certainty to
regulated sources as to the requirements
that apply. The EPA end the Committa*
agreed that any topics covered by future
section 112 rulemakings of general
applicability (including the General
Provisions) that are also covered by this
rule or that were resolved during the
regulatory negotiation process (e.g..
where this rule or the negotiations have
resolved them: Notifications;
monitoring: requirements for
construction and reconstruction:
performance test requirements; work
practice standards; operation and
maintenance requirements; reporting
and recordkeeping requirements;
definitions; malfunction, startup, and
shutdown requirements; compliance
certification; and control device
requirements) would not apply to
sources subject to these regulations. Of
course, a coke oven-specific rule
addressing these topics would also be
subject to S 63.300(1) (e.g.. a coke oren
malfunction rule). For topics not
covered by this rule, such as section
112(f) standards and section 112(r)
requirements, future proposed rules
under section 112 will identify which
provisions of such a proposal would
apply to coke oven batteries. This will
facilitate comment on the applicability
and scope of such provisions for coke
oven batteries.
m. Summary of Impacts
The EPA conducted several studies to
evaluate the economic and
environmental impacts of this NESHAP.
The Committee was kept informed
about these studies, and participated in
some of them. However, reaching
consensus on these issues was not a
Committee goal. Consequently, this
section reflects the views of EPA on the
impacts on the NESHAP. which are not
necessarily shared by other Committee
members. .
Coke is produced currently by 82 by-
product coke oven batteries operating at
29 plants in 10 States and by one
nonrecovery coke plant The emissions
from these coke batteries include
organic and inorganic paniculate
matter, volatile organic compounds
(VOQ. and gases such as H»S, SOj. •
nitrogen oxides (NOJ ammonia (NHj).
CO. and others. The pollutants of
primary interest with respect to long-
term or chronic health effects are
various carcinogenic polycyclic organic
compounds (such as benzo(a)pyrene).
which are found in the organic
paniculate matter of coke oven
emissions. BSO is used to quantify
organic parUculate matter and
represents one of the classes of
pollutants in coke oven emissions. BSO
does not Include volatile organics such
es benzene, gases, such as HjS. or
inorganic paniculate matter.
Assuming existing State regulations
•nd consent decrees are being met
consistently by the operating oatteries
(excluding bypass/bleeder stacks) are
estimated at 810 Mg/yr. Nationwide
coke oven emissions from bypass/
bleeder stacks are estimated at 850 Mg/
yr. bnplemenUon of the proposed
• MACT standard is expected to reduce
nationwide coke oven emissions from
charging and leaks by the end of 199S
by about 66 percent to 270 Mg/yr, and
•missions from bypass/bleeder stacks
will be reduced by at least 98 percent to
no more than 17 Mg/yr.
Implementation of the proposed
LAER standard is expected to reduce
nationwide coke oven emissions by the
beginning of 1998 by 90 percent to
about 79 Mg/yr. After the
implementation of LAER and the
installation of Dares on bypass/bleeder
stacks, the overall reduction in coke
oven emissions is estimated at 94
percent. Because the control techniques
focus on pollution prevention and
containment within the by-product
collection system, similar reductions in
emissions are expected for both organic
paniculate matter and for the volatile
organic compounds and other pollutants
contained in coke oven emissions for
the sources controlled under these
proposed standards. The estimates of
mass emissions presented in this
paragraph include emissions of BSO.
benzene, toluene, xylane. and hydrogen
sulfide.
The proposed MACT standards for
new coVe oven batteries are based on
the use of the nonrecovery process and
would result in significant reductions of
emissions if any new coke oven
batteries are built The test data
currently available indicate that these
standards will essentially eliminate
emissions of BSO from coke plants if the
standards are met by constructing
nonrecovery coke oven batteries.
Based on the construction of
nonrecovery coke batteries for new
sources, emissions of volatile
compounds such as benzene would also
be reduced significantly by the
elimination of the by-product recovery
plant. In addition, the hazardous solid
wastes and the hazardous wastewater
produced by the by-product recovery
plan would be eliminated. However,
there Is no Indication that any new coke
batteries will be built that will represent
either a "greefield" plant or an
expansion in capacity at an existing
plant
The proposed MACT standards for
existing batteries are expected to be
achieved by Improved equipment and
increased maintenance, training, and
inspections without rebuilding the
battery. The total nationwide capital
cost of MACT for existing batteries is
estimated at S60 million with a total
annual cost of $25 million per year.
Many batteries are currently achieving
the MACT levels and would not incur
any significant increase in costs. The
MACT standard is expected to Increase
the price of furnace coke by 0.2 percent
and the price of foundry coke by 1.1
percent Coke production is projected to
decrees* by 0.7 percent for furnace coke
and 1.1 percent tor foundry coke. No
coke batteries are projected to close as
a result of this proposed standard.
The LAER standards may require the
installation of new doors and jambs or
the rebuilding of some of the older
batten**. Assuming that all batteries
will elect to meet the LAER standards.
the total nationwide capital cost is
estimated to range between $510 million
with e total annualized cost of $84
million. Both of these costs are
cumulative in that they include the
costs associated with MACT. Battery
age, for batteries that may be rebuilt.
was considered in the analysis, and the
costs attributable to the LAER standard
were prorated based on the remaining
useful life of the battery. The proposed
LAER standard is projected to increase
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4. 1M2 / Proposed Rule* 57557
the prica of furnace coke by 0.7 percent
and foundry cok« by 2.5 percent
Furnace COM production l» estimated to
decrease by 2.1 percent and foundry
coke production to decrease by 2.8
percent. Two coke oven batteries
producing furnace coke are projected to
close and one coke oven battery
producing foundry coke may close as a
resuh of the proposed LAER standard.
Some facilities with older batteries
that are nearing the end of their useful
lives may choos* to dose these batteries
or to install nonrecovery batteries. The
closure of batteries due to be rebuilt or
replaced in the near future and batteries
that may be closed because of the
reduced demand for coke is not directly
attributable to the standard and is not
included in the estimate*.
Uncertainties an associated with
estimates of nationwide emissions,
costs, and economic impacts. For each
emission point, the available mass
emission data at a particular level of
visible emissions were used to establish
a range of mass emission estimates for
different levels of visible emissions.
This range represents the highest
estimate end the lowest estimate of mass
emissions for given visible emission
levels with roughly a factor of 10
difference between the minimum and
maximum.
Control cost are associated with
equipment modifications or repairs to
improve sealing, additional labor for
sealing leaks and monitoring emission
levels, and emission control training
programs for workers and the cost of
flares on bypass/bleeder stacks
(estimated as less than $20 million in
capital cost nationwide). The current
cost analysis is based on the guidance
received from the Work Group formed
from the Coke Oven Battery Advisory
Committee. Site-specific information on
equipment Items and cost was provided
by the industry trade associations and
individual plants. A ma)or source of
current cost Information was an
industry study performed by an
engineering firm that performs repairs
and reconstruction of coke batteries.
Limitations or uncertainties in the
cost approach arise from determining
controls (and their costs) Implemented
for a specific battery and from
determining additional controls (and
their costs) to improve emission control
incrementally. Another difficulty is that
cost data supplied by the plants
invariably contain some attributable to
routine battery maintenance and to
prolonging the battery's life. The
uncertainty In costs is reflected In a
range of cost estimates accurate to
within a factor of roughly 2 to 3.
Regardless of the uncertainties
associated with the emission cost, and
economic estimates, the proposed
standards are expected to reduce coke
oven emissions significantly below
current regulatory levels (by about 90
percent overall). Additional Information
on the emission estimates, costs, and
economic impacts Is available in the
documentation provided In the docket.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if
requested, to discuss the proposed
standard In accordance with section 117
of the Act Persons wishing to make oral
presentation on the proposed standard
for coke oven emissions should contract
EPA at the address given in the
"ADDRESStS" section of this preamble.
Oral presentations will be limited to IS
minutes each. Any member of the
public may file a written statement
before, during, or within 30 days of the
hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to the Air Docket Section
address given in the "ADDRESSCS"
section of this preamble and should
refer to Docket No. A-79-15.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public Inspection and copying
during normal working hours at EPA's
Air Docket Section in Washington. DC
(See "ADMESSC*" section of this
preamble).
B. Dock*
The docket Is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of this
proposed rulemaklng. The principal
purpose* of the docket are (1) to allow
interested parties to readily Identify and
locate documents so that they can
Intelligently and effectively participate
in the rulemaking process and (2) to
serve as the record in case of judidal
review (except for interagency review
materials).
C. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA is
required to Judge whether a regulation
is "major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The criteria set forth in
section 1 of the Order for determining
whether a regulation is a major rule are
as follows: (1) Is likely to have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; (2) is likely to cause a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual Industries,
geographic regions, or Federal. State, or
local government*; or (3) is tikaly to
result in significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of the United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-bated enterpnses
in domestic or export markets.
The EPA has determined that the
proposed NESHAP does not exceed any
of the criteria defining a "major rule"
and Is therefore not subject to the
requirements of an R1A. The total
annual costs of the proposed MACT
standard range from $25 to $33 million/
year, well below $100 million/year. The
total annual cost of the proposed LAER
standards ranges from $84 to $95
million per year, including the MACT
costs. In addition, only small market
changes are projected. Under the
proposed MACT and LAER standards.
increases in coke prices would be
minimal (less than 1 percent for furnace
coke and about 1.1 to 2.5 percent for
foundry coke). The decrease in coke
production also would be minimal (0.7
percent lor furnace coke and 1.1 percent
for foundry coke under MACT
standards; 2.1 percent for furnace and
2.6 percent for foundry coke under
LAER standards). '
The proposed regulation presented in
this notice was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any written comments from
OMB to EPA and any written EPA
response to those comments will be
included In the docket The docket is
available for public inspection at the
EPA's Air Docket Section, which Is
listed la the ADDRESSES section of thi
preamble.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act .
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule hai
been submitted for approval to OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 4
U.S.C 3S01 et teq. An Information
Collection Request document has beet
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1362.02). ai
a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer. Information Policy Branch.
EPA. 401M Street. SW.. (PM-223Y).
Washington. DC 20460. or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The public reporting
-------
f. .•,..% _-..^j.,......»»•<•:«» . ,/—,». x— ._i ..T ^ i f » .;
57558 Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 234 / Friday. December 4.-199Z / rVopossd Rd«
223Y. EPA. 401 M Street. SW.; • - -
Washington. DC 2046a and to the -
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affair*. Office of Management and
Budget, Washington. DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." The
final nil* will respond to any OMB or
public comment* on the information
collection requirements contained la
this proposal
£. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (S
U.S.C 601 et *eoj require* EPA to
consider potential impacts of proposed
regulations on small business "entitles. M
If a preliminary analysis indicates that
a proposed regulation would have a
significant economic impact OB 20'
percent or more of smalt entities, then
a regulatory flexibility analysts must be
prepared.
Present Regulatory Flexibility Act
guidelines Indicate that an economic
impact should be considered
If It meets one of the following criteria:
(t) Compliance increase* annual
production costs by more than S
percent, assuming costs are passed onto
consumers: (2) compliance costs as a
percentage of seJea for •mall entities are
at least 10 percent more than
compliance coat* a* a percentage of
sales for large entities-, (3) capital costs
of compliance represent • -significant"
portion of capital available to small
entitles, conslderinglnternel cash flow
plus external financial capabilities: or
(4) regulatory requirements are likely to
result in closures of small entities.
The economic analysis of the
proposed MACT and LAER standard*
shows that none of the criteria
discussed above are exceeded by the
proposed MACT and LAER standards.
No closures would result from the
MACT «««i««<««u of the four small
businesses potentially subject to the
LAER standards, two are protected to
experience an increase in profits, one
would make a reduced profit, and one
that It currently unprofitable would
become more unprofitable. No small
businesses are projected to close as a
result of the LAER standard although
two furnace batteries and possibly one
foundry battery at these plants may
close.
Pursuant to the provisions of S U.S.C
605(b). I hereby certify that this
proposed rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small business
entities because no substantial number
of small entitles are affected and no
significant ^p^t on rhfrtit f«««n
entitles will result.
F. Aflscefloneou* - • » • •
In accordance with section 117 of the
Act. publication of this proposal was
preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees.
independent expert*, and Federal
department* and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comment*
on all aspect* of the proposed
regulation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 83
Air pollution control. Coke oven
emission*. Hazardous substances.
Reporting and recording requirements.
Deled: November 24. 1992.
r.fteaiylUbiditlt.
Acting Mailnlarolor.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40. chapter I or the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows.
PART 8$-*UTK>NAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AM
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIC*
1. The authority citation for part 63 «
proposed on June 13. 1901 (58 FB
27338) continues to reed as follows:
Authority: Sec*. 101, 112. 114. 116. Ml.
Oeaa Air Act a* amended (42 USC. M01.
7412. 7414. m«. 70011
2. Part 63 as proposed on June IX
1991 (56 PR 27338) is amended by
adding Subpart L as follows-.
Subpeit L~«auonal Emlaalon Standards
lor Coke Oven Battarlee
See.
63.300 Applicability.
63.301 Definition*.
63J02 Standard* for by-product coke ore*
battertM.
63.303 Standard* for nonrecovery coke
oven betterie*.
63.3O4 Standard* tor compliance da*
63.30S Alternative fUndwtU for oo*» ore*.
doon •quipped with sheds.
63.306 Work practice standards.
63.3O7 Standards far bypa*«/bteedar «teck*.
63.308 SUodard* for collecting ma***. .
63.309 Performance tests and procedure*.
63.310 Requirements for startup*.
shutdown*, and malfunctions.
63 Jl 1 Reporting and recordkeepiag
requirements.
63.312 Existing regulations and
requirements.
63.313 Delegation of authority.
Appendix A to Subpart L— Operating
By-Product Coke Oven Batteries as of
April 1, 1992
Subpart t— National Emission
Standards for Coke Own Bettavtea
163.300 AppUcaMHty.
(a) Unless otherwise specified fa
SS 63.306. 6X307. and 83411 of this
subpart. the prorisloo* of this subf
apply to TRW"
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wednesday
October 27, 1993
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories and for Coke Oven Batteries;
Final Rule
-------
S7898 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
(AD-FRL-4793-6]
RIN 2060-AD67
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories and for Coke Oven
Batteries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On December 4.1992 (57 FR
57534). the EPA proposed national
emission standards for the control of
emissions from new and existing coke
oven batteries. This action promulgates
the national emission standards and
Methods 303 and 303A for the
determination of visible emissions from
by-product and nonrecovery coke oven
batteries. These standard* implement
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act).
which requires the Administrator to
regulate emissions of hazardous air
pollutants listed in section 112(b) of the
Act. one of which is coke oven
emissions. The final standards also
implement section 112(d)(8) of the Act.
which contains provisions specific to
the regulation of coke oven emissions.
DATES: Effective Data: October 27.1993.
See SUPPLEMENTARY MFORMATON
section concerning Judicial Review.
ADDRESSES: Docket. A docket, number
A-79-15. containing information
considered during development of the
promulgated standards, is available for
public inspection between 8:30 a.m. and
3.30 p.m.. Monday through Friday, at
the EPA's Air Docket Section (LE-131),
Waterside Mall. Room M1500.1st Floor.
Gallery 1. 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda Agnew. Standards
Development Branch. Emission
Standards Division (MD-13). U.S
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. telephone (919) 541-5268
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Standards
.-\ Background
The 1990 Amendments to the Clean
Air Act establish specific requirements
for the development of regulations
governing coke oven emissions. Under
section 112(d)(8). the EPA must
promulgate standards based on
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) for coke oven
batteries by December 31.1992. The
MACT standards for existing sources
can be no less stringent than the best
performing 12 percent of existing
sources, and standards for new sources
cannot be less stringent than the limit
achieved in practice by the best
controlled existing source. In addition.
the MACT standards for coke oven
batteries must require, at a minimum.
that coke oven emissions from each
battery not exceed the following short-
term limits: 8 percent leaking doors. 1
percent leaking topside port lids. 5
percent leaking offtake system(s), and 16
seconds of visible emissions per charge
(with no exclusion for emissions during
the period after the closing of self-
sealing oven doors). In establishing the
standards, the EPA must evaluate,the
use of luting compounds to prevent
door leaks. (See section 112(d)(8)(A)(i).)
The EPA also must evaluate use of
Thompson nonrecovery coke oven
batteries and other nonrecovery
technologies as the basis of standards
for new batteries. (See section
112(d)(8)(A)(ii).) The EPA is also to
promulgate work practice regulations
for new and existing coke oven
batteries. These regulations are to
require, as appropriate:
The UM at •odium silicate (or equivalent)
luting compounds if EPA determines that tin
UM of (odium silicate Is an tractive mean*
of fifi^ttlffnt control aod is ecnievable. ^MnB
Into account costs and reasonable
commercial warranties far door* and related
equipment • • • and |amb cleaning
practice*. (See sections 112(dM8)(B)(i) and
112(d)(8KB)(U).)
In addition to these technology-based
standards, the EPA is required to
promulgate standards to address the risk
remaining after technology-based
standards are imposed. The EPA is to
issue these standards for coke oven
batteries within 8 yean of promulgation
of the MACT standards. (See section
112(f)(2)(C).) This technology-based
rulemaking does not depend on the nsk
analysis of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (R1A). and that analysis will be
revisited before any risk-based standard
rulemaking for coke oven emissions.
Existing coke oven batteries roust
comply with the MACT standards by
December 31.199S. (See section
112(d)(8)(A).) The compliance date for
meeting residual risk standards is
within 90 days of promulgation, which
may be extended up to 2 years under
certain circumstances. (See sections
112(f)(3H4).) However, the Act
provides an extension of the residual
risk standards for coke oven batteries
until January 1.2020. provided the
owner or operator of a coke oven battery
complies with technology-based
standards on an accelerated basis and
that these technology-based standards
become more stringent over time.
Under the extension track, to receive
the deferral of the compliance date until
the year 2020. the owner or operator
must achieve the following short-term
emission limitations by November 15,
1993: (1) 16 seconds of visible emissions
per charge, (2) 8 percent leaking coke
oven doors, (3) 1 percent leaking topside
port lids, and (4) 5 percent leaking
offtake systems. In addition, by January
1,1998, the battery must meet an
emission limitation that reflects the
lowest achievable emission rate (LAER),
as denned in section 171 of the Act. The
LAER regulations may be no less
stringent than the following short-term
limits: 3 percent leaking doors on
batteries with doors less than 6 m in
height (i.e.. a "short" coke oven battery)
and 5 percent leaking doors on batteries
with doors 6 m or more in height (i.e.,
a "tall" coke oven battery). 1 percent
leaking topside port lids. 4 percent
leaking offtake systems, and 18 seconds
of visible emissions per charge. (The
Administrator may consider an
exclusion for emissions from doors
during the period after the closing of
self-sealing doors or the total mass
emissions equivalent)
In the LAER rulemaking. the EPA
must establish an appropriate
measurement methodology for
determining compliance for coke oven
doors. The measurement methodology
must consider alternative methods that
reflect the best technology and practices
actually applied in the affected
industries and must ensure that the final
test methods are consistent with the
performance of such best technologies
and practices. Section 112(i)(8) requires
that, if the LAER standard is not
promulgated by January 1,1998. the
following short-term limits must be
achieved: (1) 3 percent leaking doors
(for short coke oven batteries), (2) 5
percent leaking doors (for tall coke oven
batteries). (3) 1 percent leaking topside
port lids, (4) 4 percent leaking offtake
system(s), and (5) 16 seconds of visible
emissions per charge, or the total mass
emissions equivalent, with no
exclusions for emissions during the
period after the closing of self-sealing
doors. (See section 112(i)(8)(B)(ii).)
The EPA must review and revise the
LAER standard, as necessary, by January
1. 2007. (See section 112(i)(8)(C).) To
continue to qualify for the deferral of
the compliance date for the residual risk
standards, the owner or operator must
meet any revised LAER limits by the
year 2010. (See section 112(i)(8)(C).) The
owner or operator also must make
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57899
available 10 trie surrounding community
fv iar.uarv i, 2000. the results oi any
::sk assessment performed by the EPA
•o determine tr.e appropriate le\ ei of a
-esidual risx s'anoard. (See section
Section H2(i)(8l(D) of the Act
provides that at any time prior to
lanuary t, Iy98 an owner or operator
may elect to comply with residual nsk
standards under section 112(f) by the
required pate rather than comply with
the LAER and revised LAER standards
and compliance dates. Thus, coke oven
battenes can opt out of the extension
track. However, the owner or operator
would be legally bound to comply with
the 1995 MACf standards and the
residual risk standards as of January 1.
2003. If EPA has not promulgated
industry-wide residual risk standards by
that time, the EPA must promulgate
residual risk standards for those
battenes that choose to meet residual
nsk standards by 2003.
B judicial Review
Under section 307(bHl) of me Act.
judicial review of national emission
standards for a hazardous air pollutant
(NESHAP) is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of today s
publication of this rule. Under section
307(b)(2) of the Act. the requirements
that are the subject of today's notice
may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the
EPA to enforce these requirements.
C. Summary of Final Rule
Applicability. The final standards
apply to all existing coke oven battenes.
including by-product and nonrecovery
coke oven batteries, and to all new coke
oven battenes constructed on or after
December 4.1992. A "by-produci ccne
oven battery" is denned as a source
consisting of a group of ovens corrected
by common walls, where ccal unoer^oes
destructive distillation under pcsi'.ne
pressure to produce coke and cone o\ en
gas from which by-products are
recovered. In a "nonrecovery cc»e c\ en
battery," the coal undergoes destructive
distillation under negative pressure to
produce coke; the coke oven gas is
combusted and by-products aie net
recovered. The list of operating coke
oven batteries as of Apnl 1,1992. .r>
appendix A to the rule, will be used to
resolve any disputes that may arise
concerning whether particular groups cf
ovens should be regarded as • single
battery under these regulations.
Emission standards. The emission
limitations included in the final ruie fcr
existing by-product coke oven baMer.es
are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 .—EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING BY-PRODUCT BATTERIESI
Emission points
Tall doors. PLD
foundry doors, PLD
All other doors, PLD
Uds, PLL
Offtakes. PLO
Charging. s/charge _
MACT track hmlts
12/31/95
6.0
5.5
5.5
0.6
30
12
01/01/03
5.5
5.0
5.0
0.6
30
12
LAER extension track Hmts
11/15/93
7.0
7.0
7.0
0.83
42
12
01/01/96
43
43
3.8
0.4
2.5
12
01/01/10
40
40
33
04
25
-.2
PLD • Percent leaking doors; PU - Percent leaking lids;
PLO » Percent leakkig offtakes.
' The 11/15/93 numbers are Vte 30-run limits mat are eourvalent to the November 1993 •mansion track limits given m r» Act wmch a-e 3-run
i.rrvts. The dates (hat are given m tne table are tne compliance dates for existing batteries.
The final standards require that, by
December 31.1995. coke oven
emissions from each existing by-product
coke oven battery not exceed: (1)55
percent leaking doors for short batteries
and 6.0 percent leaking doors for tall
batteries. (2) 0.6 percent leaking topside
port lids. O) 3.0 percent leaking offtake
s\ stemis). and (4) 12 seconds of visible
emissions per charge. On and after
January 1. 2003. leaking doors for tall
by-product coke oven battenes are
.;rm;ei to 5 5 percent, and emissions
from snort batteries must decrease to 5 0
percent leaking doors. These 2003
standards are applicable unless more
stringent residual nsk-based standards
are promulgated under section 112(0-
Unless otherwise noted, compliance
with visible emission standards is
determined on a 30-observauon rolling
average basis.
Visible emission limitations for a new
by-product coke oven battery
constructed at a new coke plant
i"greenfield" construction) and for a
new battery constructed at an existing
coke plant if it results in an increase in
the plant's coke capacity, are based en
the emission control performance
achieved by nonrecovery coke oven
battenes, which are 0.0 percent leaning
doors, topside port lids, end offtake
system(s) and 34 seconds of visible
emissions per charge.
The final standards also address by-
product recovery batteries that may use
a new technology in the future, such ts
larger ovens, operation under negative
pressure, or a process with emission
points different from those identified :n
this rule. After December 4,1992, an
owner or operator who constructs e new
by-product coke oven battery or
reconstructs a by-product coke oven
battery and uses a new by-product
recovery technology must apply for a
case-by-case determination of applicable
emission limitations. These case-by-cese
hauls must be more stringent than 4 0
percent leaking doors for tall battenes.
3.3 percent leaking doors for short
batteries, 0.4 percent leaking lids, 2.5
percent leaking offtakes, and 12 seconds
per charge, or less than the equivalent
level of mass emissions assoctetec with
these visible emission limits.
For door emissions from new, tr.d
existing nonrecovery coke oven
batteries, the NESHAP provides &r.
option of either: (1) Meeting and
recording an emission Imitation of G 3
percent leaking doors, or (2) ijionitcr-.sg
and recording the pressure in escr. o\ er;
or common battery tunrei &t lees; once
each day to ensure that the ovens ere
operated under negative pressure ?cr
charging on existing nonreco* erv
batteries, the owner or operator Trust
implement specific work practices New
nonrecovery battenes ro-st lEsial!
operate, and maintain ar. emission
control system for the capture and
control of charging emissions 15 new
nonrecovery batteries are constructed
with lids or offtake systems, tf.ese
batteries must meet limits of 0 percent
leaking topside port lids arid 0 perce-i
leaking offtake system(s)
Standards/or extension o.f
compliance. As provided under sec'.icn
I12(i)(8) of the Act. the owner or
operator of an existing coke over, battery
-------
57900 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
may choose to comply with alternative
emission standards to qualify for an
extension of the compliance date for
residual risk standards. By November
15.1993. coke oven emissions from
existing by-product coke oven batteries
are not to exceed 7.0 percent leaking
doors. 0.83 percent leaking topside port
hds. 4.2 percent leaking offtake
systetn(s). and 12 seconds of visible
emissions per charge. For nonrecovery
battenes seeking an extension of the
compliance date for residual risk, the
owner or operator must meet the MAC!
standards tor nonrecovery batteries by
November 15.1M3. No additional
requirement* an included in the rule
for LAER for nonrecovery batteries.
Thg final standards incorporate a
tiered approach for LAER for door leaks
at existing by-product coke oven
batteries on this compliance track and
one set of limits for LAER for the other
emission points. By January 1.1998.
emissions are to be limited tot (1) 4.3
percent leaking doors for tall batteries
and batteries owned or operated by
foundry coke producer!. (2) 3.8 percent
leaking doors for all other by-product
coke oven batteries. (3) 0.4 percent
leaking topside port lids, (4) 2.S percent
leaking offtakes, and (5) 12 seconds of
visible emissions per charge. By January
1.2010. emissions are to be reduced to
4.0 percent leaking doors for tall
batteries and batteries owned or
operated by foundry coke producers.
and to 3.3 percent leaking doors for all
other by-product coke oven batteries.
unless the Administrator has
established a more stringent emission
limitation under section 112(i)(8)(C). As
an alternative to the LAER limits for
percent leaking doors, the owner or
operator of a coke oven battery with
fewer than 30 ovens may comply with
a 30-run average of two or fewer leaking
coke oven doors per battery in Ueu of
the emission limitations to be achieved
by 1998 and 2010.
The construction of a new battery at
an existing plant without an increase in
the plant's design capacity for coke
production is termed a "brownfield"
battery, and the complete reconstruction
of a battery from the existing pad.
without an increase in the plant's design
capacity for coke, is called a "padup
rebuild." Visible emissions from all
brownfield or padup rebuild by-product
coke oven batteries (except specific
grandfathered batteries notea below) axe
limited to 3.3 percent leaking doors for
short batteries. 4.0 percent leaking doors
for tall batteries. 0.4 percent leaking
topside port lids. 2.5 percent leaking
offtake system(s). and 12 seconds of
visible emissions per charge. If these
grandfathered batteries do not
commence construction by July 1.1996.
or 1 year after obtaining • construction
permit (whichever is earlier), then they
are subject to the more stringent LAER
limits: otherwise, they are subject to the
January 1.1998. LAER limits. The
batteries eligible to be rebuilt under this
grandfather provision are Bethlehem
Steel's Bums Harbor No, 2 battery.
National Steel's Great Lakes No. 4
battery, and tappers' Woodward No. 3
battery.
Under customary industry practice, a
"padup rebuild" occurs when the
existing brickwork of a battery is
removed and a replacement battery is
constructed on the old pad. Under the
final rule, a "padup rebuild" includes
any rebuilding project that effectively
constitutes a replacement of the battery
above the pad. even if some portion of
the brickwork above the pad is retained
(e.g.. an end wall or several courses of
bricks above the pad). Thus, a different
test is applied than the traditional
"reconstruction" test, which, focuses on
whether the source is substantially
rebuilt In other words, the term "padup
rebuild" is not synonymous with the
traditional term "reconstruction."
However, any attempt to circumvent
inappropriately the more stringent door
leak requirement applicable to padup
rebuilds will be found to constitute a
padup rebuild. Accordingly, the rule
provides the Administrator (or
delegated State or local agency) the
authority to determine whether a project
is a "padup rebuild."
Batteries that were shut down but not
dismantled ("cold-idle batteries") on or
after November IS. 1990. can qualify for
the extension track. Upon restarting,
these batteries must meet the LAER
limits for existing batteries and. if they
are brownfield or padup rebuild
batteries, they must meet the more
stringent LAER requirements for these
types of batteries. Batteries that were
placed on cold idle prior to November
IS. 1990. may also qualify for the
extension track up to a total design
capacity for coke of 2.7 million Mg/yr.
which is based on 10 percent of the total
coke capacity at the end of 1990. The
EPA will process applications on a "first
come-first served basis." The
procedures include provisions under
which an approval will lapse where a
serious intention to use the capacity has
not been demonstrated. If an approval
lapses, the capacity of the battery is not
included in the 2.7 million Mg/yr limit,
After approval, the battery must meet
the emission limits described above for
other cold-idle batteries.
The rules also provide alternative
door leak standards, to be developed on
a case-by-case basis, for coke oven
batteries equipped with sheds. (Sheds
are enclosures attached to the side of a
battery that capture emissions and route
them to control devices.) Using the
procedure described in the rule, the
owner or operator may use an
alternative emission limitation for door
leaks from a new or existing coke oven
battery equipped with a shed and
emission control device. The alternative
is expressed as the allowable percent
leaking doors for doors that are
controlled by the shed, an opacity limit
for the control device, requirements to
ensure that the structural integrity of the
shed is maintained, and requirements to
ensure that the shed's evacuation rate is
maintained. An alternative emission
limit will be approved if it is shown that
the alternative achieves a reduction in
coke oven emissions from the doors
equal to or greater than the emission
reduction that would be achieved by
door leak emission controls installed to
meet the emission limitations in the
final standards. The determination of
equivalency is based on maintaining an
equivalent or lower mass emission rate
for coke oven emissions emitted from
the shed's control device. Inspections
for door leaks under the shed an to be
performed by the applicable
enforcement agency on a specified
schedule (weekly or monthly).
Test methods and inspections. Each of
the visible emission H""««**opt la based
on a 30-run average. To determine
compliance, a daily (once a day for 7
days) performance test Is to be
conducted for each coke oven battery
using Method 303. "Determination of
Visible Emissions from By-product Coke
Oven Batteries." or Method 303A.
"Determination of Visible Emissions
from Nonrecovery Coke Oven
Batteries."
The procedures described in Method
303 require the observer to walk the
topside center line of by-product coke
oven batteries and count the number of
topside port lids and offtake systems
from which any visible emissions are
observed. To record leaks in the
collecting main, the observer is required
to walk along the topside edge closest to
the main and on the catwalk over the
main. Methods 303 and 303A require
the observer to count leaking coke oven
doors on by-product and nonrecovery
ovens as the observer traverses the coke
oven battery at ground level.
Various situations may arise that
prevent the observer from viewing a
door or a series of doors. Prior to the
door inspection, the owner or operator
may temporarily suspend charging
operations for the duration of the
inspection so that all of the doors can
be viewed by the inspector. Two options
-------
s£
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57901
are included in the method for dealing
with obstructions to view: (1) Stop the
stopwatch and wait for the equipment to
move or for the fugitive emissions to
dissipate before completing the traverse,
or (2) stop the stopwatch, skip the
affected ovens, and move to a position
to continue the traverse. If using the
second option, the observer must return
and inspect the affected ovens after
completion of the traverse. If the
equipment or fugitive emissions are still
preventing the observer from viewing
the doors, then the affected doors may
be counted as not observed. If option 2
is used because of doors blocked by
machines during charging operations,
then, of the affected doors, the observer
must exclude the door from the most
recently charged oven from the
inspection. The rule prohibits the owner
or operator from deliberately blocking
doors for the purpose of concealing door
leaks during an inspection.
For each daily test, the observer must
monitor and record five consecutive
charges from each battery and conduct
one valid and complete inspection of all
doors, topside port lids, and offtake
systems on each coke oven battery. The
daily test results and the calculated 30-
run average are provided to the owner
or operator and the implementing
agency by the observer. If the observer
missed an observation for a day, no
compliance determination is made for
that day; calculation of the rolling 30-
run average proceeds with the next
valid observation made by the observer.
The inspection requirements for the
alternative standard for sheds are
different in that inspections are to be
conducted once a week for safety
reasons. If compliance with the
alternative standard is achieved fo: 12
consecutive weeks, the inspection
frequency decreases to monthly
observations. If the limit is exceeded in
any monthly inspection, the monitoring
frequency increases to once a week.
Because of the reduced inspection
frequency, the alternative standard is
not to be exceeded for any single
observation and is not based on a 30-run
roiling average.
EacL performance test is to be
conducted by a visible emission
observer, certified according to the
requirements of the test method and
provided by the applicable enforcement
agency at the company's expense. (The
formula for payment of expenses
included in the standard may be revised
after a specified period to adjust the
workload assumption, based on the
enforcement agency's experience.) State
agencies will be delegated authority to
ensure that the inspections are
conducted as required under the rule.
If a State is not delegated
implementation authority or if a State is
delegated implementation authority and
the delegation has been revoked or
withdrawn, or if the EPA has reassumed
implementation authority under
§ 63.313(b), the regulation provides that
the EPA will be the enforcement agency
and the owner or operator will become
responsible for contracting the required
emissions inspections. A provision has
been inserted in the regulation that
requires the owner or operator of a
battery for which the EPA is the
enforcement agency to enter into a
contract providing for the required
inspections to be performed by a
certified observer, at the expense of the
owner or operator. This requirement
would substitute for the requirement to
pay the inspection fee. Such a contract
must be in place within thirty'(30) days
of receipt by the owner or operator of
notice from the Administrator that the
EPA is the enforcement agency for the
battery. The owner or operator may
consult with the Agency concerning the
terms of the contract and how it satisfies
the requirements of the regulation.
Language has also been inserted in the
regulation providing that the inspection
fee is to be paid on a quarterly basis, to
provide an owner or operator some
protection against having to enter into a
subsequent inspection contract for a
period of time for which an inspection
fee has already been paid. While it is
prudent to provide for the possibility of
the EPA having to assume enforcement
agency responsibilities, the Agency
expects that it will rarely be required to
do so. Agency policy is to delegate
enforcement responsibilities under this
regulation to the States; it fully expects
that the States uniformly will undertake
these enforcement responsibilities, and
discharge them fully and adequately.
The certification requirements of
Method 303 include a requirement to
attend the lecture portion of the Method
9 training course, followed by classroom
training, field inspections, and
demonstration of proficiency in Method
303. Attendees of the course must
certify that they have satisfied a 12 hour
field observation requirement pnor to
attending the Method 303 certification
course. A videotape explaining Method
303 will be made available to interested
parties. This Method 303 training course
will be conducted by or under the
sanction of the EPA, and the field
training will include instruction bora
experienced observers.
Observer proficiency will be
demonstrated during actual visible
emission tests to the satisfaction of a
panel of three experienced and certified
observers. However, until November IS,
1994. the EPA may waive the
certification requirement (but not the
experience requirement) for panel
members. The panel members wiii be
EPA. State, or local agency personnel
who are designated by the EPA as
certified and qualified panel members
or pnvate contractors approved by the
Administrator. If the Administrator
deems it necessary, the EPA wiil
publish a list of qualified panel
members in a separate notice.
Work practices. The work practice
standards require the owner or operator
of an existing or new coke oven battery
to develop a written plan describing
emission control work practices to be
Implemented for each battery. The plan.
required by November IS, 1993, must
include provisions for training and
procedures for controlling emissions
from coke oven doors, charging
operations, topside port lids, and offtake
system(s) on by-product coke oven
batteries. Similar requirements are
included for work practices at
nonrecovery batteries for door leaks and
charging emissions. Under specified
conditions, the EPA may require
revisions to the plan or the inclusion of
additional work practices or
requirements. The EPA expects work
practice plans prepared for this rule and
tor OSHA requirements to be
compatible and that the affected facility
will comply with both requirements.
For coke oven batteries subject to
visible emission limitations under the
NESHAP on November 15.1993 (i.e.,
extension track batteries), the work
practice requirements become
applicable following the second
independent exceedance of the visib.s
emission limitation for a particular
emission point in any consecutive 6-
month period. The second exceedacce
is independent if it is separated from the
first by at least 30 days or if the 29-run
average, calculated after deleting the
highest observation in the 30-day
period, still exceeds the applicable
emission limit. A similar procedure is
used to calculate independence in the
case of charging emissions, under which
the rolling logarithmic average is
recomputed, excluding the daily se: cf
observations with the highest daily
arithmetic average. The owner or
operator is required to implement the
work practice requirements applicable
to the emission point by no latei than
3 days after written notification of the
exceedance. The rule requires that the
work practices be implemented each
day until the visible emission limitation
for the emission point is achieved for 90
consecutive days.
The owner or operator of a coke oven
battery not subject to visible emission
-------
579O2 Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
limitations under the NESHAP until
Doceraber 31. 1995 (i.e.. a battery not on
the extension track), is required to
implement the provisions of the work
practice plan for a particular emission
point subject to visible emission
iimitations under these NESHAP (i.e..
coke oven doors, topside port lids,
offtake system(s), and charging
operations) following the second
exceedance of a federally enforceable
State or local ordinance, regulation.
order, or agreement for that emission
point. The standards require that the
work practice provisions be
implemented within 3 days of receipt of
written notification from the applicable
enforcement agency and continued until
compliance with the visible emission
limitation is achieved for 90 days from
the last exceedance.
For coke oven batteries with an
approved alternative standard for sheds.
work practices for doors under the shed
must be implemented based on
exceedances of the alternative standard
for percent leaking doors under the
shed. If one side of the coke oven
battery does not have a shed, work
practice* for coke oven doors most be
implemented based on exceedances el
the applicable emission limitation for
that side of the battery.
The Administrator may require
revisions to the work practice plan for
a particular emission point if there are
two independent exceedances hi the 6-
month period starting 30 days after the
work practices are required to be
implemented. The owner or operator
must notify the Administrator of any
finding that the work practices are not
related to the cause or the solution of
the problem within 10 days of receiving
a notification from the enforcement
agency concerning the second
independent exceedance. The
Administrator may disapprove a
revision or a statement that a revision is
not needed. No more than two revisions.
per year may be requested: however, a
revision in response to a disapproval of
a revision, voluntary revisions, and
statements that a revision is not needed
do not count toward this limit.
Flans. The standards also require the
installation, operation, and maintenance
of a flare system (or equnrelently
effective alternative control device or
system) by March 31,1994. for the
bypass/bleeder stacks of each existing
by-product coke oven battery in
operation as of December 31.1995, that
is capable of combusting 120 percent of
the normal gas flow generated by the
battery. New batteries must meet the
Dare requirements when production
operations start.
The flare system most be designed to
meet the EPA flare specification* in 40
CFR 60.18 (New Source Performance
Standards), with certain modifications
to take into account the special
characteristics of the gas stream. For
example, the specification for net
heating values in 40 CFR 60.18(cH3i is
revised under the rule to.establish a
design specification for the net heating
value of coke oven emissions for steam-
assisted or air-assisted flaxes of 8.9 MJ/
scrn (240 Btu/scf) or greater. Installation
of the flare will not constitute, a physical
or operational change for the purposes
of determining the applicability of new
source review requirements. To qualify
for an exemption from the flare
installation requirement the owner or
operator must submit a formal
commitment to permanent closure of
the battery by no later than 2 weeks
from today's publication of the. final
rule, in no case may a battery for which
the owner or operator has submitted
such a closure notification operate past
December 31. 1995.
Questions arose after proposal about
the intent of the provision ia
S 63 J07(bM3Mli) of the rule, which
require* that ignition unit* be designed
failsafe with respect to the flame-
detection, thermocouples. A clarifying
sentence was added to the rule to
explain the intent of this provision. The
intent was t^"** th« fl«m« detection
thermocouple* are used only to indicate
the presence of a flame and an not
interlocked with the ignition units.
Consequently, the flame detection
thermocouples do not affect the
operation of the ignition unit In the
event that the thermocouples fail and
indicate the presence of a flame when
one does not exist the ignition unit is
not deactivated and would continue to
ignite any bypassedga*.
Collecting main. The collecting mala
is to be inspected for leaks at laast once
daily under the final standards. Any
leaks detected must be temporarily
sealed within 4 hours; a permanent
repair must be initiated within 9
calendar days of detection and
completed within IS calendar days of
detection unless extended by the
Administrator. The time and date of
collecting main leaks, temporary
sealing, and repair also must be
recorded.
Startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. These provisions require
the owner or operator to develop a
written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan that provides for the
operation of the source in accordance
with good air pollution control practices
tor nonimizjOff flrniffsi^^yi and Cor
procedures for correcting the
malfunction as quickly as practicable.
Associated reporting and recordkeeping
provisions also are included.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. The regulation would
require that certain records be
maintained and the following reports be
submitted: compliance certifications,
notifications, and reports of
uncontrolled venting episodes and
certain startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions.
For each 6-month period following
today's publication of the rule, the
owner or operator is required to submit
a semiannual compliance certification
attesting that: (I) No coke oven gas was
vented through the bypass/bleeder
stack; (2) coke oven gas was vented
through the bypass/bleeder flare system,
which operated properly; or (3) a
venting report was submitted because of
problems with the bypass/bleeder flare
system. Semiannual compliance
certifications are also required to attest
that: (1) No startup, shutdown, or
malfunction event occurred, or such an
event did occur and a report was
provided as required; and (2) work
practices were implemented according
to the work practice provisions, if
applicable.
The notification provisions include
requirements for owners or operators to
notify the Administrator of the
compliance track election that has been
made for each battery. In general, these
provisions allow batteries to "straddle"
(i.e.. elect both tracks) up until 1998,
when a binding commitment to one
compliance track or the other must be
made.
The recordkeeping provisions require
owners or operators to keep specified
records and make them accessible to the
Administrator. These include certain
monitoring records, records reflecting
the implementation of work practice
plan provisions, and records related to
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
Records also are to be maintained of
data for the alternative emission
standard for doors, including opacity
data for the shed's control device.
parameters that indicate that the
evacuation rate is maintained, records of
visual inspections, and operation/
maintenance records for a continuous
opacity monitoring system. For
nonrecovery batteries, records are
required of daily pressure monitoring
and work practices for charging or, for
new nonrecovery batteries, of design
information for die charging emission
control system. In addition, design
information for flares or approved
alternative control devices or systems
must be maintained.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Repater / Vol. SB, No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulation*
57903
Provisions are also included requtrinc
the owner or operator to make records
or reports required to be maintained or
required to be submitted to the
i-nforcumpnt agency available to the
authorized collective bargaining
representative for inspection and
copying. The owner or operator must
respond to a request within a reasonable
penod of time. Except for emission data
as defined in 40 CFR part 2, documents
(or parti of documents) containing trade
secrets or confidential business
information do not have to be produced,
and the inspection or copying of
documents will not affect any
intellectual property rights of the owner
or operator in the documents.
Relationship to existing regulations
and requirements. Provisions also are
included in the NESHAP that require
the owner or operator to comply with all
applicable State implementation plan
(SEP) emission limitations (or subject to
any expiration date, federally
enforceable emission limitations
contained in an order, decree, permit or
settlement agreement) for the control of
emissions from charging operations.
topaide port lida, offtake sy«tem(i). and
coke oven doors in effect cm September
IS, 1992. Any change to tfaaae existing
regulations must ensure that the
applicable Tiifflirfim limitations and
format in effect on September 13, 1992.
will continue to effect; that the change
include* a more stringent monitoring
method and that no emission increase
will occur; or that such modification
makes th* ^^nifff^"** tt'^tffflffntt more
stringent while holding the format
unchanged, mesas the format more
stringent while holding the twtirrt'm
limitations unchanged. or makes both
more stringent. A provision also is
Included thai addressee the relationship
of the coke oven NBSHAP to section
112(g] and that conclude* that section
112(g) requirements will not apply to
sources subject to the coke oven
NESHAP.
EL Summary of EnviresmMBtai, Cost,
mini fa triionitr impede
No comments were received regarding
the environmental, coat, and economic
imped analyses presented far the
proposed NESHAP, and no changes to
the analyse* hare been made for the
final rule. However, the fat of operating
batteries in appendix A to the nile has
been revised to include the nonrecovery
batteries. Additional iniannation on the
estimated anvirr«r»p»Y*M^} coat, and
economic lrnpy*T la Inrhided In the
notice of proposed roJemakmg (57 FR
37556, December 4, 1992) cad the
docket
Implementation of the MACT
standard is expected to reduce
nationwide coke oven emissions from
charging and leaks by the end of 1995
by about 80 percent to 160 Mg/yr, and
omissions from bypass/bleeder stacks
will be reduced by at least 98 percent to
no more than 17 Mg/yr. Implemen-
tation of the LAER.standard is expected
to reduce nationwide coke oven
emissions by the beginning of 1998 by
00 percent to about 80 Mg/yr. After the
implementation of LAER and the
Installation of flares on bypass/bleeder
stacks, the overall reduction in coke
oven emissions is estimated at 94
percent. Because the control techniques
focus on pollution prevention and
containment within the by-product
collection system, similar reductions in
emissions are expected for both organic
paniculate matter and for the volatile
organic compounds and other pollutants
contained in coke oven emissions for
the sources controlled under these
standards.
The MACT standards for existing
batteries ere expected to be achiered
lildlng the battery i
without rebuil
improved equip
t and i
maintenance, trslninaL and inspoctifl
The total nationwide capital cost of
MACT for existing batteries is estim
at $66 million with a total annual cost
of $25 million per year. Many batteries
are currently achieving the MACT levels
and would not Incur any significant
Increase in costs. The MACT standard Is
expected to tncreese the price of furnace
coke by 0.2 percent and the price of
foundry coke-by 1.1 percent Coke
production is projected to decrease by
0.7 percent for furnace coke and 1.1
percent for foundry coke. No coke
batteries are projected to dose as a
result of the MACT standard.
The LAER standards may require the
Inntallatlfin of new doors ind i**»*h* or
ID. Public Participation
The EPA recognized the need for
Federal regulation of coke oven
emissions and the many issue* and
challenges posed in developing,
proposing, and promulgating standards
to meet the requirements of the Act.
During the spring and summer of 1991.
the EPA met with representatives of the
Industry, labor unions. States, and
environmental groups to discuss
available data to be used as the basis of
the new regulation*. A workshop format
was used to explore and clarify the
varying viewpoints. Following these
Informal discussions, the EPA
announced Its intention to establish a
committee to negotiate a new approach
for the control o/coke oven emissions
(57 FR 1730. January 15.1992) and
conducted formal meetings and
informal workshops over the next
several month* to identify and resolve
the many issue* titffrif**^ with
-------
57904 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—COKE OVEN BATTERIES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER-
SHIP—Continued
Memoers
Tom Ranck
John Seitz
Michael Shapiro.
John Sheahan ...
Bruce Steinar
John Stinson
Shirley Virostek .
Michael Wright...
Affiliation
Indiana Department of
Environmental Man-
agement.
Environmental Protection
Agency.
Environmental Protection
Agency.
United Steelworkers of
America.
American Iron and Steel
Institute.
National Steel Corpora-
tion.
Group Against Smog and
Pollution.
United Steetworkere of
America.
Using various forums, the Committee
discussed many challenging issues.
including the emission data to be used
to select a standard, potential regulatory
formats and numerical «•"<••<"" limits,
visible emission monitoring methods.
costs and economics, other emission
sources, and work practices. Associated
issues such as enforcement and
implementation needs, legal aspects,
future research, and integration of the
proposed rule with EPA's new
permitting system also were identified
and discussed.
Several of the Committee meetings
were attended by representatives of
local citizens groups and members of
unions representing the workers at
several coke plants. The union
representatives made useful
presentations to the Committee on
several issues.
At the final negotiating session, the
major issues were resolved
conceptually. Thereafter, the Committee
reviewed drafts of the regulatory
language and the preamble, resolved
remaining issues, and signed a formal
agreement on October 28. 1992. The
Committee members have agreed to
support the standard as long as EPA
promulgates a regulation and preamble
with the same substance and effect of
the regulation and preamble that were
the subject of the final agreement.
It is important to note that the parties
to the negotiation concurred with the
regulation and preamble when
considered as a whole. The parties did
not attempt to agree on the accuracy or
conclusions reached in various docket
items (e.g.. Regulatory Impacts
Analysis). However, some of these
documents served as background
information to assist the parties in
achieving a consensus. Inevitably in any
negotiation, this means that some
parties may have made concessions in
one area in exchange for concessions
from other parties in other areas.
Interested parties also were advised
by public notice in the Federal Register
(57 FR 46854. October 13.1992) of a
meeting of the National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory
Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the
status of the NESHAP recommended for
proposal. (See Docket Item Vm-J-7.)
This meeting was held on November 18,
1992. The meeting was open to the
public and each attendee was given an
opportunity to comment on the
standards recommended for proposal.
The standards were proposed in the
Federal Register on December 4.1992
(57 FR S7S34). Public comments were
solicited at the time of proposal, and
copies of the proposed rule were
distributed to interested parties. (See
Docket Item X-C-1.)
To provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards, a public
hearing was held on January 15,1993.
in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. A total of
11 interested parties testified at the
public hearing concerning issues
relative to the proposed national
emission standards for coke oven
batteries. This hearing was open to the
public, and each attendee was given an
opportunity to f*"""""tt on the
proposed standards. (See Docket Item
X-C-1.)
The public comment period was from
December 10.1992 to January 22.1993.
The record was held open for an
additional 30 days to receive additional
comments in support of. or in rebuttal
to. the testimony presented at the
hearing.
IV. Response to Public Comments
A total of 62 comment letters were
received regarding the proposed
standards. Commenters included one
engineering firm, one trade association,
one Federal agency, one State health
agency, representatives of
environmental groups in Pennsylvania,
and Pennsylvania citizens who reside
near the Claiiton Works, the Nation's
largest coke plant A copy of each
comment received is included in the
rulemaldng docket A list of
commenters, their affiliations, and the
EPA docket number assigned to their
correspondence is given in Table 3.
TABLE 3.—LIST OF COMMENTED
PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION^"
STANDARDS FOR COKE OVEN BAT-V
TERIES /
Docket
item
number'
X-D-1 ..
X-D-2
X-D-3 ..
X-D-4 ..
X-O-5 ..
X-D-6 ..
X-D-7 ..
X-D-8 ..
X-0-9 ..
X-D-10
X-D-11
X-O-12
X-D-13
X-D-14
X-D-15
X-O-16
X-O-17
Commenter and affiliation
onatnan P. Deason. Director, Of-''
fice of Environmental Affairs, -
U.S. Department of the Interior..
Washington, DC 20240.
Shiriey Wostek. 1444 Washington
Boulevard. Port Vua. PA 15133.
anet Strahosky, Ohio River Basin
Environmental Council. Poet Of-
fice Box 41135. Pittsburgh. PA
15202.
Rosemary K. Coffey. 916
Betetonta Street Pittsburgh. PA
15232-2204.
Phillip J. Mole, Sun Eco Systems, i
Inc., 7949 West Country Club
Lane. Bmwood Park. It 60835.
Nancy F. Parks. Sierra Club,,
Pennsylvania Chapter. 201 Ween
Aaron Square, Post Office Box-
120. Aaronsburg. PA 16820-.'
0120.
Marilyn SkoWck, Siena Club—The.
ABegneny Group. 109 Soutn
Ridge Drive. Monroevitle. PA
15146.
Robert P. DeTorre. 1500
Monongahela Boulevard, White £
Oak. PA 15131. T
Maiflyn SkoWck. Sierra Club—The ",
ANegheny Group, 109 South
Ridge Drive. Monroeville, PA
15146.
Richard tawson. President Na-
tional Coal Association. 1130
17th Street NW. Washington,
0020036-4677.
Mane Kocoshis. Group Against
Smog and Pollution. Post Office
Box 5165. Pittsburgh. PA 15206.
Butch Allen. Jefferson County De-
partment of Health, Birmingham.
AL 35233.
Shiriey Schuttz. 111 Cammo Court.
Jefferson Borough. Clairton, PA
15025
Hugh D. Young. 5746 Aylesooro
Avenue. Pittsburgh. PA 15217.
Milton Deaner, American Iron and
Steel Institute.
Mark T. Engle. American Coke
and Coal ChemcaJs Institute.
David Dontger. Natural Resources
Defense Cound.
S. William Becker. State and Terri-
torial Air Pollution Program Ad-
ministrators/Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials.
John J. Sheehan. United Steel
Workers of America.
Marie Kocoshis, President. Group
Against Smog and Pollution,
Post Office Box 5165. Pitts-
burgh. PA 15206.
Barbara D. Hays.1421 Wlghtman
Street. Pittsburgh, PA 15217.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 206 / Wednwdty, October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57305
TABLE 3.—LIST OF COMMENTERS ON
PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR COKE OVEN BAT-
TERIES—Continued
TABLE 3.—LIST OF COMMENTERS ON I TABLE 3.—LBT OF COMMENTERS ON
PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION | PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
Docket
item
X-O-18
X-O-19
X-O-20
X-O-21
X-O-22
X-O-23
X-O-24
X-D-25
X-D-26
X-O-27
X-O-28
X-O-29
x-o-ao
X-O-31
X-O-32
X-O-33
X-O-34
x-o-as
X-0-36
X-O-37
X-O-38
X-O-39
X-O-40
Lawrence Stavlah, 120 Brom Ave-
nue. Pittsburgh, PA 1522B.
Judith Stack. 6408 Kentucky Ave-
nue. Pittsburgh, PA 15206.
Qafl Gregory.
Nicholas Kyrtazl, 617 Avery Street.
Pmsburgh, PA 15212.
Diane Doyle, President, League ot
County Courtd. Community In-
tormaaon Center. YWCA Fourth
and Wood Street. Pittsburgh. PA
15222.
EBsaa M. Weiss. MD, 134 Dennis
Drive. Glenahaw^PA 15116.
Suzanne M. Broughton, Director,
North Aree Environmental Coun-
ct. 2377 Jentdneon Drive. Pits-
burgh. PA 16237.
Mary Edmonds, 1116 Herbarton
Street Pittsburgh, PA 15206.
Mervtn L BeBto. MO. CBnlcal As-
Urtverstty of Pittsburgh Medteai
Canter, 3811 O*Hara Street
Pittsburgh. PA 15213-2583.
Barbara AoTer, 8018 WeHestoy Av-
enue, PWsburgh, PA 15206.
LMefemocant.
Drive, Pittsburgh. PA 15236.
Matthew R. Brunnar.
John Hummel. Upper Asegheny
Prasarvason Association. Post
Office Box 207, Kennerdal, PA
16374.
Timothy L Ctmlno, 5135 Dearborn
Street, Pittsburgh. PA 15224-
2432.
TentPokwky.
Harry Cotgure, GWC Buttdrng,
Apanmant 712. dalrton, PA
15025-1754.
Samuel Hays. Chalf, Conservation
Commmee. Sierra Oub, Alle-
gheny Group, 1421 WtghPnan
Street, Pittsburgh. PA 15217.
Robert DeTorre. Group Against
Smog end Poautton. 1500
Monongaheta Boulevard. Whtte
Oak. PA 15131.
Shirley Vlrostek, Group Against
Smog and Pollution, 1444
Washington Boulevard. Port
Vue, PA 15133.
Janet Strehosfcy, Onto River Bestn
Environmental Councs, Post Of-
fice BOH 41135. Pittsburgh, PA
15202.
Dennis Winters. Siena Club. East-
em Pennsylvania Group, 618
Catharine Street 3rd Ftoor.
PhtaoalpNa, PA 19147.
Sam Spoftorth. Clean Water Ac-
Bon, 35 North 8e> Street. Aden
town. PA 18102.
STANDARDS FOR COKE OVEN BAT-
TERIES—Continued
Docket
Bam
number*
X-O-42
X-D-43
X-D-44
X-0-45
X-O-46
X-D-47
X-D-48
X-D-49
X-0-60
X-O-61
X-O-52
X-O-53
X-D-64
X-0-55
X-0-56
X-0-57
X-0-66
X-0-60
X-O-60
X-O-61
OonffnvntDT find •ffHtrton
Sam Mchots. Stafl Attorney. Oakt-
were Vatay CIBzanrs Council lor
Clean Air, 311 Jumper Street
Room 603. PNkttMpNa, PA
18107.
Marte KocosMs, President Group
Against Smog and PoBuflon,
Post Office Box 5165, Pitts-
burgh, PA 15206.
Butch Alan, Jefleraon County De-
psrtment of HeaNh, Bhmlnghem,
AL 35233.
Etonore SsMenbera 220 North
DRMdge Street, Number 301,
Pittsburgh. PA 15213.
Dorm Fofona, 307 Buringkjn
Road. PMsbunh, PA 15221.
rtsesof W. W. Mutta. Depart-
ment of MetalufflkTai Englrieer-
tng and Matsrtsai Science, Car-
nsgls Melon LWverstty, 8308
Wean Hal. Pittsburgh, PA
15213.
Ms. Jorrt Kay Plaen, 121 KoBar
Drive, McKeesport._PA JS133.
PenneytvarBB Cuvtionmental
Counct, Benedum Trees BuM-
Ing. 223 48t Avenue. SuRe 603,
PItaburgh, PA 15222.
David Jeanow. 6648 Martborough
Road, Pittsburgh. PA 15217.
Betsy Ensnanoar. 4118 WMerbum
Avenue. Pstsburgh. PA 15207.
Maryam Hoozte. 2421 Pin Oak
Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15220.
Suzanne Bailey. 1112 Greenfield
Avenue. Pittsburgh, PA 15217.
Patricia B. Pelkoter. 252 South
WtnebkkBs Street Pittsburgh,
PA 15224.
Peggy Alan Hledkth, 531 Aftanby
Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15218.
Jtm Lampt 607 Cherokee Street,
rnMn. PA 1564Z
R. Joseph Wetruepfel. 5—G Jenny
Lyrm Court. PWsborgh, PA
15238.
Mary Burlendo, 241 Stver Oak
Drive. PWsburgh. PA 15220.
Mary & Koslatoa. Chatwm Col-
lege, Woodand Road. Pitts-
burgh. PA 15232-2826.
Mr. and Mrs. Louie E. Eback,
Kingston Apartments, Number
600. Pittsburgh, PA 15202.
Dr. Maryam Donowan-Peluao, 643
East End Avenue, Pittsburgh,
PA 15221.
Ondy J. Corbett, 5703 Jackson
Street. Number 2. Pittsburgh, PA
15206.
STANDARDS FOR COKE OVEN BAT-
TERIES—Continued
Docket
item
number*
X-D-63
wtd sfRHfltton
F. Parka. Stem Quo,
PsnnsyManta Chapter, 201 West
Aaron Square, Post OMca Bo*
120, Aaranaburg. PA 16820-
'Tha docket number tar Ma rulewiaktng Is
A-7»-16. Dockets are on ate at ttw EPA'e Air
Docket Section, Waterside Mam, room 1500.
1st Ftoor. 401 M Street SW, Washington. DC
20460.
Most of the comment letters contained
multiple comments, which have been
and addiasseo nnder the
tallowing general topics: General, Test
Methods and Monitoring, Reporting and
Recordkeeping, and Miscellaneous.
These comments have bean carefully
considered, and. where determined to
t>e appropriate by the Administrator,
changes nave been made in the final
itanderds. A. summary of tne
and the Agency's responses is given
below.
A. General
Comment: A total of 57 environmental
OUDS and local Citizens r^mmant |K«t
e proposed standards are too weak; 35
of these conunentBn fp«^ftf*liy argne
thai the rule does not provide any
incentive for improvement from the 19
batteries in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, where stronger regulatory
controls are already in practice
(conunenten X-D-2, X-D-3. X-D-4, X-
D-9, X-D-13. X-O-14, X-D-16, X-4J-
17. X-D-18, X-D-lft, X-O-2Q, X-O-21.
X-D-22, X-D-23. X-D-25, X-D-27. X-
D-28, X-D-M. X-O-31, X-D-3Z. X-l>-
33. X-D-M. X-D-41, X-O-42, X-TJ-44.
X-^3-45. X-D-46. X-O-17. X-D-49. X-
D-50. X-D-52. X-O-58. X-D-60. X-D-
61. and X-D-63).
Response: The EPA agrees that some
of the battalias in Allegheny County
have achieved exemplary levels of
emission control pqifmtrt«m«i,
especially five batteries that are either
new or recently rebuilt, and are subject
to some of the most stringent emission
limits in the Nation. Performance data
that were collected as a part of
Allegheny County's regulatory program
played a major role in the development
of the emission limits in the rule, m
addition, coke oven batteries in
Allegheny County pioneered the
widespread installation of controls for
emissions from bypass/bleeder stacks.
-------
57906 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
1 -\
for which controb have been included
as a provision in the rule.
Consequently, other coke oven
batteries in the United States will obtain
significant emission reductions as they
achieve the control levels demonstrated*
by the best performing batteries in
Allegheny County. However, the EPA
does not agree that the NESHAP will not
result in additional improvement in
emission control for the Allegheny
County batteries. The format of the rule
requires step-wise improvements in
emission control over time (e.g.,
compliance with the most stringent
limits for batteries on the extension
track is required by January 1.2010).
Although the November 1993 limits,
which were specified in the Clean Air
Act for batteries on the extension track.
will result in only a marginal
improvement in control for batteries in
Allegheny County, the step-wise
increase in stringency will require all of
the coke oven batteries in the County to
improve their performance to comply
with the LAER emission limit*. As the
standards increase in stringency over
time, the emission control performance
of most of the batteries in the County
must improve to »"«i"t«in compliance.
For example. 12 of the 19 batteries must
improve door leak control to meet the
2003 MACT limits for percent leaking
doors (baaed on 1990 data). To meet the
extension track limits in 2010. a total of
18 of the 19 batteries must Improve door
leak control
The EPA examined emission control
performance data for the USS-Clairton
batteries separately and for all of the
Allegheny County batteries collectively
when they were operating at normal
capacity in 1989 and 1990. The data for
percent leaking doors, percent leaking
topside port lids, percent leaking offtake
system(s). and seconds of visible
emissions per charge showed that if the
12 USS-Clairton batteries were placed
on the extension track, emissions at
their current level of performance
would be reduced by 65 percent by 1998
and 70 percent by 2010. If these
batteries are placed on the MACT track.
current emissions would be reduced by
40 percent by 1995. If all 19 batteries at
the 3 coke plants in Allegheny County
are considered, emissions at their
current level of performance would be
reduced on the extension track by 70
percent in 1998 and by 75 percent in
2010. If these batteries are placed on the
MACT track, emissions would be
reduced by 50 percent in 1995. (See
Docket Item X-B-1.)
As a consequence of the staged
reduction in coke oven emissions, the
exposure of residents to these emissions
will also decrease. In addition, the 1990
Amendments to the Act specifically
address citizen exposure by requiring
the EPA to address the risk remaining
after technology-based standards are
imposed. The EPA is to issue these
standards within 8 years of
promulgation of the MACT standards.
Comment: Two commenters (X-D-2
and X-D-49) fear that coke plants in
Allegheny County will "backslide" from
existing control requirements (i.e.. that
the NESHAP may replace or "water
down" regulatory controls already in
practice). In support, one commenter
submits that the long-term average
performance at Qairton Coke of 4.3
percent leaking doors compared to the
statutory long-term average performance
of 5.8 percent leaking doors will result
in relaxation of local standards.
Response: Provisions are included in
the ruie to prevent-this situation. M
discussed in the preamble at 57 FR
57544 (and stated in 5 63.312 of the
regulation), a SIP cannot be revised to
be lass stringent than it was prior to
September IS. 1992. The coke oven
batteries in Allegheny County will
remain subject to any applicable State or
local regulations in addition to this rule.
Thus, thf fl««i standards will
supplement and not weaken any
regulatory controls now in place. The
specific example of a long-term average
of 5.8 percent leaking doors refers to the
November 1993 limits specified in the
Act and not to the more stringent
emission Units developed by the Coke
Oven Battery Advisory Committee that
must be met at staged intervals (starting
in December 1995 for MACT and
extending through January 2010 for
LAER). The emission limits developed
by the Committee will require long-term
performance levels below 5.8 percent
leaking doors.
Comment: Local environmental
groups and citizens residing near the
Clairton facility do not agree with the
scope of control under the proposed
rule. According to commenters X-D-3,
X-D-8. and X-D-42, controb are
warranted for quenching, combustion
stacks, pushing, and decarbonization.
Combustion stacks, pushing, and
decarbonization operations are also
substantial sources of particulate matter
warranting control, particularly in a
PM-10 (particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter) nonattainment
area (commenters X-D-2, X-D-3, X-D-
39. X-D-41. X-D-42, and X-D-53).
Emissions of PM-10 are of great concern
to the commenters because these
aerosols can be contaminated with
toxins and inhaled into the lungs.
Response: The EPA behoves that the
emission points subject to the rule are
the major sources of the listed
hazardous air pollutant "coke oven
emissions" associated with a well-
maintained and properly operated coke
oven battery. The controb and work
practice requirements included in the
rule will provide concurrent control of
many air toxics and hazardous
pollutants included in the coke oven
emissions from batteries or bypass/
bleeder stacks. As discussed in the
preamble, toxic or hazardous air
pollutants (organics, metab. and
particulate matter) can also be emitted
from other sources such as quenching.
pushing, combustion stacks, and
decarbonization operations. In many
cases, these emission points are subject
to existing State or local regulations and
consent decrees. New Federal
regulations affecting air emissions from
other emission sources in the plant also
are now being implemented (e.g.,
NESHAP for by-product plants and
benzene waste operations), which will
result in emission reductions for
benzene (and other hazardous
pollutants) and volatile organic
compounds, m addition, the EPA plans
to collect information on emissions and
emission control technologies for air
emission sources associated with
ferrous manufacturing and will develop
MACT standards for them prior to the
year 2000. The ferrous manufacturing
source categories will include: (1)
Review of the existing NESHAP for coke
by-product recovery plants; (2) pushing.
quenching, and battery stacks; (3)
ferroalloys production; (4) integrated
iron and steel manufacturing; (5)
nonstainless steel manufacturing; (6)
stainless steel manufacturing; (6) iron
foundries; (7) steel foundries; and (8)
steel pickling—HC1 process. (See Docket
Items Vm-J-6 and X-4-1.) Although the
EPA understands and sympathizes with
the commenters' desire for immediate
further regulation of all emission points
at these facilities. Congress did not
mandate immediate controls for the
emission points mentioned in their
comments, and the EPA is not
precluded from adopting regulations
one step at a time.
Comment: Local environmental
groups and citizens point to the high
levels of unregulated toxic and
hazardous pollutants emitted from the
coke plants in Allegheny County.
According to Commenter X-D-42. State
legislation will not allow more stringent
controls on coke ovens than those
required under the 1990 Amendments.
In addition, coke plants in the
Pittsburgh area are located in heavily
industrialized river valleys that are
prone to air inversions (commenters X-
D-3. X-D-38, X-D-47. X-D-48, X-D-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57907
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
49. X-D-55. X-D-57. X-D-60, and X-
D-63). The commenters ask that
additional consideration b« given to
Allegheny County, which has the largest
coke plant in the country, the largest
concentration of coke oven batteries.
and possibly the highest level of citizen
exposure. They ask for the development
of special standards specific to
Allegheny County, a special health
study, or for national standards that are
geared to local communities where
pollution exposure is particularly bad
due to meteorology, clusters of facilities,
local terrain, size of the facility, and/or
total emissions from the facility
(commenters X-D-35. X-D-36, X-D-38.
X-D-41. X-D-»2. X-D-53. X-D-58. X-
D-61. and X-D-63). Commenter X-D-
18 also suggested innovative approaches
such as: (1) Fostering pollution
prevention by including incentives for
plants to invest in technology to reduce
the volume of pollutants generated
during the production process, 12)
providing tax incentives for pollution
reduction or research and development,
(3) using money from fines to fund
research and development of new
technologies and methods, and (4)
performing an international study on
coke oven pollution control so new
developments can be incorporated in
the plant.
Response: The provisions in the Act
with respect to coke ovens require the
development of a technology-based
standard to be followed by the
development of a residual nsk standard
at a later date. The EPA certainly has
acted reasonably in developing rules
consistent with this approach. The
opportunity for special provisions for
Allegheny County, or any other location
that may have high exposure levels and
high nsk, will be available under the
nsk standard. The final standards are
technology-based and are applied
uniformly to all coke plants in the
United States. These coke plants all use
the same cokemaking process and the
same emission control technology
applies to each of them; consequently,
there was no basis for a special
subcategorization for battenes in
Allegheny County. However, the risk
standard to be developed must address
the site-specific nature of any high
levels of residual nsk that might remain
after today's final standards ere
•.implemented.
The EPA is also interested in
innovative approaches, and there are
continuing and emerging efforts in this
area. The EPA has identified and
investigated the ments of new
technology (including form cokemaking
and, more recently, the Jewell
nonrecovery process) and attempts to
stay informed of any new foreien
developments, especially by cone oven
battenes in Great Bntain. Germany, and
Japan. Studies of new technologies are
planned in an effort administered
jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy
and the EPA as required under LT.e Act.
(See Docket Item VTE-J-l )
Consequently, marry of the commenter's
suggestions are now being evaluated
through funding of research and
development programs to improve coke
oven emission control technology.
Comment: A total of 42 commenters,
consisting of local environmental
groups and Allegheny County residents.
argue that the standards are not
adequate to protect public health
(commenters X-D-2. X-D-3, X-D-4. X-
D-13, X-D-14, X-D-16. X-D-17. X-D-
18. X-D-20. X-D-21. X-D-22. X-D-23.
X-D-26, X-D-27. X-T>-29. X-D-30. X-
D-33, X-D-34. X-D-35. X-D-36. X-D-
37. X-D-39. X-D-41. X-EM2. X-D-*4.
X-D-45, X-D-46. X-D-17. X-D-«8. X-
DH9. X-D-50. X-D-51. X-D-52. X-D-
53. X-D-54, X-D-56. X-D-57. X-D-58.
X-O-59. X-D-60. X-D-61. and X-D-
63). In support, commenters cite various
cancer risk estimates of 1 in 55 over 70
yean (commenters X-D-4, X-D-33. X-
D-39, and X-D-41); 1 in 100 over 70
yean (commenten X-D-52 and X-D-
54); 1 in 300 over 70 yean (com mentor
X-D-53); i range of t in 55 to 1 in 300;
and 1 in 800 after control for
benzo(a)pyrane (commenter X-D-58).
Commenter X-D-4 2 states that recent
benzo(a)pyrene readings from an
ambient monitor atop a local school
equate to • cancer risk of 1 in 240.
Commenter X-D-39 compares the nsk
level after control to the 1 in 1.000,000
benchmark used in Gear* Water Act
regulations. Many of the commenters
also point out that these nsk estimates
do not include risks other than lung
cancer or chronic effects, the effects of
other toxic and hazardous poiluants.
emissions from other sources and
facilities in the area, or special impacts
on the elderly or children. In support.
commenter X-D-60 cues a recer.t
journal article ("Molecular and Genetic
Damage in Humans from Environmental
Pollution in Poland," Perera et al..
Nature, 360:256-258) regarding the
health effects of exposure to polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from industrial
and residential burning of coal. Many of
the commenters state that this nsk is not
acceptable and ask that the proposal be
revised or withdrawn. Commenter X-D-
35 also states that the Federal Register
notice is insufficient because
information as to the relative nsk to
surrounding communities is not
presented.
Response: The proposed emission
limits were developed under tne 1990
Amendments to the Act and are kwseo
on available emission control
technology and the performance levels
that are achievable by the technology
The Act specifically defers imrr.ecia'.e
implementation of residual nsk
standards. Estimates of nsk to the
surrounding community simply do not
play a role in the development of MACT
standards. (See sections 112(d)(8) (a)
and (c).) However, the EPA is required
under the Act to develop residual nsk
standards within the next 8 years.
Provisions within the Act will allow
certain batteries to defer meeting this
risk standard until the year 2020. To
defer the risk standard, these battenes
must meet the more stringent LAER
emission limits.
Comment: Commenten X-D-2, X-D-
16. X-D-35. X-D-37. X-D-42, and X-
D-63 believe the regulatory negotiation
process was unfair, exclusive, and tilted
in favor of the industry over the
interests of the citizens of Clairton.
Response: In any negotiation process.
it is sometimes difficult to understand
that some parties may have accepted
certain provisions in exchange for
othen in order to reach consensus on
the regulation as • whole. No one group
or individual involved in the
negotiations agreed with all the
requirements or obtained all desired
provisions. Many new precedents were
set in this regulation (e.g.. independent
daily monitoring paid for by the
industry), emission controls were
included for one major emission point
(bypass/bleeder stacks) beyond the
battery proper, and strong work practice
requirements were included. The
emission reductions achieved by the
rule will bring improvement to the
community of Clairton as well as to
other communities in the country where
coke oven battenes are located When
viewed as a whole, the rule was
accepted by many different parties \\ '_h
diverse interests.
The commenters speak of exciusicn
from the process. The EPA actively
solicited public participation in this
rulemalung process, and respond:.-.; to
these comments on the proposal is a
continuing part of that effort. For
practical reasons, not all citizens can
participate in a regulatory negotiation;
however, an effort was made to ensure
that citizens and citizen groups, such as
the Group Against Smog and Pollution.
were represented on the Advisory
Committee. In additien, there have been
several opportunities for direct
involvement by individuals, including
NAPCTAC meetings, a 1987 public
hearing in Clairton, Pennsylvania, and &
-------
57908 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
recent public hewing in Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania. Several opportunities
have also bean given for the submission
of written comments, all of which have
oeen considered.
The EPA also believes it is productive
for local citizens and environmental
groups to continue to work with the
industry. States, and load agencies to
address site-specific problems and
develop solutions. Local citizens have
been effective in obtaining improved
emission control of coke oven batteries.
and the benefits of their efforts are now
being applied to coke batteries
nationwide under these NESHAP.
Comment: Commenter X-D-37
suggests that the language in the
regulation be clarified to require an
igniter for each bypass/bleeder stack as
opposed to an igniter for each battery.
No alternative method or allowance
standard should be permitted.
According to the commenter. the EPA
also should update the preamble to state
that 13 venting incidents had occurred
over a 4-year period (1987 through
1990) rather than 12 incidents over a 3-
year period (1987 through 1989).
Commentar X-O-47 believes the EPA
erred in requiring bleeder stack flares
only for automatically operated stacks
and that manually operated stacks
would still be allowed to vent raw gas.
Response: The standards do not
require an igniter far each bypass/
bleeder stack: instead, a bypass/bleeder
stack flare system must be installed that
is capable of controlling 120 percent of
the normal gas flow generated by the
battery. This approach will provide the
desired level of control, without
imposing on battery operators the
unnecessary additional costs that would
be associated with a requirement to
install dares on each bleeder stack, or a
requirement to dismantle bleeder stacks
that are not themselves individually
igniter-equipped. The regulation
prohibits venting other than through the
fiare system (or approved alternative
control device), which provides an
adequate safeguard against venting raw
coke oven gas to the atmosphere. The
EPA anticipates that most owners or
operators wdl comply with these
requirements by installing flares on one
or more bypass/bleeder stacks. Coke
oven gas would be routed to these flares
(e g . through the collecting main). The
dampers on any other bypass/bleeder
stacks that were not flare-equipped
would be closed, which would prevent
coke oven gas from being emitted to the
atmosphere through these bypass/
bleeder stacks. The requirement to
install a bypass/bleeder stack flare
system applies to both automatically or
manually operated stacks. With
approval by the Administrator, an
equivalent, alternative system with a
destruction capability of at least 98
percent can also be used so as not to
preclude the use of new or improved
technology.
Comment: Commenter X-D-2
believes that daily inspections are
unworkable in the long run and will not
compensate for a 30-day rolling average
computation. Other commenters add
that the 30-day average smooths out all
the spikes and. over time, masks real
problems (commenters X-D-4. X-D-9.
X-D-13. X-D-14. X-D-16. X-D-21. X-
D-22. X-D-25. X-D-27. X-D-29, X-D-
31. X-D-33. X-D-38. X-l>-41. X-D-42.
X-D-*7. X-D-52. X-D-53. X-D-56. and
X-D-60).
Response: This issue was discussed at
length by the Advisory Committee, and
an agreement was reached that would
provide for limits based on a 30-run
average for the rule while maintaining
single-run limits Cor SIP's and consent
decrees. The format of the rule is a 30-
run average to reflect long-term
emissions and exposure levels, which
are associated with chronic health
effects. However, the 30-run average
will also limit the frequency and extent
of some short-term excursions because a
single high excursion can result in
exceeding the 30-run limit for that day.
and repeated poor performance may
result in exceedance of the 30-run limit
on additional days. Each daily
exceedance of the 30-run limit may be
considered a violation. If daily single-
run limits were developed that were
statistically equivalent to these 30-run
limits, the single-run limits would have
been significantly higher than the 30-
run limits.
In addition, current SEP't and consent
decrees are enforced based on exceeding
a limit for any single observation. These
limits will remain in effect (see the
previous discussion of "backsliding")
and provide a cap for a short-term
excursion from a single high
observation. The Committee agreed that
the preferred approach would apply a
30-run average for the rule, with
inspections by independent observers,
and the maintenance of current single-
run limits in SIP's.
Another factor that should result in
fewer short-term excursions under the
rule is that daily inspections are
required. Many batteries, including
those in Allegheny County, are
inspected less frequently by the
enforcement agency. In many cases, the
data from these daily inspections can be
used to improve the enforcement of
SIP's and consent decrees.
Comment: According to commenter
X-D-35. the Federal Register notice of
proposal is also deficient because it did
not present detailed information on
discussion of the relative performance
of various coke oven batteries at
different levels of technical capability.
Response: The EPA does not agree
that the notice of proposed rulemaking
is deficient. The pace of the negotiations
precluded compiling and analyzing the
data in the level of detail desired by the
commenter. However, all information
and data considered by the Committee
are in the docket and available for
public inspection. These include
performance data for individual
batteries, data summaries, and a listing
of batteries ranked by performance. This
information was made available during
the negotiation process to all Committee
members, including the representatives
from the Group Against Smog and
Pollution.
B. Test Methods and Monitoring
Comment: Commenter X-D-12
explains that certain coke plants in
Jefferson County, Alabama are
performing charging and pushing
operations at night when surveillance is
not possible. For this reason, only a
portion of Method 303 can be enforced.
Response: If a facility pushes and
charges only at night then that facility
must, at its option, change their
schedule and charge during daylight
hours or provide adequate lighting so
that visible emission inspections can be
made at night. "Adequate lighting" will
be determined by the enforcement
agency.
Comment: Commenters X-T>-33 and
X-D-48. residents of the Pittsburgh
area, note that coke oven emissions are
higher at night and on weekends and
holidays.
Response: The standards should
eliminate this problem because
independent monitoring will be
required 7 days a week, including
holidays. This type of enhanced
monitoring, coupled with the new work
practice rules, is expected to aid in
improving emissions control.
Comment: Commenter X-D-12 asks
how to differentiate ovens and the
proper emission limits for merchant
plants or batteries that produce a
percentage of furnace and foundry coke.
and if this compounds the required
monitoring calculations.
Response: The definition of "foundry
coke producer" included in the rule
does not require differentiating ovens or
additional monitoring calculations for
daily inspections if the battery changes
the type of coke produced during the
year. The coke plant if considered to be
a foundry producer and subject to
numerical limits for foundry coke plants
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57909
if the annual design capacity on January
1,1992. was less than 1.25 million Mg/
yr (not including the capacity of the
specific batteries identified under
§ 63.300(d)(2) of the rule or cold-idle
batteries included in the design capacity
pursuant to § 63.304(b)(6) of the rule)
and the plant was not owned or
operated by an integrated steel producer
as of that date.
Comment: Commenter X-D-12 asks
who is responsible for the cost of
inspections on days when inspections
cannot be performed (i.e.. in the case of
bad weather). Cornmenter X-D-41 asks
what happens if the responsible agency
fails to have the inspections done?
Response: The fees to be paid by the
industry to cover the cost of monitoring
and inspections will be provided
annually with the expectation that
inspections occur each day. The size of
the fee is a function of the number of
batteries at the plant, and it is not
affected by the number of inspections
that are made. Provisions an included
in the rule to account for data from days
on which inspections of one or more
emission points cannot be performed;
however, the EPA expects that this
situation will occur very infrequently. If
a State is not enforcing the program as
required, the EPA regional office may
take over and implement the
enforcement program. In addition, the
Act contains provisions to ensure that
the enforcement agency does fulfill its
obligations under the law.
Comment: Commenter X-D-12 asks if
industry is still responsible for the cost
of Method 303 inspections to enforce a
SIP or consent decree with more
stringent requirements.
Response: In the negotiations, the
industry agreed to pay for Method 303
inspections. As long as Method 303 is
applied, the cost of Method 303
inspections will be borne by the
industry and will be based on the
formula in the rule. Any data collected
by Method 303 that are consistent with
the SIP or consent decree inspection
method can be used to enforce the SIP
or consent decree. If the SIP or consent
decree requires additional labor hours
beyond those allotted for the Method
303 observer under this rule, the cost of
these additional hours is not covered
under the rule's formula for inspection
cost.
Comment: Commenter X-D-43 asks
EPA to clarify that emission fees
collected under title V of the Act are not
to be used to pay for the required
inspections. The inspection fees are in
addition to the title V fees.
Response: m the negotiations, it was
understood that the inspection fees
required under this rule are in addition
to title V fees, so long as the ulle V fees
do not cover the inspections required
under this rule. (See $ 63.3C9(a)(4)(in))
Comment: Commenter X-D-12 asks
bow many lids count in the calculation
of percent leaking lids where there are
four lids per oven but only three are
ever used for staged charging. The
concern is over the total number of lids
that should be used in the denominator
of the calculation of percent leaking
lids.
Response: If the fourth lid can be
removed and is used for charging or
decarbonizing during normal operation.
the calculation of percent leaking lids
should be based on four lids per oven.
If the fourth lid is not used for charging
or decarbonizing during normal
operation, the calculation should be
based on three lids per oven.
Comment: Commenter X-D-12 notes
that the term "B" in the equation for
determining costs for inspections (see
57 FR 57567) is not defined.
Response: The "B" in the cost
equation is a Federal Register
typographical error and was not
intended as part of the equation.
C. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Comment: Commenter X-D-12
suggests that the rule require all plants
to report their commitment to either the
MACT or LAER standard in 1993, with
no provision for changing their initial
decision to avoid situations where
Inspectors are bind but not needed
because the plant decides to drop from
the extension track.
Response: The rule allows the plants
to "straddle" until a binding declaration
is made in 1998. This means the owner
or operator of the battery in question has
chosen to meet both the MACT and
LAER limits, and monitoring would
begin in November 1993 rather than
1995. If the owner or operator of a plant
changes from LAER to MACT in 1995.
the plant will be required to meet
MACT standards, which will require
daily inspections. A commitment to
meet the November 1993 hm:ts is a
commitment to pay for the cost of daily
inspections annually, starting in
November 1993.
Comment: Commentera X-D-9 and
X-D-41 urge EPA not to implement self-
certifying reporting requirements under
the standards. (See 57 FR 57539 )
Previous Federal and industry
experience with self-certification has
not worked according to these
commenters.
Response: The rule includes the
innovative provisions for dairy
inspections by an independent observer
who must meet specific training
requirements to qualify as a visible
emission inspector. Because the
independent inspector will make the
visible emission observations for
compliance determinations, the Agency
does not agree that self-certification :n
the initial or semiannual compliance
certifications included in the reporting
requirements will, in this case, present
the problems implied by the
commenters.
D. Miscellaneous
Comment: Commentera X-D-4 X-D-
9. X-D-13. X-D-14. X-D-16. X-D-21.
X-Q-22. X-D-27. X-D-28. X-D-29. X-
D-31, X-D-33, X-O-38. X-D-39. X-D-
41, and X-D-53 believe penalties for
violations should be included in the
rule.
Response: The commenters are
mistaken that the rule fails to provide
for civil and criminal penalties.
Penalties for violations are not cited in
the rule because enforcement of the rde
(and permit requirements) is the
responsibility of the EPA or delegated
State (i.e., a State with an approved
operating permit program). Provisions
for maximum penalties (up to 525,000
per day per emission point) are
included in the Act The 30-day roiling
average is calculated each day;
consequently, a penalty can be assessed
each day for any exceedance of the limit
for each emission point However,
penalties are assessed at the discretion
of the enforcement agency, which may
consider many factors (frequency,
duration, severity of violation, good
faith efforts to correct, etc.) in
determining an appropriate penalty. In
addition, the Act includes provisions to
ensure that the enforcement agency
fulfills its responsibilities under the
law.
Comment: Commenter X-D-12 asks if
new operating permits based on Method
303 need to be issued now if the LAEH
track is followed.
Response: Yes, but approval of the
State permit program is required before
operating permits can be issued. As
discussed in the preamble at 57 FR
57555. the EPA intends to delegate
authority for implementing the NESHAP
to the States as soon as possible after
promulgation.
The LAER standards will become
effective on November 15,1993. Under
the final rules establishing requirements
for State operating permit programs (40
CFR part 70), States must submit
proposed permit programs to EPA for
approval by November 15,1993.
Sources subject to the permit program
must submit complete permit
applications within 1 year after a State
program is approved (including an
interim approval) or, where the State
-------
57910 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
program is not approved, within 1 year
after a program is promulgated by the
EPA.
Comment: Commenter X-D-37
suggests the rule should include
provisions for planned outages.
Companies should be required to notify
the regulatory agency of work plans at
least a week in advance. This, coupled
with a followup report, would prevent
a plant from hiding emission releases
during a planned outage.
Response: As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rale (see 57
FR S7548. December 4.1992). the owner
or operator must operate and maintain
the battery end its air pollution control
technology at all times, including
during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions, in a manner consistent
with good air pollution control practices
for minimizing emissions to the levels
required by the applicable standards.
Emissions in excese of the applicable
standards occurring during a planned
outage would be • violation unless the
emissions were the result of an incident
determined to constitute a malfunction.
(However, it would be difficult to
qualify a "planned" outage as a
malfunction.) In addition, the
provisions included In the rule for
independent daily monitoring ensure
that an inspector is at the site every day
to ensure that proper procedures (e.g.,
those included in the startup.
shutdown, and malfunction plan and
the work practice plan) an followed as
applicable. The presence of an
independent inspector on the site each
day should prevent the hidden release
of emissions during en outage.
Comment: Commenter X-D-10
stresses the significance of the
Committee agreement to support the
standards as long as the EPA proposes
and promulgates a regulation and
preamble with the same substance and
effect of the final agreement The
organizations that negotiated the
agreement also reiterate their support
(comment X-D-15).
Response: The EPA understands the
importance of honoring this successful
negotiated agreement and has made no
change to the proposed rule or its
rationale that would in any way alter
the substance and effect of tha
agreement
Comment: Nineteen commenten
requested that the EPA hold a public
hearing in Cliiirtnn. Pittsburgh, or
Allegheny County. Pennsylvania (rather
than at EPA facilities in Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina) so that
affected citizens residing near the
Nation's largest coke plant could have
an opportunity to express their views on
the proposed rule. In subsequent written
and oral testimony, commenters
reiterated their request for a second
hearing in Pittsburgh or Clairton so that
more citizens wishing to discuss their
concerns would be able to attend
(cor .mentors X-D-2. X-O-6. X-D-7. X-
D- X-D-11.X-O-14.X-D-16. X-D-
21. :-D-24.X-Q-45.X-Q-29.X-D-31.
X-I -33. X-D-40, X-P-41. X-O-50. X-
D-52. X-D-54. X-D-«7. and X-O-63).
Response: The EPA agreed to the
initial request of these residents and
environmental groups and arranged a
public hearing at the EPA regional
offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
At the request of the commenters, the
EPA also delayed the date originally
scheduled for the hearing from
December 28.1992. to January 15. 1993.
to avoid conflicts with Christmas
holidays for citizens wishing to present
testimony. The transcript from this
hearing is included in the docket (See
Docket Item X-G-1.)
In further discussion of this issue at
the hearing, tha EPA representatives
explained that moat public hearings for
air standards an held in Research
Triangle Paris. This is because when
national standards are proposed.
requests for hearings typically come
from all over the country. By holding
tha hearings m Research Triangle Park.
no one person or group is given any
unfair advantage, fa this case, while t
vast majority of the requests did come
from the Pittsburgh area, people from
other areas in Pennsylvania also wanted
to attend. In holding the hearing in
Philadelphia, the EPA tried to
accommodate commenters from tha
Pittsburgh area as well as other
Pennsylvania residents. The EPA
representatives also explained that a
public hearing, however important is
an adjunct to the written comment
process. This process is fully available
to everyone and is not dependent at all
on location.
V. Administrative RsQurements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of thi« rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, PT^ moturini is added
throughout the *itl««n«lrlna
development The Hnrfc»««g system is
intended to allow members of the public
and industries involved to readily
identify and locate documents so tfaM
they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the
statement of basis and purpose of tha
proposed and promulgated standards
and EPA responses to •tyrfflrant
comments, the content! of the docket.
except for interagency review materials.
will serve as the record in case of
judicial review. (See section
307(d)(7)(A).)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in
this rule under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.. and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0253.
Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 2.461 hours per respondent per
year, including time for reviewing
instructions, mnrrhlng existing data
sources. g"tlvri"g and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief. Information Policy Branch, 2136.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401M Street. SW. Washington. DC
20460; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget. Washington.
DC 20503. marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA."
The control numbers assigned to
collections of information in certain
EPA regulations by the OMB have been
consolidated under 40 CFR part 9. The
information collection request for this
NESHAP was previously subject to
public notice and comment prior to
OMB approval As a result, the EPA
finds that there is "good cause" under
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act to amend the applicable
table in 40 CFR part 9 to display the
OMB control number for this rule
without prior notice and comment. Due
to the technical nature of the table.
further notice and comment would be
unnecessary. For the same reasons, the
EPA also finds that there is good cause
under 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3). For additional
information, see 58 FR 18014, April 7,
1993 and 58 FR 27472, May 10,1993.
C. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291. the
EPA is required to fudge whether a
regulation is a "major rule" and
therefore subject to the requirements of
a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The
EPA has determined thai this regulation
would result in none of the adverse
economic effects set forth in section i of
the Order as grounds for finding a
regulation to be a "major rule." The
total annual coets of the MACT
standards rang* from S25 million to $33
million/yean the total annual coat of the
-------
Fedaral Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rulea and Regulations 57911
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I •
I I
LAER standards range from 584 million
to $95 million/year, including the
MACT costs. These impacts are below
the $100 million threshold. Only small
market changes are projected. Increases
in the pnce of coke would be minimal
(less than 1 percent for furnace coke and
about 1.1 to 2.5 percent for foundry
coke). The decrease in coke production
would also be minimal (0.7 percent for
furnace coke and 1.1 percent for
foundry coka under MACT stanfUrHy;
2.1 percent for furnace and 2.6 for
foundry coke under LAER standards). In
addition, the rule will not caosa
significant advarsa affect* on domestic
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, innovation, or competition
in foreign markets. The iPA has.
therefore, concluded that this regulation
is not a "major rule" under Executive
Order 12291.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires the identification of potentially
adverse impacts of Federal regulations
upon small business entities. The Act
specifically require* the completion of a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those
instances where small *»'«<'">tt impacts
are possible. Because these standards
impose no adverse economic impacts on
small businesses, a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis has not been
conducted.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b). I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
business entities because no substantial
number of small entitle* are affected
and no significant impact on these small
entities will result.
E. Miscellaneous
In accordance with section
112Cn(2)(Cl of the Act. the EPA is
required to determine whether
additional standards are necessary to
address the risk remaining after
technology-based MACT standards are
imposed. The EPA is to make that
determination for coke oven batteries
and to promulgate standards determined
to be necessary by October 27,2001.
Pursuant to section 112UM8XC) of the
Act. the EPA also is required to review
and revise the LAER standard by
January 1.2007.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection. Air
pollution control, Coke oven emissions,
Hazardous substances. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October IB. 1993.
Carol M. Browner.
•\dministrator.
Parts 9 and 63 of title 40. chapter I.
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:
PART 9— OMB APPROVALS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 V.SJC. 135 et MO... 136-136y.
IS U.S.C. 2001. 2003, 2005. 2006, 2601-2671;
21 U.S.C 331). 346s, 34S: 31 U.S.C 9701: 33
U.S.C, 1251 etteq.. 1311. 1313d. 1314, 1321.
1316, 1330. 1344. 134S (d) and (a). 1361; E.O.
11735. 38 FR 21243. 3 CFR 1971-1975
Comp.. p. 973: 42 U.S.C. 241. 242b. 243. 246.
300f. 300ft. 300g-l. 300g-2. 300g-3. 300g-4.
300g-5. 300g-6. 300r-l. 300J-2. 300)-3. 300)-
4. 300r-9. 1857 et leq., 6901 -6992k. 7401-
7671q. 7542, 9601-9667, 11023'. 1104S.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding
a new entry to the table under the
indicated heading to read as follows:
§M OMB sop
Reduction Act
fte Pa
rwork
40CFRdtatton
OMB control
No,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants tor Source Categories
63.302-63.311
2060-0253
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
3. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sacs. 101.112.114.116. 301,
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C 7401,
7412, 7414. 7616, 7601).
4. Part 63 is amended by adding
Subpart L to read as follows:
Subpatt C—Nattona. Emission Standards
lor Cotas Oven I
S«C
63.300 Applicability.
63.301 Definition*.
63J02 Standards tar by-product coke oven
batteries.
63.303 Standards lor MBncovory onk»
oven batten**.
63.304 Standards foe compliance data
extension.
63.305 Alternative ttandardf far coke oven
doots equipped with ihed*.
63.308 Wot* practice standards.
63.307 Standard! for bypen/bleeder ttscla.
63.308 Standards for collecting mains.
Sec
63.309 Performance tests and procedural.
63 310 Requirements for startup*.
shutdown*, and malfunction*.
63.311 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
63.312 Existing regulations and
requirements.
63.313 Delegation of authority.
Appendix A to Subpart L—Operating Coke
Oven Batteries As Of Apnl 1.1992
Subpart L—National Emission
Standards for Coke Oven Batteries
163.300 Applicability.
(a) Unless otherwise specified in
§§ 63.306, 63.307. and 63.311, the
provisions of this subpart apply to
existing by-product coke oven batteries
at a coke plant and to existing
nonrecovery coke oven batteries at a
coke plant on and after the following
dates:
(1) December 31.1995. for existing by-
product coke oven batteries subject to
emission limitations in $ 63.302UKD or
existing nonrecovery coke oven batteries
subject to emission limitations in
§63.303(a);
(2) January 1.2003. for existing by-
product coke oven batteries subject to
emission limitations in § 63.30ZUK2);
(3) November 15.1993. .for existing
by-product and nonrecovery coke oven
batteries subject to emission limitations
in §§63.304(bKl) or 63.304(c);
(4) January 1.1998, for existing by-
product coke oven batteries subject to
emission limitation* in §§63-304(b)(2)
or 63.304(b)(7); and
(5) January 1, 2010, for existing by-
product coke oven batteries subject to
emission limitations in §§ 63.304(b)(3)
or 63.304fb)(7).
(b) The provisions for new sources in
§§ 63.3020)), 63.302(c). and 63.303(b)
apply to each greenfield coke oven
battery and to each new or
reconstructed coke oven battery at an
existing coke plant if the coke oven
battery results in an increase in the
design capacity of the coke plant as of
November 15.1990, (including any
capacity qualifying under § &3.304(b}(6),
and the capacity of any coke oven
battery subject to a construction permit
on November 15.1990, which
commenced operation before October
27,1993.
(c) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each bnrwnfield coke oven
battery, each padup rebuild, and each
cold-idle coke oven battery that is
restarted.
(d) The provisions of
§§ 63.3M(bX2Hi](A) and 63.304f>H3H9
apply to each foundry coke producer as
follows:
(1J A coke ofen battery subject to
$ 63.304(bM2WKA) at $63.304{b)(3Ki)
-------
57912 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
must be a coke oven battery that on
January 1,1992. was owned or operated
by a foundry coke producer; and
(2)(i) A coke oven battery owned or
operated by an integrated steel producer
on January 1. 1992. and listed in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, that
was sold to a foundry coke producer
before November IS, 1993, shall be
deemed for the purposes of paragraph
(d)(l) of this section to be owned or
operated by a foundry coke producer on
January 1, 1992.
(ii) The coke oven batteries that may
qualify under this provision an the
following:
(A) The coke own batteries at the
Bethlehem Steel Corporation's
Lackawanna. New York facility; and
(B) The coke oven batteries at the
Rouge Steel Company's Dearborn,
Michigan facility.
(e) The emission limitations set forth
in this subpan shall apply at all times
except during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction. The startup
period shall be determined by the
Administrator and shall not exceed ISO
days.
(0 After October 28.1992, rules of
general applicability promulgated under
section 112 of the Act, including the
General Provisions, may apply to coke
ovens provided that the topic covered
by such a rule is not addressed in this
subpart.
J 63.301 Definition*.
Terms used in this subpart are
defined in the Act or in this section as
follows:
Administrator means the
Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency or his
or her authorized representative (e.g., a
State that has been delegated the
authority to implement the provisions of
this subpart or its designated agent).
Brownfield coke oven battery means a
new coke oven battery that replaces an
existing coke oven battery or batteries
with no increase in the design capacity
of the coke plant as of November 15,
1990 (including capacity qualifying
under § 63.304(b)(6), and the capacity of
any coke oven battery subject to a
construction permit on November IS,
1990. which commenced operation
before October 27.1993.
Bypass/bleeder stack means a stack,
duct, or offtake system that is opened to
the atmosphere and used to relieve
excess pressure by venting raw coke
oven gas from the collecting main to the
atmosphere from a by-product coke
oven battery, usually during emergency
conditions.
By-product coke oven battery means a
source consisting of 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
ere recovered. Coke oven battenes in
operation as of April 1,1992. are
identified in appendix A to this subpsrt.
Certified observer means a visual
emission observer, certified under Uf
applicable) Method 303'and Method 9
(if applicable) and employed by the
Administrator, which includes a
delegated enforcement agency or its
designated agent. For the purpose of
notifying an owner or operator of the
results obtained by a certified observer.
the person does not have to be certified.
Charge or charging period means, for
a by-product coke oven battery, the
period of time that commences when
coal begins to flow into an oven through
a topside port and ends when the last
charging port is recapped. For a
nonrecovery coke oven battery, charge
or charging period means the period of
time that commences when coal begins
to flow into an oven and ends when the
push side door is replaced.
Coke oven battery means either a by-
product or nonrecovery coke oven
battery.
Coke oven door means each end
enclosure on the pusher side and the
coking side of an oven. The chuck, or
leveler-bar, door la part of the pusher
side door. A coke oven door includes
the entire area on the vertical face of a
coke oven between the bench and the
top of the battery between two adjacent
buckstays.
Cold-idle coke oven battery means an
existing coke oven battery that has bean
shut down, but is not dismantled.
Collecting main means any apparatus
that is connected to one or more offtake
systems and that provides e passage for
conveying gases under positive pressure
from the by-product coke oven battery
to the by-product recovery system.
Collecting main repair means any
measure to stop a collecting main leak
on a long-term basis. A repair measure
in general is intended to restore the
integrity of the collecting main by
returning the main to approximately its
design specifications or its condition
before the leak occurred. A repair
measure may include, but is not limited
to, replacing a section of the collecting
main or welding the source of the leak.
Consecutive charges means charges
observed successively, excluding any
charge during which the observer's view
of the charging system or topside ports
is obscured.
Design capacity means the original
design capacity of a coke oven battery,
expressed in megagrams per year of
furnace coke
Foundry coke producer means a coke
producer that is not and was not on
January 1.1992, owned or operated by
an integrated steel producer and had en
January 1,1992. an annual design
capacity of less than 1.25 million
megagrams per year (not including any
capacity satisfying the requirements of
$63.300(d)(2) or $63.304(b)(6)).
Greenfield coke oven battery means a
coke oven battery for which
construction is commenced at a plant
site (where no coke oven batteries
previously existed) after December 4,
1992.
Integrated steel producer means a
company or corporation that produces
coke, uses the coke in a blast furnace to
make iron, and uses the iron to produce
steel. These operations may be
performed at different plant sites within
the corporation.
Malfunction means any sudden.
infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution
control equipment, process equipment.
or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner. Failures caused in part
by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.
New shed mean* a shed for which
construction commenced after
September 15.1992. The shed at
Bethlehem Steel Corporation'*
Bethlehem plant on Battery A is deemed
not to be a new shed.
Nonrecovery coke oven battery means
a source consisting of 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.
Offtake system means any individual
oven apparatus that is stationary and
provides a passage for gases from an
oven to a coke oven battery collecting
mam or to another oven. Offtake system
components include the standpipe and
standpipe caps, goosenecks, stationary
jumper pipes, mini-standpipes, end
standpipe and gooseneck connections.
Cven means a chamber in the coke
oven battery in which coal undergoes
destructive distillation to produce coke.
Padup rebuild means a coke oven
battery that is a complete reconstruction
of an existing coke oven battery on the
same site and pad without an increase
in the design capacity of the coke plant
as of November 15.1990 (including any
capacity qualifying under § 63.304(b)(6).
end the capacity of any coke oven
battery subject to a construction permit
on November 15.1990, which
commenced operation before October
27,1993. The Administrator may
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
c'J
Federal Rggtatar / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and KegutMiom 57913
determine that a project is a padup
rebuild if it effectively constitutes a
replacement of the battery above the
pad. even if some portion of the
brickwork above the pad is retained.
Pushing, for tha purposes of § 63.305.
means that coke oven operation that
commences when the pushing ram
starts into the oven to push out coke
that has completed the coking cycle and
ends when the quench car is dear of tha
coke side shed.
Run means tha observation of visible
emissions from topside port lids, offtake
systems, coke oven doors, or the
charging of a coke oven that i* made in
accordance with and is valid under
Methods 303 or 3O3A in appendix A to
this part.
Shed means a structure far capturing
coke oven emissions on the coke side or
pusher side of the coke oven battery,
which routes the emissions to a control
device or system.
SAort coif oven battery meant a coke
oven battery with ovens Us* than 6
meters in height
Shutdovm means tha operation that
commences when pushing has occurred
on tha first oven with tn* intent of
pushing die coke out of all of the ovens
in a coke oven battery without adding
coal, and ends when aO of the ovens of
a coke oven battery are empty of coal or
coke.
Stondrxpo cop meant an apparatus
used to cover the opening in the
gooseneck of aa offtake system.
Startup means that operation that
commences when the coal begins to be
added to the first oven of a coke oven
battery that either is being started for the
first time or that is being restarted and
ends when the doors have been adjusted
for maximum leak reduction and the
collecting main pressure control has
been stabilized. Except for the first
startup of a coke oven battery, a startup
cannot occur unless a shutdown has
occurred.
Tail coke oven battery means a coke
oven battery with ovens 6 meters or
more in height
Temporary seal means any measure.
Lacmding but not limited to, application
of luting or p*Hring material, to stop a
collecting main leak until the leak is
repaired.
Topside port lid means a cover.
removed during charging or
decarbonizing, that is placed over the
opening through which coal can be
charged into the oven of a by-product
coke oven battery.
56X302 Standards tor by-product coke
oven batterlee.
(a) Except aa provided in § 63.304 or
§ 63.305, on and after the dates specified
in this paragraph, no owner or operator
shall cause to be discharged or allow to
be discharged to tha atmosphere, coke
oven emissions from each affected
existing by-product coke oven battery
that exceed any of the following
emission limitations or requirements:
(1) On and after December 31.1905;
(i) For cok» oven.' doors;
(A) 64) percent leaking coke oven
luct coke oven
battery, as determine
rding
procedures in $63J}08(dKlh ant
to the
(B) 5.5 percent leaking coke oven
doors for each abort by-pmduct coke
oven battery, as determined yr-n»ding to
the procedure* in $ 63-309(d)(lJ;
(if) 0.6 percent leaking topside port
lids, as determined by the procedures in
& 63.309(41(1);
(iii) 3.0 percent lasting offtake
system(s). as determined by the
procedures in f 63.309(dMl J; and
(iv) 12 seconds of visible emissions
"per charge, as determined by the
procedures in $ 63,309(4X2).
(2) On and after January 1,2003.
unless tha Adminiiip|i»^ promulgates
more slrliiguiA limits pursuant to
section 112(0 of the Act;
(i) 5.5 uerufiH '••! fag coke oven
doors for each tafl by-product coke oven
battery, as determined by the
procedures far f 63 J09(djf.l); and
(ii) 5.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors for each short by-product coke
oven battery, as determined by the
procedures in § 63.309(4X1).
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, no owner or operator
shall cause to be discharged or allow to
be discharged to tha atmosphere, coke
oven emissions from a by-product coke
oven battery subject to the applicability
requirements in $ 63.300(b) that exceed
any of the following emission
limitations:
(1) 0.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors, as determined by the procedures
in§63.309(dXl):
(2) 0.0 percent leaking topside port
lids, as determined by the procedures in
§63.309(d)(l); *
(3) 0.0 percent leaking offtake
system(s), as determined by the
procedures in $63.309(d)(l); and
(4) 34 seconds of visible emissions per
charge, as determined by the procedures
in$63.309(d)(2).
(c) The emission limitations hi
paragraph (b) of this section do not
apply to the owner or operator of a by-
product coke oven battery that utilizes
a new recovery technology, including
but not limited to larger size ovens,
operation under negative pressure, and
irocesaes with emission points different
An owner or operator constructing a
new by-product coke oven battery or
reconstructing an existing by-product
recovery battery that utilizes a new
recovery technology shall:
(1) Notify the Administrator of the
intention to do so, as required in
§63.311(c);and
(2) Submit for the determination
under section 112(g)(2)(B) of the Act.
and as part of tha application for
permission to construct or reconstruct.
all information and data requested by
the Administrator for the determination
of applicable emission limitations and
requirement* for that by-product coke
oven battery.
(d) Emission timitations and
requirements applied to each coke oven
battery utilizing a new recovery
technology shall be less than the
following emission limitations or shall
result hi an overall annual emission*
rate for coke oven emissions for the
battery that is lower than that obtained
by the following emission timitations:
(1) 4.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors on tall by-product coke oven
batteries, as determined by the
procedures in f 63J09(d)(l);
(2) 3J percent leaking coke oven
doocs on t^Tt hy-p™^*"'* coke oven
batteries, aa determined by tha
procedure* to § 63JO»(dXl):
(3) 2.5 percent leaktae offtake
system(s). aa datammad by the
procedures in $ 63.309(4X1);
(4) 0.4 percent leaking topside port
lids, as determined by the procedures in
S 63.309(4X1): and
(5) 12 seconds of visible emissions per
charge, as determined by the procedures
in §63.309(4X2).
i 63.303 Standards for nonracovery coka
oven batteries.
(a) Except as provided in § 63.304. on
and after December 31.1995. no owner
or operator shall cause to be discharged
or allow to be discharged to the
atmosphere coke oven emissions from
each affected existing nonrecovery coke
oven battery that exceed any of the
following emission limitations or
requirements:
(1) For coke oven doors:
(i) 0.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors, as determined by the procedures
in§63.309(dXl);or
(ii) The owner or operator shall
monitor and record, once per day for
each day of operation, the pressure in
each oven or in a common battery
tunnel to ensure that the ovens are
operated under a negative pressure.
(2) For charging operations, the owne
or operator snail implement for each
day of operation, tha work practices
specified hi $ 63.306(bX6) and record
the performance of the work practices a
required in $63-308(b)(7).
-------
57914 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
fb) No owner or operator shall cause
lo be discharged or allow to be
discharged to the atmosphere coke oven
emissions from each affected new
nonrecovery coke oven battery sublet
to the applicability requirements in
§ 63.300(b) that exceed any of the
following emission limitations or
requirements:
(1) For coke oven doors;
(i) 0.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors, as determined by the procedures
in§63309(d)(l);or
(ii) The owner or operator shall
monitor and record, once per day for
each day of operation, the pressure in
each oven or in a common battery
tunnel to ensure that the ovena are
operated under a negative pressure;
(2) For charging operations, the owner
or operator shall install, operate, and
maintain an emission control system for
the capture and collection of emissions
in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions from the charging
operation;
(3) 0.0 percent leaking topside port
lids, as determined by the procedures in
* 63.309(d)(l) (if applicable to the new
nonrecovery coke oven battery); and
(4) 0.0 percent leaking offtake
systemU), as determined by the
procedures in § B3.309(d)(l) (if
applicable to the new nonrecovery coke
oven battery).
163.304 Standard* for
extension.
compHanc* dat*
(a) An owner or operator of an
existing coke oven battery (including a
cold-idle coke oven battery), a padup
rebuild, or a brownfield coke oven
battery, may elect an extension of the
compliance date for emission limits to
be promulgated pursuant to section
I12(f) of the Act in accordance with
section ll2(i)(8). To receive an
extension of the compliance date from
January 1, 2003. until January 1. 2020.
the owner or operator shall notify the
Administrator as described in
$ 63.31Hc) that the battery will comply
with the emission limitations and
requirements in this section in lieu of
the applicable emission limitations in
§§ 63.302 or 63.303. ^
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b)(4). fb)(5), and (b)(7) of this section
and in § 63.305. on and after the dates
specified in this paragraph, no owner or
operator shall cause to be discharged or
allow to be discharged to the
atmosphere coke oven emissions from a
by-product coke oven battery that
exceed any of the following emission
limitations:
(1) On and after November 15.1993;
(i) 7.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors, as determined by the procedures
in§63.309(d)(l);
(ii) 0.83 percent leaking topside port
lids, as determined by the procedures in
i63.309(d)(l);
(ui) 4.2 percent leaking offtake
system(s), as determined by the
procedures in $63.309(d)(i); and
(iv) 12 seconds of visible emissions
per charge, as determined by the
procedures in §83.309(d)(2).
(2) On and after January l, 1998;
(i) For coke oven doors:
(A) 4.3 percent leaking coke oven
doors for each tall by-product coke oven
battery and for each by-product coke
oven battery owned or operated by a
foundry coke producer, as determined
by the procedures in S 63.309(d)(J); and
(B) 3.8 percent leaking coke oven
doors on each by-product coke oven
battery not subject to the emission
limitation in paragraph (b)U)(i)(A) of
this section, as determined by the
procedures in $63.309(d)(l):
(ii) 0.4 percent leaking topside port
lids, as determined by the procedures in
$63.309(dXl);
(iii) 2.5 percent leaking offtake
system(s), as determined by the
procedures in S 63.309(d)(l); and
(iv) 12 seconds of visible emissions
per charge, as determined by the
procedures in §63.309(d)(2).
(3) On and after January 1.2010,
unless the Administrator promulgates
more stringent limits pursuant to
section 112(i)(8)(Q of the Act;
(i) 4.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors on each tall by-product coke oven
battery and for each by-product coke
oven battery owned or operated by a
foundry coke producer, as determined
by the procedures in 5 63.309{d)U)i and
(ii) 3.3 percent leaking coke oven
doors for each by-product coke oven
battery not subject to the emission
limitation in paragraph (b)(3)[i) of this
section, as determined by the
procedures in $ 63.309(d)!l).
(4) No owner QJ operator shall cause
to be discharged or allow to be
discharged to the atmosphere coke oven
emissions from a brownfield or padup
rebuild by-product coke oven battery,
other than those specified in paragraph
fb)(4)(v) of this section, that exceed any
of the following emission limitations:
(i) For coke oven doors;
(A) 4.0 percent leaking coke oven
doors for each tall by-product coke oven
battery, as determined by the
procedures in S 63.309(d)(l); and
(B) 3.3 percent leaking coke oven
doors on each short by-product coke
oven battery, as determined by the
procedures in §63.309(d)(l);
(ii) 0.4 percent leaking topside port
lids, as determined by the procedures in
§63.309(d)(l);
(iii) 2.5 percent leaking offtake
system(s). as determined by the
procedures in $63.309(d)(l); and
(iv) 12 seconds ol visible emissions
per charge, as determined by the
procedures in $ 63.309(d)(2).
(v) The requirements of paragraph
(b)(4) of this section shall not apply and
the requirements of paragraphs (o)jl).
(b)(2). and (b)(3) of this section do apply
to the following brownfield or padup
rebuild coke oven batteries:
(A) Bethlehem Steel-Burns Harbor.
Battery No. 2;
(B) National Steel-Great Lakes. Battery
No. 4; and
(C) Koppers-Woodward. Battery No. 3.
(vi) To retain the exclusion provided
in paragraph (b)(4)(v) of this section, a
coke oven battery specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(v) of this section shall commence
construction not later than July 1.1996.
or 1 year after obtaining • construction
permit, whichever is earlier.
(5) The owner or operator of a cold-
idle coke oven battery that shut down
on or after November IS. 1990. shall
comply with the following emission
limitations:
(i) For a brownfield coke oven battery
or a padup rebuild coke oven battery.
coke oven emissions shall not exceed
the emission limitations in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section: and
(ii) For a cold-idle battery other than
a brownfield or padup rebuild coke
oven battery, coke oven emissions shall
not exceed the emission limitations in
paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(3) of this
section.
(6) The owner or operator of a cold-
idle coke oven battery that shut down
prior to November 15,1990, shall
submit a written request to the
Administrator to include the battery in
the design capacity of a coke plant es of
November 15.1990. A copy of the
request shall also be sent to Director.
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. the Administrator will
review and approve or disapprove a
request according to the following
procedures:
(i) Requests will be reviewed for
completeness in the order received. A
complete request shall include:
(A) Battery identification;
(B) Design information, inducing the
design capacity and number erd size of
ovens: and
(C) A brief description of the owner cr
operator's plans for the cold-idle
battery, including a statement whether
construction of a padup rebuild cr a
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
57915
brownfield coke oven battery is
contemplated.
(ii) A complete request shall be
approved if the design capacity of the
battery and the design capacity of all
previous approvals does not exceed the
capacity limit in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of
this section.
(iii) The total nationwide coke
capacity of coke oven batteries that
receive approval under paragraph fb)(6)
of this section shall not exceed 2.7
million Mg/yr.
(iv) if a construction permit is
required, an approval shall lapse if a
construction permit is not issued within
3 years of the approval date, or if the
construction permit lapses.
(v) [f a construction permit is not
required, an approval will lapse if the
battery is not restarted within 2 years of
the approval date.
The owner or operator of a by-product
coke oven battery with fewer than 30
ovens may elect to comply with an
emission limitation of 2 or fewer leaking
coke oven doors, as determined by the
procedures in $ 63.300(d)(4). as an
alternative to the emission limitation for
coke oven doors in paragraphs (b)(2)(i),
(b)(3) (i) through (ii). (bH4)(i). (b)(5). and
(b)(6) of this section.
(c) On and after November 15.1993.
no owner or operator shall cause to be
discharged or allow to be discharged to
the atmosphere coke oven emissions
from an ««ri«Hng nonrecovery coke oven
battery that exceed any of the emission
limitations or requirements in
§63.303(a).
(d) Each owner or operator of an
existing coke oven battery qualifying for
a compliance date extension pursuant to
this section shall make available, no
later than January l, 2000. to the
surrounding communities the results of
any risk assessment performed by the
Administrator to determine the
appropriate level of any emission
standard established by the
Administrator according to section
ll2(fl of the Act.
§ 63.305 Alternative standards lor coke
oven door* equipped with sheds.
(a) The owner or operator of a new or
HXisting coke oven battery equipped
with a shed for the capture of coke oven
emissions from coke oven doors and an
emission control device for the
collection of the emissions may comply
with an alternative to the applicable
visible emission limitations for coke
oven doors in §§ 63.302 and 63.304
according to the procedures and
requirements in this section.
ID) To qualify for approval of an
alternative standard, the owner or
operator shall submit to the
Administrator a test plan for the
measurement of emissions. A copy of
the request shall also be sent to the
Director. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park. N.C. 27711. The plan shall
describe the procedures to be used for
the measurement of parbculate matter:
the parameters to' be measured that
affect the shed exhaust rate (e.g.,
damper settings, fan power) and the
procedures for measuring such
parameters; and if applicable under
paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section, the
procedures to be used for the
measurement of benzene soluble
organics, benzene, toluene, and xylene
emitted from the control device for the
shed. The owner or operator shall notify
the Administrator at least 30 days before
any performance test is conducted.
(c) A complete test plan is deemed
approved if no disapproval is received
within 60 days of the submittal to the
Administrator. After approval of the test
plan, the owner or operator shall;
(1) Determine the efficiency of the
control device for removal of particulate
matter by conducting measurements at
the inlet and the outlet of the emission
control device using Method 5 in
appendix A to pert 60 of this chapter.
with the filter box operated at ambient
temperature and in a manner to avoid
condensation, with a backup filter,
(2) Measure the visible emissions
from coke oven doors that escape
capture by the shed using Method 22 in
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
For the purpose of approval of an
alternative standard, no visible
emissions may escape capture from the
shed.
(i) Visible emission observations shall
be taken during conditions
representative of normal operations.
except that pushing shall be suspended
and pushing emissions shall have
cleared the shed; and
(ii) Method 22 observations shall be
performed by an observer certified
according to the requirements of
Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. The observer shall allow
pushing emissions to be evacuated
(typically 1 to 2 minutes) before making
observations:
(3) Measure the opacity of emissions
from the control device using Method 9
in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter
during conditions representative of
normal operations, including pushing.
and
(i) If the control device has multiple
stacks, the owner or operator shall use
an evaluation based on visible
emissions and opacity to select the stack
with the highest opacity for testing
under this section:
(n) The highest opacity, expressed as
a 6-mmute average, shall be used as the
opacity standard for the control device
(4) Thoroughly inspect all
compartments of each air cleaning
device prior to the performance test for
proper operation and for changes that
signal the potential for malfunction,
including the presence of tears, holes.
and abrasions in filter bags; damaged
seals: and for dust deposits on the clean
side of bags; and
(5) Determine the allowable percent
leaking doors under the shed using
either of the following procedures
(i) Calculate the allowable percent
leaking doors using the following
equation:
PLD =
.2.5
r
(1.4-eff/100)j
(Eq.l)
where
PLDsAllowable percent leaking doors
for alternative standard.
PLD.i4=Applicable visible emission
limitation of percent leaking doors
under this subpart that would
otherwise apply to the coke oven
battery, converted to the single-run
limit according to Table 1.
eff=Percent control efficiency for
particulate matter for emission
control device as determined
according to paragraph (c)(l) of this
section.
Table 1.—Conversion to Single-Run Limit
30-run limit
70 .
60
5.5
50 .
43
40 .
38
3.3
Single-
pass
limit (98
percem
level)
11 0
95
8 7
8 1
72
67
64
5 £
or;
(n) Calculate the allowable percent
leaking doors using the following
procedures:
(A) Measure the total emission rate of
benzene, toluene, and xylene exiting the
control device using Method 18 in
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter
and the emission rate of benzene soiubi
organics entering the control device as
described in the test plan submitted
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section
-------
57916 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
(B) Measure benzene, toluene, xylene.
and benzene soluble organic! in the gas
in the collector main as described in the
test plan cubmitted pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section: and
1C) Calculate the ratio (R) of benzene.
toluene, and xylene to benzene soluble
organic* for the gas in the collector
main, or as the sum of the outlet
emission rates of benzene, toluene, and
xylene. divided by the emission rate of
benzene soluble organics as measured at
the inlet to the control device; and
(D) Calculate the allowable percent
leaking doors hmit under the shed using
the following equation:
L(R-H-eff/100)J
to those
where
R=Ratio of measured emissions of
benzene, toluene, and xylene to
measured emissions of benzene
soluble organics.
(iii) If the allowable percent leaking
coke oven doors is calculated to exceed
15 percent leaking coke oven doors
under paragraphs (cNSW) or (cK5)(ii) of
this section, the owner or operator shall
use 15 percent leaking coke oven doors
for the purposes of this section.
(6) Monitor the parameters that affect
the shed exhaust flow rate.
W
alternative ««mpHng procedii
specified in paragraph (cKSXii) (A) and
(B) of this section by submitting details
on the procedures and the rationale for
their use to the Administrator.
Alternative procedures shall not be used
without approval from the
Administrator.
(8) The owner or operator shall inform
the Administrator of the schedule for
conducting testing under the approved
test plan and give the Administrator the
opportunity to observe the tests.
Id) After calculating the alternative
standard for allowable percent leaking
coke oven doors, the owner or operator
shall submit the following information
to the Administrator:
(1) Identity of the coke oven battery;
(2) Visible emission limitation(s) for
percent leaking doors currently
applicable to the coke oven battery
under this subpart and known future
limitations for percent leaking coke
oven doors:
(3) A written report including:
(i) Appropriate measurements and
calculations used to derive the
allowable percent leaking coke oven
doors requested as the alternative
standard:
(ii) Appropriate visible emission
observations for the shed and opacity
observations for the control device for
the shed, including an alternative
opacity standard, if applicable, as
described in paragraph (c«3) of this
section based on the highest 6-miaute
average: and
(iiijThe parameter or parameters (e.g..
fan power, damper position, or other) to
be monitored and recorded to
demonstrate that the exhaust flow rate
measured during the test required by
paragraph (c)(l) of this section is
maintained, and the monitoring plan for
suchparameteifs).
(iv)If the application is for a new
shed, one of the following
(A) A demonstration, using modeling
procedures acceptable to the
Administrator, ™«the expected
mm mi »i i jHmf Q{ i»iiii iilnia emissions
(including benzene soluble organics)
under the shed et the bench level, when
the proposed alternative standard was
being met. would not exceed the
expected concentrations of psroculsta
emissions (*~*"'«"e benzene soluble
orgarika) if the shed were not present.
the regulations under this subpart were
met. and the battery was in compliance)
with federally •ntorrnahle limitations
on pushing 1
(6) A demonstration that the shed
(including the evacuation system) has
been designed in accordance with
generally accepted engineering
principles for the effective capture and
control of perticulate Tmisi4*H*f
• hmza
(including!
soluble organics) as
measured at the shed's perimeter, its
control device, and at the bench level
(e) The Administrator will review the
information and 5f%^it submitted
according to paragraph (d) of this
section and may request additional
information and data within 60 days of
receipt of a complete request
(1) Except for applications subject to
paragraph (eM3) of this section, the
Administrator shall approve or
disapprove an alternative standard as
expeditiously as practicable. The
Administrator shall approve an
alternative standard, unless the
Administrator determines that the
approved test plan has not been
followed, or any required calculations
are incorrect, or any demonstration
required under paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of
this section does not satisfy the
applicable criteria under that paragraph.
If the alternative standard is
disapproved, the Administrator will
issue a written notification to the owner
or operator within the 60-day period.
(2) The owner or operator shall
comply with the applicable visible
^rn^irion limitation for coke oven doors
and all other requirements m this
subpart prior to approval of an
alternative standard. The owner or
operator may apply for an alternative
standard at any time after December 4.
1992.
(3) An application for an alternative
standard to the standard in
S 63.304(b)U)(i) for any shed that is not
a new shed that is filed on or before
June 15,1993, is deemed approved if a
notice of disapproval has not been
received 60 days after submission of a
complete request. An approval under
paragraph (e)(3) of this section shall be
valid for a period of 1 year.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (e) of this section. DO
alternative standard shall be approved
that exceeds 15 percent leaking coke
oven doors (yard equivalent}.
(I) After approval of an alternative
standard, the owner or operator shall
comply with the following
requirements:
(1) The owner or operator shall not
discharge or allow to be discharged to
the atmosphere coke oven •missions
from coke oven doors under sheds that
exceed an approved alternative standard
for percent baking coke oven do
lor percent MI
under sheds.
0) All visible emission observations
for compliance determinations shall be
pwnvnMQ by • o0ftifi«M obAtfw*
(U) CnmpUaooe with the alternative
standard for doors shall he determined
by a weekly performance teat conducted
according to the procedures and
requirements in §63.309(dX5)and
Method 303 in appendix A to this part
(iii) If the visible emission limitation
is achieved for 12 consecutive
observations, compliance shall be
determined by monthly rather than
weekly performance tests. If any
exceedance occurs during a
performance test, weekly performance
tests shall be resumed.
(iv) Observations taken at times other
than those specified in paragraphs
(fldXii) and (f)(l)(ili) of this section
shall be subject to the provisions of
§63.309(f).
(2) The certified observer shall
monitor the visible coke oven emissions
escaping capture by the shed on e
weekly basis. The provision in
paragraph (f)(6) of this section is
applicable if visible coke oven
emissions are observed during periods
when pushing emissions have cleared
the shed.
(3) The owner or operator shall not
discharge or allow to be discharged to
the atmosphere any visible emissions
from the shed's control device
. exhibiting more than 0 percent opacity
unless an alternative Bruit has been
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57917
Tf
i
approved under paragraph (e) of this
section.
(4) The opacity of emissions from the
control device for the shed shall be
monitored in accordance with the
requirements of either paragraph (f)(4)(i)
or (f)(4)(ii) of this section, at the election
of the owner or operator.
(0 The owner or operator shall install,
operate, and maintain a continuous
opacity monitor, and record the output
of the system, for the measurement of
the opacity of emissions discharged
from the emission control system.
(A) Each continuous opacity
monitoring system shall meet the
requirements of Performance
Specification 1 in appendix B to part 60
of this chapter; and
(B) Each continuous opacity
monitoring system shall be operated,
calibrated, and maintained according to
the procedures and requirements
specified in part 52 of this chapter; or
(ii) A certified observer shall monitor
and record at least once each day during
daylight hours, opacity observations for
the control device for the shed using
Method 0 in appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter.
(5) The owner or operator shall
visually inspect the structural integrity
of the shed at least once a quarter for
defects, such as deterioration of sheet
metal (e.g.. holes in the shed), that may
allow the escape of visible emissions.
(i) The owner or operator shall record
the time and date a defect is first
observed, the time and date the defect
is corrected or repaired, and a brief
description of repairs or corrective
actions taken;
(ii) The owner or operator shall
temporarily repair the defect as soon as
possible, but no later th«" S days after
detection of the defect;
(ill) Unless a major repair is required,
the owner or operator shall perform a
complete repair of the defect within 15
days of detection of the defect. If a major
repair is required (e.g., replacement of
large sections of the shed), the owner or
operator shall submit a repair schedule
to the enforcement agency.
(6) If the no visible emission limit for
the shed specified in paragraph (0(2) of
this section is exceeded, the
Administrator may require another test
for the shed according to the approved
test plan as specified in paragraph (c) of
this section. If the certified observer
observes visible coke oven emissions
from the shed, except during periods of
pushing or when pushing emissions
have not cleared the shed, the owner or
operator shall check to ensure that the
shed and control device are working
properly.
(7) The owner or operator shall
monitor the parameteHs) affecting shed
exhaust flow rate, and record data, in
accordance with the approved
monitoring plan for these parameters.
(8) The owner or operator shall not
operate the exhaust system of the shed
at an exhaust flow rate lower than that
measured duringAhe test required under
paragraph (c)(l) of this section, as
indicated by the monitored parameters.
(g) Each side of a battery subject to an
alternative standard for doors under this
section shall be treated separately for
purposes of §§ 63.306(c) (plan
implementation) and 63.306(d) (plan
revisions) of this subpart. In making
determinations under these provisions
for the side of the battery subject to an
alternative standard, the requirement
that exceedances be independent shall
not apply. During any period when
work practices for doors for both sides
of the battery are required to be
implemented, §63.306(a)(3) shall apply
in the same manner as if the provisions
of a plan for a single emissions point
were required to be Implemented.
Exceedances of the alternative standard
for percent leaking doors under a shed
is the only provision in this section
implicating implementation of work
practice requirements.
(h) Multiple exceedances of the
visible emission limitation for door
leaks and/or the provisions of an
alternative standard under this section
for door leaks at a battery on a single
day shall be considered a single
violation.
§63.306 W«rk practice standards.
(a) Work practice plan. On or before
November 15,1993. each owner or
operator shall prepare and submit to the
Administrator a written emission
control work practice plan for each coke
oven battery. The plan shall be designed
to achieve compliance with visible
emission limitations for coke oven
doors, topside port lids, offtake systems.
and charging operations under this
subpart or. for a coke oven battery not
subject to visible emission limitations
under this subpart. other federally
enforceable visible emission limitations
for these emission points.
(1) The work practice plan must
address each of the topics specified in
paragraph (b) of this section in sufficient
detail and with sufficient specificity to
allow the Administrator to evaluate the
plan for completeness and
enforceability.
(2) The Administrator may require
revisions to the initial plan only where
the Administrator finds either that the
plan does not address each subject area
listed in paragraph (b) of this section for
each emission point subject to a visible
emission standard under this subpart, or
that the plan is unenforceable because it
contains requirements that are unclear
(3) During any period of time that an
owner or operator is required to
implement the provisions of a plan for
a particular emission point, the failure
to implement one or more obligations
under the plan and/or any
recordkeeping requirement(s) under
§ 63.311(0(4) for the emission point
during a particular day is a single
violation.
(b) Plan components. The owner or
operator shall organize the work
practice plan to indicate dearly which
parts of the plan pertain to each
emission point subject to visible
emission standards under this subpart.
Each of the following provisions, at a
minimum, shall be addressed in the
plan:
(1) An initial and refresher training
program for all coke plant operating
personnel with responsibilities that
impact emissions( including contractors,
in job requirements related to emission
control and the requirements of this
subpart. including work practice
requirements. Contractors with
responsibilities that impact emission
control may be trained by the owner or
operator or by qualified contractor
personnel; however, the owner or
operator shall ensure that the contractor
training program complies with the
requirements of this section. The
training program in the plan must
include:
(i) A list, by job title, of all personnel
that are required to be trained and the
emission point(s) associated with each
job title;
(ii) An outline of the subjects to be
covered in the initial and refresher
training for each group of personnel;
(iii) A description of the training
method(s) that will be used (e.g.,
lecture, video tape):
(iv) A statement of the duration of
initial training and the duration and
frequency of refresher training;
(v) A description of the methods to be
used at the completion of initial or
refresher training to demonstrate and
document successful completion of the
initial and refresher training; and
(vi) A description of the procedure to
be used to document performance of
plan requirements pertaining to daily
operation of the coke oven battery and
its emission control equipment,
including a copy of the form to be used.
if applicable, as required under the plan
provisions implementing paragraph
(b)(7) of this section.
-------
57918 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Procedures for controlling
emissions from coke own doon on by-
product coke oven batteries, including:
(i) A program for the inspection,
adjustment, repair, and replacement of
coke oven doors and iambs, and any
other equipment for controlling
emissions from coke oven doors,
including a defined frequency of
inspections, the method to be used to
evaluate conJonnanoa with operating
specifications for each type of
equipment, and the method to be used
to audit the effectiveness of the
inspection and repair program for
preventing exceedances;
(ii) Procedures for identifying leaks
that *nf^ryt" a failure of the emissions
control equipment to function property,
including a clearly defined «*"fa of
command for f^mmimteartnn
information on leaks and procedures for
corrective action;
(lii) Procedures for cleaning all
sealing surfaces of each door and Jamb,
including identification of the
equipment that will be uead and a
specified schedule or frequency for the
cleaning of seeling surfaces;
(iv) For batteries equipped with self.
sealing doon. procedures for nee of
supplemental geakettng end biting
materials, ii the owner or operator elects
to us* wch pfocedum m pert of the
program to pravent exceedencea;
W For batteries equipped with hand-
luted doon. procedures for luting and
reluting. as necessary to prevent
exceedancea;
(vi) Procedures for «"HrrtM"
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Ktgister / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57919
(n) Continue to implement such plan
provisions until the visible emission
limitation for the emission point is
achieved for 90 consecutive days if
work practice requirements are
implemented pursuant to paragraph
(en i)(i) of this section. After the visible
emission limitation for a particular
emission point is achieved for 90
consecutive days, any exoeedances prior
to the beginning of the 90 days are not
included in making a determination
under paragraph (c)(l)(i) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator of a coke
oven battery not subject to visible
emission limitations under this subpart
until December 31.1995. shall:
(i) Implement the provisions of the
work practice plan pertaining to a
particular emission point following the
second exceedance in any consecutive
6-month period of a federally
enforceable emission limitation for that
emission point for coke oven doors.
topside port lids, offtake systems, or
charging operations by no later than 3
days after receipt of written notification
from the applicable enforcement agency;
and
(ii) Continue to implement •*"*h plan
provisions for 90 consecutive days after
the most recent written notification
from the enforcement agency of an
exceedance of the visible emission
limitation.
(d) Revisions to plan. Revisions to the
work practice emission control plan will
be governed by the provisions in this
paragraph (d] and in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section.
(1) The Administrator may request the
owner or operator to review and revise
as needed the work practice emission
control plan for a particular emission
point if there are 2 exceedances of the
applicable visible emission limitation in
the 6-month period that starts 30 days
after the owner or operator is required
to implement work practices under
paragraph (c) of this section. In the case
of a coke oven battery subject to visual
emission limitations under this subpart,
the second exceedance must be
independent under the criteria in
paragraph (c)(l)(i) of this section.
(2) The Administrator may not request
the owner or operator to review and
revise the plan more than twice in any
12 consecutive month period for any •
particular emission point unless the
Administrator disapproves the plan
according to the provisions in paragraph
(d){6) of this section.
(3) If the certified observer calculates
that a second exceedance (or. if
applicable, a second independent
exceedance) ha* occurred, the certified
observer shall notify the owner or
operator. No later than 10 days after
receipt of such a notification, the owner
or operator shall notify the
Administrator of any finding of whether
work practices are related to the cause
or the solution of the problem. This
notification is subject to review by the
Administrator according to the
provisions in paragraph (d)(6) of this
section.
(4) The owner or operator shall
submit a revised work practice plan
within 60 days of notification from the
Administrator under paragraph (dHl) of
this section, unless the Administrator
grants an extension of time to submit
the revised plan.
(5) If the Administrator requires a
plan revision, the Administrator may
require the plan to address a subject
area or areas in addition to those in
paragraph (b) of this section, if the
Administrator determines that without
plan coverage of such an additional
subject area, there is a reasonable
probability of further exceedances of the
visible emission limitation for the
emission point for which a plan revision
is required.
(6) The Administrator may disapprove
a plan revision required under
paragraph (d) of this section if the
Administrator determines that the
revised plan is inadequate to prevent
exceedances of the visible emission
limitation under this subpart for the
emission point for which a plan revision
is required or. in the case of a battery
not subject to visual emission
limitations under this subpart. other
federally enforceable emission
limitations for such emission point. The
Administrator may also disapprove the
finding that may be submitted pursuant
to paragraph (d)(3) of this section if the
Administrator determines that a revised
plan is needed to prevent exceedances
of the applicable visible emission
limitations.
163.307 Standards for bypass/bleeder
stacks.
(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided
in this section, on or before March 31,
1994. the owner or operator of an
existing by-product recovery battery for
which a notification was not submitted
under paragraph (eKD of this section
shall Install a bypass/bleeder stack flare
system that is capable of controlling 120
percent of the normal gas flow generated
by the battery, which shall thereafter be
operated ana maintained.
(2) Coke oven emissions shall not be
vented to the atmosphere through
bypass/bleeder stacks, except through
the flare system or the alternative
control device as described in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator of a
brownfield coke oven battery or a padup
rebuild shall install such a flare system
before startup, and shall properly
operate and maintain the flare system
(b) Each flare installed pursuant to
this section shall meet the following
reaui rements:
(1) Each flare shall be designed for a
net heating value of 8.9 MJ/scm (240
Btu/scf) if a flare is steam-assisted or air-
assisted, or a net value of 7.45 MJ/scm
(200 Btu/scf) if the flare is non-assisted
(2) Each flare shall have either a
continuously operable pilot flame or an
electronic igniter that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(3).and
(b)(4) of this section.
(3) Each electronic igniter shall meet
the following requirements:
(i) Each flare snail be equipped with
at least two igniter plugs with
redundant igniter transformers:
(ii) The ignition units shall be
designed failsafe with respect to flame
detection thermocouples (i.e.. any flame
detection thermocouples are used only
to indicate the presence of a flame, are
not interlocked with the ignition unit.
and cannot deactivate the ignition
system); and
(iii) Integral battery backup shall be
provided to maintain active ignition
operation for a minimum of IS minutes
during a power failure.
(iv) Each electronic igniter shall be
operated to initiate ignition when the
bleeder valve is not fully closed as
indicated by an "OPEN" limit switch.
(4) Each flare installed to meet the
requirements of this paragraph (b) that
does not have an electronic igniter shal!
be operated with a pilot flame present
at all times as determined by
§63.309{h)(2).
(c) Each flare installed to meet the
requirements of this section shall be
operated with no visible emissions, as
determined by the methods specified Lr
§63.309(h)(l). except for periods not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any
2 consecutive hours.
(d) As an alternative to the
installation, operation, and maintenanc
of a flare system as required in
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator may petition the
Administrator for approval of an
alternative control device or system tht
achieves at least 98 percent destructior
or control of coke oven emissions
vented to the alternative control device
or system.
(e) The owner or operator of a by-
product coke oven battery is exempt
from the requirements of this section ii
the owner or operator
(1) Submits to the Administrator, no
later than November 10,1993. a formaJ
-------
57920 Federal Regular / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
commitment to close the battery
permanently: and
(2) Closes the battery permanently no
later than December 31.1995. In no case
may the owner or operator continue to
operate a battery for which a closure
commitment is submitted, past
December 31.1995.
(0 Any emissions resulting from the
installation of flares (or other pollution
control devices or systems approved
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section) shall not be used in making
new source review determinations
under part C and part D of title I of the
Act.
§ 63.308 Standard* lor collecting main*.
(a) On and after November 15.1993,
the owner or operator of a by-product
coke oven battery shall inspect the
collecting main for leaks at least once
daily according to the procedures in
Method 303 in appendix A to this pan.
(b) The owner or operator shall record
the time and date a leak is first
observed, the time and date the leak is
temporarily sealed, and the time and
date of repair.
(c) The owner or operator shall
temporarily seal any leak in the
collecting main as soon as possible after
detection, but no later than 4 hours after
detection of the leak.
(d) The owner or operator shall
initiate a collecting main repair as
expeditiously as possible, but no later
than 5 calendar days after initial
detection of the leak. The repair shall be
completed within 15 calendar days after
initial detection of the leak unless an
alternative schedule is approved by the
Administrator.
$ 63.309 Pertormance teata and
procedure*.
(a) Except as otherwise provided, a
daily performance test shall be
conducted each day, 7 days per week for
each new and existing coke oven
battery, the results of which shall be
used in accordance with procedures
specified in this subpart to determine
compliance with each of the applicable
visible emission limitations for coke
even doors, topside port lids, offtake
systems, and charging operations in this
subpart. If a facility pushes and charges
only at night, then that facility must, at
its option, change their schedule and
charge during daylight hours or provide
adequate lighting so that visible
emission inspections can be made at
night. "Adequate lighting" will be
determined by the enforcement agency.
(1) Each performance test is to be
conducted according to the procedures
and requirements in this section and in
Method 303 or 303A in appendix A to
this part or Methods 9 and 22 in
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter
(where applicable).
(2) Each performance test is to be
conducted by a certified observer.
(3) The certified observer shall
complete any reasonable safety training
program offered by the owner or
operator pnor to conducting any
performance test at a cole oven battery.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the
owner or operator shall pay an
inspection fee to the enforcement
agency each calendar quarter to defray
the costs of the daily performance tests
required under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(i) The inspection fee shall be
determined according to the following
formula:
F«HxS (Eq .3)
where
F=Fees to be paid by owner or
operator.
Hafotal person hours for inspections:
4 hours for 1 coke oven battery, 6.25
hours for 2 coke oven batteries. 8.25
hours for 3 coke oven batteries. For
more than 3 coke oven batteries, use
these hours to calculate the
appropriate estimate of person
hours.
SsCurrent avenge hourly rate for
private visible emission inspectors
in the relevant market
(ii) The enforcement agency may
revise the value for H in equation 3
within 3 years after October 27,1993 to
reflect the amount of time actually
required to conduct the inspections
required under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(iii) The owner or operator shall not
be required to pay an inspection fee (or
any part thereof) under paragraph (a)(4)
of this section, for any monitoring or
inspection services required by
paragraph (a) of this section that the
owner or operator can demonstrate are
covered by other fees collected by the
enforcement agency.
(iv) Upon request, the enforcement
agency shall provide the owner or
operator information concerning the
inspection services covered by any other
fees collected by the enforcement
agency, and any information relied
upon under paragraph (a)(4)(n) of this
section.
(5) (i) The EPA shall be the
enforcement agency during any penod
oitime that a delegation of enforcement
authority is not in effect or a withdrawal
of enforcement authority under $ 63.313
is in effect, and the Administrator is
responsible for performing the
inspections required by this section.
pursuant to §63.313(b).
(ii) Within thirty (30) days of
receiving notification from the
Administrator that the EPA is the
enforcement agency for a coke oven
battery, the owner or operator shall
enter into a contract providing for the
inspections and performance tests
required under this section to be
performed by a Method 303 certified
observer. The inspections and
performance tests will be conducted at
the expense of the owner or operator,
during the period that the EPA is the
implementing agency.
(D) The enforcement agency shall
commence daily performance tests on
the applicable date specified in
§§63.300 (a) or (c).
(c) The certified observer shall
conduct each performance test
according to the requirements in this
paragraph:
(1) The certified observer shall
conduct one run each day to observe
and record visible emissions from each
coke oven door (except for doors
covered by an alternative standard
under § 63.305). topside port lid. and
offtake system on each coke oven
battery. The certified observer also shall
conduct five runt to observe end record
the seconds of visible emissions per
charge for five consecutive charges from
each coke oven battery. The observer
may perform additional runs as needed
to obtain and record i visible emissions
value (or set of values) for an emission
point that is valid under Method 303 or
Method 303A in appendix A to this
part. Observations from fewer than five
consecutive charges shall constitute a
valid set of charging observations only
in accordance with the procedures and
conditions specified in sections 3.8 and
3.9 of Method 303 in appendix A to this
part.
(2) If a valid visible emissions value
(or set of values) is not obtained for a
performance test, there is no compliance
determination for that day. Compliance
determinations will resume on the next
day that a valid visible emissions velue
lor set of values) is obtained.
(3) After each performance test for a
by-product coke oven battery, the
certified observer shall check and record
the collecting main pressure according
to the procedures in section 6.3 of
Method 303 in appendix A to this part.
(i) The owner or operator shall
demonstrate pursuant to Method 303 in
appendix A to this part the accuracy of
the pressure measurement device upon
request of the certified observer;
(ii) The owner or operator shall not
adjust the pressure to a level below the
-------
Federal Eegiater / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57921
:t
range of normal operation during or
pnor to the inspection;
(4) The certified observer shall
monitor visible emissions from coke
even doors subject to an alternative
standard under § 63.305 on the schedule
specified in §63.305(0-
(5) If applicable, the certified observer
shall monitor the opacity of any
emissions escaping the control device
for a shed covering doors subject to an
alternative standard under S 63.305 on
the schedule specified in $63.305(0-
(6) In no case shall the owner or
operator knowingly block a coke oven
door, or any portion of a door for the
purpose of concealing emissions or
preventing observations by the certified
observer.
(d) Using the observations obtained
from each performance test, the
enforcement agency shall compute and
record, in accordance with the
procedures and requirement* of Method
303 or 303A in appendix A to this pert
for each day of operations on which a
valid emissions value (or set of values)
is obtained:
(1) The 30-run rolling avenge of the
percent leaking oak* oven doors.
topside port lids, and offtake systems on
each coke oven battery, using the
equations m sections 4J.3.2,5.8.3.2,
and 5.6.6 J of Method 303 (or section
3.4.3.2 of Method 303A) in appendix A
to this part:
(2) For by-product coke oven battery
charging operations, the logarithmic 30-
day rolling average of the seconds of
visible emissions per charge for each
battery, using the equation in section 3.9
of Method 303 in appendix A to this
part;
(3) For a battery subject to an
alternative emission limitation for coke
oven doors on by-product coke oven
batteries pursuant to §63.305, the 30-
run rolling average of the percent
leaking coke oven doors for any side of
the battery not subject to such
alternative emission limitation;
(4) For a by-product coke oven battery
subject to the small battery emission
limitation for coke oven doors pursuant
to § 63.304(b)(7). the 30-run rolling
average of the number of leaking coke
oven doors;
(5) For an approved alternative
emission limitation for coke oven doors
according to § 63.305, the weekly or
monthly observation of the percent
leaking coke oven doors using Method
303 in appendix A to this part, the
percent opacity of visible emissions
from the control device for the shed
using Method 9 in appendix A to part
60 of this chapter, and visible emissions
from the shed using Method 22 in
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter;
(e) The certified observer shall make
available to the Implementing agency as
well as to the owner or operator, a copy
of the daily inspection results by the
end of the day and shall make available
the calculated rolling average for each
emission point to the owner or operator
as soon as practicable following each
performance test The information
provided by the certified observer is not
a compliance determination. For the
purpose of notifying an owner or
operator of the results obtained by a
certified observer, the person does not
have to be certified.
(f) Compliance shall not be
determined more often than the
schedule provided for performance tests
under this section. If additional valid
emissions observations are obtained (or
in the case of charging, valid sets of
emission observations), the arithmetic
avenge of aU valid values (or valid sets
of values) obtained during the day shall
be used in any computations performed
to determine compliance under
paragraph (d) of this section or
determinations under § 63.306.
(g) Compliance with the alternative
standards for nonrecovery coke oven
batteries in $63.303; shed inspection.
maintenance requirements, and
monitoring requirements for parameters
affecting the shed exhaust flow nte for
batteries subject to alternative standards
for coke oven doors under $ 63.305;
work practice emission control plan
requirements in §63.306; standards for
bypass/bleeder stacks in $ 63.307; and
standards for collecting mains In
$ 63.308 is to be determined by die
enforcement agency based on review of
records and inspections.
(h) For a flare installed to meet the
requirements of $ 63.307(b):
11) Compliance wrm the provisions in
S 63.307(c) (visible emissions from
flares) shall be determined using
Method 22 in appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter, with an observation period
of 2 hours; and
(2) Compliance with the provisions in
§63.307(b)(4) (flare pilot light) shall be
determined using a thermocouple or any
other equivalent device.
(i) No observations obtained during
any program for training or for certifying
observers under this subpart shall be
used to determine compliance with the
requirements of this subpart or any
other federally enforceable standard.
163.310 Requlremente for startups,
shutdown*, and malfunctions.
(a) At all times including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the
owner or operator shall operate and
maintain the coke oven battery and its
pollution control equipment required
under this subpart, in a manner
consistent with good air pollution
control practices for mmimizir.s
emissions to the levels required by any
applicable performance standards under
this subpart. Failure to adhere to the
requirement of this paragraph shall not
constitute a separate violation if a
violation of an applicable performance
or work practice standard has also
occurred.
(b) Each owner or operator of a coke
oven battery shall develop and
implement according to paragraph (c) of
this section, a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan that
describes procedures for operating the
battery, including associated air
pollution control equipment, during a
period of a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in a manner consistent
with good air pollution control practices
for minimising emissions, and
procedures for correcting
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control equipment as quickly
as practicable.
(c) During a period of startup.
shutdown, or malfunction:
(1) The owner or operator of a coke
oven battery shall operate the battery
(including associated air pollution
control equipment) in accordance with
the procedure specified in the startup.
shutdown, and malfunction plan; and
(2) Malfunction* shall be corrected as
soon as practicable after their
occurrence, in accordance with the
plan.
(d) In order for the provisions of
paragraph (i) of this section to apply
with respect to the observation (or set of
observations) for a particular day.
notification of a startup, shutdown, or a
malfunction shall be made by the owner
or operator:
(1) If practicable, to the certified
observer if the observer is at the facility
during the occurrence; or
(2) To the enforcement agency, in
writing, within 24 hours of the
occurrence first being documented by a
company employee, and if the
notification under paragraph td)(l j of
this section was not made, an
explanation of why no such notification
was made.
(e) Within 14 days of the notification
made under paragraph (d) of this
section, or after a startup or shutdown.
the owner or operator shall submit a
written report to the applicable
permitting authority that:
(1) Describes the time and
circumstances of the startup, shutdown.
or malfunction; and
(2) Describes actions taken that might
be considered inconsistent with the
startup, shutdown, or malfunction plan.
-------
57922 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
(f) The owner or operator shall
maintain a record of internal reports
which form the basis of each
malfunction notification under
paragraph Id) of this section.
(g) To satisfy the requirements of this
section to develop a startup, shutdown.
and malfunction plan, the owner or
operator may use the standard operating
procedures manual for the battery-,
provided the manual meets all the
requirements for this section and is
made available for inspection at
reasonable times when requested by the
Administrator.
(h) The Administrator may require
reasonable revisions to a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, if the
Administrator finds that the plan:
(1) Does not address • startup,
shutdown, or malfunction event that has
occurred;
(2) Fails to provide for the operation
of the source (including associated air
pollution control equipment) during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction event
in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for
minimising emissions; or
(3) Does not provide adequate
procedures for correcting
malfunctioning process and/or air
pollution control equipment as quickly
as practicable.
(i) If the owner or operator
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that a startup, shutdown.
or malfunction has occurred, then an
observation occurring during such
startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall
not:
(1) Constitute a violation of relevant
requirements of this subpart;
(2) Be used in any compliance
determination under § 63.309; or
(3) Be considered for purposes of
§ 63.306, untikthe Administrator has
resolved the claim that a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction has occurred.
If the Administrator determines that a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction has
not occurred, such observations mev be
used for purposes of § 63.306. regardless
of whether the owner or operator further
contests such determination. The
owner's or operator's receipt of written
notification from the Administrator that
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction has
not occurred will serve, where
applicable under § 63.306, as written
notification from the certified observer
that an exceedance has occurred.
5 63.311 Reporting and recordkMpIng
requirements.
(a) After the effective date of an
approved permit in a State under part
70 of this chapter, the owner or operator
shall submit all notifications and reports
required by this subpart to the State
permitting authority. Use of information
provided by the certified observer shall
be a sufficient basis for notifications
required under $ 70.5(c)(9) of this
chapter and the reasonable inquiry
requirement of $ 70.5(d) of this chapter.
(b) Initial compliance certification.
The owner or operator of an existing or
new coke oven battery shall provide a
written statement(s) to certify
compliance to the Administrator within
45 days of the applicable compliance
date for the emission limitations or
requirements in this subpart. The owner
or operator shall include the following
information in the initial compliance
certification:
(1) Statement, signed by the owner or
operator, certifying that a bypass/
bleeder stack flare system or an
approved alternative control device or
system has been installed as required in
§63.307; and
(2) Statement, signed by the owner or
operator, certifying that e written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan has been prepared as required in
$63.310.
(c) Notifications. The owner or
operator shall provide written
notification(s) to the Administrator of.
(1) Intention to construct e new coke
oven battery (including reconstruction
of an existing coke oven battery end
construction of e greenfield coke oven
battery), e brownfield coke oven battery,
or a padup rebuild coke oven battery.
including the anticipated date of
startup; and
(2) Election to meet emission
limitation(s) in this subpart as follows:
(i) Notification of election to meet the
emission limitations in $$63.304(b)(l)
or 63.304(c) either in lieu of or in
addition to the applicable emission
limitations in §63.302(a) or $63.303(a)
must be received by the Administrator
on or before November IS. 1993; or
(ii) Notification of election to meet the
emission limitations in $63.302fa)(l) or
§ 63.303(a), as applicable, must be
received by the Administrator on or
before December 31,1995; end
(iii) Notification of election to meet
the emission limitations in §63.304(b)
(2) through (4) and § 63.304lc) or
election to meet residual risk standards
to be developed according to section
112(0 of the Act in lieu of the emission
standards in § 63.304 must be received
on or before January 1,1998.
(d) Semiannual compliance
certification. The owner or operator of a
coke oven battery shall include the
following information in the semiannual
compliance certification:
(1) Certification, signed by the owner
or operator, that no coke oven gas was
vented, except through the bypass/
bleeder stack flare system of a by-
product coke oven battery during the
reporting period or that a venting report
has been submitted according to the
requirements in paragraph (e) of this
section:
(2) Certification, signed by the owner
or operator, that a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction event did not occur for a
coke oven battery during the reporting
period or that a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction event did occur and a
report was submitted according to the
requirements in $ 63.310(e); and
(3) Certification, signed by the owner
or operator, that work practices were
implemented if applicable under
$63.306.
(e) Report for the venting of coke oven
gas other than through a flare system.
The owner or operator shall report any
venting of coke oven gas through a
bypass/bleeder stack that was not
vented through the bypass/bleeder stack
flare system to the Administrator as
soon as practicable but no later than 24
hours after the beginning of the event.
A written report snail be submitted
within 30 days of the event and shell
include a description of the event and,
if applicable, a copy of the notification
for a hazardous substance release
required pursuant to $ 302.6 of this
chapter.
(f) Recordkeeping. The owner or
operator Shall maintain filet of all
required information in a permanent
form suitable for inspection at an onsite
location for at least 1 year and must
thereafter be accessible within 3
working days to the Administrator for
the time period specified in
$ 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B) of this chapter. Copies
of the work practice plan developed
under $ 63.306 and the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan
developed under $ 63.310 shall be kept
onsite at all times. The owner or
operator shall maintain the following
information:
(1) For nonrecovery coke oven
batteries.
(i) Records of daily pressure
monitoring, if applicable according to
§63.303(a)(l)(ii) or $63.303(b)(l)(i;>;
(ii) Records demonstrating the
performance of work practice
requirements according to
§63.306(b)(7);and
(iii) Design characteristics of eacn
emission control system for the capture
and collection of charging emissions, &s
required by § 63.303(b)(2).
(2) For an approved alternative
emission limitation according to
$63.305:
-------
•*"
*>
T
K
r
*
,»_
K-,
I
Ui<-
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations S7923
(i) Monitoring records for parameter(s)
that indicate the exhaust flow rate is
maintained;
(it) If applicable under
§63.305(f)(4)(i);
(A) Records of opacity readings from
the continuous opacity monitor for the
control device for the shed: and
(B) Records that demonstrate the
continuous opacity monitoring system
meets the requirements of Performance
Specification 1 in appendix B to part 60
of this chapter and the operation and
maintenance requirements in part 52 of
this chapter; ana
(iii) Records of quarterly visual
inspections as specified in
§ 63.305(0(5). including the time and
date a defect is detected and repaired.
(3) A copy of the work practice plan
required by § 63.306 and any revision to
the plan:
(4) If the owner or operator is required
under § 63.306(c) to implement the
provisions of a work practice plan for a
particular emission point, the following
records regarding the implementation of
plan requirements for that emission
point during the implementation period;
(i) Copies of all written and
audiovisual material* used in the
training, the dates of each class, the
names of the participants in each class,
and documentation that all appropriate
personnel have successfully completed
the training required under
$63.306(b)(l);
(ii) The records required to be
maintained by the plan provisions
implementing §63.306{b)(7);
(iii) Records resulting from audits of
the effectiveness of the work practice
program for the particular emission
point, as required under
§§63.306(b)(2)(i). 63.306(b)(3)(i).
63.306(b)(4)(i). or 63.306(b)(5)(i); and
(iv) If the plan provisions for coke
oven doors must be implemented.
records of the Inventory of doors and
jambs as required under
§ 63.306(b)(2)(vi); and
(S) The design drawings and
engineering specifications for the
bypass/bleeder stack flare system or
approved alternative control device or
system as required under §63.307.
(6) Records specified in §63.3lO(f)
regarding the basis of each malfunction
notification.
(g) Records required to be maintained
and reports required to be filed with the
Administrator under this subpart shall
be made available in accordance with
the requirements of this paragraph by
the owner or operator to the authorized
collective bargaining representative of
the employees at a coke oven battery, for
inspection and copying.
(1) Requests under paragraph (g) of
this section shall be submitted in
writing, and shall identify the records or
reports that are subject to the request
with reasonable specificity.
(2) The owner or operator shall
produce the reports for inspection and
copying within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed 30 days. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying (except for the first copy of any
document), which shall not exceed the
copying fee charged by the
Administrator under part 2 of this
chapter.
(3) Nothing in paragraph (g) of this
section shall require the production for
inspection or copying of any portion of
a document that contains trade secrets
or confidential business information
that the Administrator would be
prohibited from disclosing to the public
underpart 2 of this chapter, and
(4) The inspection or copying of a
document under paragraph (g) of this
section shall not in any way affect any
property right of the owner or operator
in such document under laws for the
protection of intellectual property.
including the copyright laws.
163.312 Existing regulations end
requirements.
(a) The owner or operator shall
comply with all applicable State
implementation plan emission limits
and (subject to any expiration date) all
federally enforceable •mission
limitations which an contained in an
order, decree, permit, or settlement
agreement for the control of emissions
from offtake systems, topside port lids.
coke oven doors, and charging
operations in effect on September 15.
1992. or which have been modified
according to the provisions of paragraph
(c) of this section.
(b) Nothing in this subpart shall affect
the enforcement of such State
implementation plan emission
limitations (or, subject to any expiration
date, such federally enforceable
emission limitations contained in an
order, decree, permit, or settlement
agreement) in effect on September 15.
1992, or which have been modified
according to the provisions in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(c) No such State implementation
plan emission limitation (or, subject to
any expiration date, such federally
enforceable emission limitation
contained in an order, decree, permit, or
settlement agreement) in effect on
September 15,1992, may be modified
under the Act unless:
(1) Such modification is consistent
with all requirements of section 110 of
the Act: and either
(i) Such modification ensures that the
applicable emission limitations and
format (e.g., single pass v. multiday
average) in effect on September 15.
1992, will continue in effect; or
(ii) Such modification includes a
change in the method of momtonng
(except frequency unless frequency was
indicated in the State implementation
plan, or subject to any expiration date.
other federally enforceable requirements
contained in an order, decree, permit, or
settlement agreement) that is more
stringent than the method of monitoring
in effect on September 15,1992. and
that ensures coke oven emission
reductions greater than the emission
reductions required on September 15.
1992. The burden of proof in
demonstrating the stringency of the
methods of monitoring is borne by the
party requesting the modification and
must be made to the satisfaction of the
Administrator; or
(iii) Such modification makes the
emission limitations more stringent
while holding the format unchanged,
makes the format more stringent while
holding the emission limitations
unchanged, or makes both more
stringent.
(2) Any industry application to make
a State implementation plan revision or
other adjustment to account for
differences between Method 303 in
appendix A to this part and the State's
method based on paragraph (c)(l)(ii) of
this section shall be submitted within
12 months after October 27.1993.
(d) Except as specified in § 63.307(f).
nothing in this subpart shall limit or
affect any authority or obligation of
Federal, State, or local agencies to
establish emission limitations or other
requirements more stringent than those
specified in this subpart.
(e) Except as provided in § 63.302(c),
section 112(g] of the Act shall not apply
to sources subject to this subpart
i 63.313 Delegation erf euthorlty.
(a) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority to a State under
section 112(d) of the Act. the authorities
contained in paragraph (c) of this
section shall be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a
State.
(b) Whenever the Administrator
learns that a delegated agency has not
fully earned out the inspections and
performance tests required under
§63.309 for each applicable emission
point of each battery each day, the
Administrator shall immediately notify
the agency. Unless the delegated agency
demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction within 15 days of
notification that the agency is
-------
57924 Federal Register / VoL SS, Ma 206 / Wednesday. October 27, 1903 / Rules and Regulations
consistently carrying out the inspections
and performance tests required under
§ 63.309 In the manner specified in the
preceding sentence, the Administrator
shall notify the coke oven battery owner
or operator that inspection* and
performance tests shall be carried out
according to 5 63.309UX5). When the
Administrator determines that the
delegated agency is prepared to
consistently perform all required
inspections and performance tests each
day, the Administrator shall give the
coke oven battery owner or operator at
least IS days notice that implementation
will revert back to the previously
delegated agency.
(c) Authorities which will not be
delegated to States:
(l)$63.302(d);
(2)§63.304(b)(B);
(3) §§ 63.305 (b).(d) and (e);
(4)§63.307(d);and
(5) Section 2 of Method 303 in
appendix A to this part
(d) The authority to enforce this
subpart is delegated to the States oft
(Reserved)
APPENDIX A TO SUBPAHT L—OPERAT-
ING COKE OVEN BATTERIES AS OF
APRH. 1,1992
No.
1
2
3
4 _
g
7
8
9
10
11 ..___
Plant
ABC Coke. Tartar*,
Al_
Acme Steel CM-
cago,m
Arnica, Irc^ MoV
iltmtoiitmt mj
oieiDwn, un.
Armco. Inc.. Ash-
lend. KY.
"•**'•> •• ftta^
Bethlehem. PA.
Bethlehem jleel
Burn Hevbor, IN.
Laefcawema, NY.
CWzana Gaa. kioV
" anapoSs. IN.
Empire Cohe. Ho",
AL.
Erie Coke, Erie, PA
Geneve Steel.
Provo,UT.
fia4^MW
oenafy
A
»
e
i
2
1
2
3
3
4
2
3
«
2
8
£
H
1
1
2
A
B
1
2
3
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART L— OPERAT-
ING COKE OVEN BATTERCS AS OF
APRC 1. 1992— Continued
Ma
12
13 ._
14
15
16
17
n
19
20
21
22
23
24 _
25
26
27
28
Plant
GuH Statee Steel.
QeoaoeaAL.
Inland Steel East
Chicago. IN.
Jewel Coal and
Coke, Vansant,
VA
COppMf WtoOCr
•jerAAL.
LTV Steel Oeve-
land,OK
LTV Steel Ptta-
burgh,PA
LTV Steel Chi-
cago, •_
LTV Steel Wairen.
OH.
National Steel
Econe.ML
Netonet Steel
Grantte CXy, R.
POfttvnoutfi* OH.
Sharon Steel Mo-
neeaen. PA
Shenango, Ptts-
burgh.PA
Stoss Industries.
Bb^e^M^kMMk A 1
BliisiiglieiM, Al_
Toledo Coke, To-
ledo, OH.
Tonawanda Coke,
BUMO.NY.
USX, CJakton, PA
Battery
,
|
I
10
11
\
3A
38
3C
i
2A
2B
1 A
4A
4B
S
6
7
PI
P2
*3N
P3S
P4
2
4
5
A
B
1
IB
2
1
4
3
4
5
C
1
1
2
3
7
»
»
13
14
IB
19
20
B
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART L—OPERAT-
ING COKE OVEN BATTERIES AS OF
APRIL 1.1992—Continued
No.
USX. Gary. IN
Wheelno-PlttB-
burgh, E. Steu-
Battery
5. Appendix A to part 63 is amended
by adding in numerical order Method
303 and Method 303A as follows:
Appendix A—Tart Mstheds
METHOD 303—O£TEJtUINATK)N Of
VISIBLE aOSSlONSFROU BY-PRODUCT
COKE OVEN BATTERIES
1. ApplicatuUty and Madpfe
1.1 AppucabUtty.TUs method apphee to
the detenninettaa at vistbhi enussions (VK)
from the following by-product cotoov«n
doors, topside port lids, and i
systems on operating coke ovens; and
collecting mams, to order for the test method
•^•MultM A^ |^_. «_ ji*,f^^4^_ ^J eBil^KA —- ~
rBVttHSlO DVUKuCniW OtpleBn n
tue> tint Of vy OI tn«> TOtt UOUQ
iTOlBflpleV A QMfteMQ 4
visually determines the VB fc
battery sources (the certification procedures
are described in section H This method does
not require that opacity of emissions be
determined or that ""gf""'** be
differentiated.
1J Definitians.
1.3.1 Bench. The platform ttruciure in
front of the oven doon.
1.3.2 By-product Coke Oven Battery. A
source conviiniisj of a group of ovens
connected by common walls* vjheie coal
uadergoes destructive dtsnUanoa under
positive presence to produce coke and coke
oven gas, bom whka by-praducu tre
recovered.
1.3.3 Charge or rtlatBt"B Period. The
period of time that commences when coal
begins to flow Into an oven through a topside
port and ends when the last •*""$*& port is
recapped.
1.3.4 Charging System. Aa apparatus
used to charge coal to a coke oven (e.g., a
Urry car for wet coal charging systems).
1.3.5 Coke Oven Door. Each end
enclosure on the pusher side and the coking
side of an oven. The chuck, or leveler-bar,
door is considered part of the pusher side
door. The coke oven door area includes 0**
entire area on the vertical face of a coke ovra
between the bench and the top of the battery
between two adjacent bock stays.
1.34 Coke Side. The side of a battery
from which the coke is discharged from
ovens at the end of the coking cycle.
U.7 Collecting Many Any apparatus that
is connected to one or more offtake systems
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57925
dnd tr.at provides a passage for convevmg
tases under positive pressure from tae bv-
product coke oven batten' to the tn-product
-prnverv system
1 3 8 Consecutive Charges Charges
ubserved successively, excluding azv charge
during which the observer's view of the
cnarging system or topside ports is obscured
139 Damper-off. To close off the gas
passage between the coke oven and the
collecting mam. with no flow of raw coke
oven gas from the collecting main :nto the
oven or into the oven's offtake system(s)
1 3 10 Decarbomzation Penod. The
period of time for combusting oven carbon
that commences when the oven lids are
removed from an empty oven or when
standpipe caps of an oven are opened. The
period ends with the initiation of the next
charging period for that oven.
1311 Larry Car. An apparatus used to
charge coal to a coke oven with a wet coal
charging system.
1312 Log Average. Logarithmic average
as calculated in Motion 3.8.
1313 Offtake System. Any individual
oven apparatus that is stationary and
provides a passage for gases from an oven to
a coke oven battery collecting main or to
another oven. Offtake system components
include the standpipe and standpipe caps,
goosenecks, stationary Jumper pipes, mini-
standpipes. and standpipe and gooseneck
connections.
1.3.14 Operating Oven. Any oven not out
of operation for rebuild or maintenance work
extensive enough to require the oven to be
skipped in the charging sequence
1.3.15 Oven. A chamber in the coke oven
battery in which coal undergoes destructive
distillation to produce coke.
1.3.16 Push Side. The side of the battery
from which the coke is pushed from ovens
at the end of the coking cycle.
1.3.17 Run. The observation of visible
emissions from topside port lids, offtake
systems, coke oven doors, or the charging of
a single oven in accordance with this
method.
13.18 Shed. Structures for capturing coke
oven emissions on the coke tide or pusher
side of the coke oven battery, which route the
emissions to a control device or system.
13.19 Standpipe Cap. An apparatus used
to cover the opening in the gooseneck of an
offtake system.
1.3.20 Topside Port Lid. A cover.
removed dunng charging or decarbonizing.
that is placed over the opening through
v. men coal can be charged into the oven of
a by-product coke oven battery.
1 3.21 Traverse Time. Accumulated time
for a traverse as measured by a stopwatch.
Traverse tune includes tune to stop and write
down oven numbers but excludes tune
waiting for obstructions of view to clear or
for time to walk around obstacles.
1.3 22 Visible Emissions (VE). Any
emission seen by the unaided (except for
corrective lenses) eye, excluding steam or
condensing water.
2 Observer Certification
2.1 Certification Procedures. This method
requires only the determination of whether
VE occur and does not require the
determination of opacity levels: therefore.
observer certification according to Method 9
in appendix A to pan 60 of this chapter is
not required to obtain certification under this
method. However, in order to receive Method
303 observer certification, the first-tune
observer (trainee) shall have attended the
lecture portion of the Method 9 certification
course In addition, the trainee shall
successfully complete the Method 303
training course, satisfy the field observation
requirement, and demonstrate adequate
performance and sufficient knowledge of
Method 303. The Method 303 training course
shall be conducted by or under the sanction
of the EPA and shall consist of classroom
instruction and field observations, and a
proficiency test.
2.1.1 The classroom instruction shall
familiarize the trainees with Method 303
through lecture, written training materials.
and a Method 303 demonstration video. A
successful completion of the classroom
portion of the Method 303 training course
shall be demonstrated by a perfect score on
a written test. If the trainee fails to answer
all of the questions correctly, the trainee may
review the appropriate portion of the training
materials and retake the test
2.1.2 The field observations shall be a
minimum of 12 hours and shall be completed
before attending the Method 303 certification
course. Trainee* shall observe the operation
of a coke oven battery as it pertains to
Method 303. including topside operations.
and shall also practice conducting Method
303 or similar methods. During the field
observations, trainees unfamiliar with coke
battery operations shall receive Instruction
from an experienced coke oven observer
familiar with Method 303 or similar methods
and the operation of coke batteries. The
trainee must verify completion of at least 12
hours of field observation prior to attending
the Method 303 certification course.
2.1.3 All trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in the application of Method 303
to a panel of three certified Method 303
observers, including an ability to differentiate
coke oven emissions from condensing water
vapor and smoldering coaL Each panel
member shall have at least 120 days
experience in reading visible emissions from
coke ovens. The visible emissions
inspections that will satisfy the experience
requirement must be inspections of coke
oven battery fugitive emissions from the
emission points subject to emission
standards under subpart L of this part (i.e .
coke oven doors, topside port lids, offtake
cystem(c). and charging operations), using
either Method 303 or predecessor State or
locaj test methods. A "day's experience" for
a particular inspection is a day on which one
complete inspection was performed for that
emission point under Method 303 or a
predecessor State or local method. A "day's
experience" does not mean 8 or 10 hours
performing inspections, or any particular
time expressed in minutes or hours that may
have been spent performing them. Thus, it
would be possible for an individual to
qualify as a Method 303 panel member for
some emission points, but not others (e.g., an
individual might satisfy the experience
requirement for coke oven doors, but not
topside port lids). Until November 15.1994,
the EPA may waive the certification
requirement (but not the experience
requirement) for panel members. The
composition of the panel shall be approved
by the EPA. The panel shall observe the
trainee in a series of training runs and a
series of certification runs. There shall be a
minimum of 1 training run for doors, topside
port lids, and offtake systems, and a
minimum of 5 training runs (i.e., 5 charges)
for charging. During training runs, the panel
can advise the trainee on proper procedures
There shall be a minimum of 3 certification
runs for doors, topside port lids, and offtake
systems, and a minimum of 15 certification
runs for charging (i.e., IS charges). The
certifications runs shall be unassisted.
Following the certification test runs, the
panel shall approve or disapprove
certification based on the trainee's
performance during the certification runs. To
obtain certification, the trainee shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel
a high degree of proficiency in performing
Method 303. To aid in evaluating the
trainee's performance, a checklist, provided
by the EPA, will be used.
Caution: Because coke oven batteries have
hazardous environments, the training
materials and the field training shall cover
the precautions required by the company to
address health and safety hazards. Special
emphasis shall be given to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations pertaining to exposure of coke
oven workers (see Citation 3 in the
Bibliography). In general, the regulation
requires that special fire-retardant clothing
and respirators be worn in certain restricted
areas of the coke oven battery. The OSHA
regulation also prohibits certain activities,
such as chewing gum. smoking, and eating ID
these areas.
2.2 Observer Certtfication/Recertification
The coke oven observer certification is valid
for 1 year from date of issue. The observer
shall recertify annually by viewing the
training video and answering all of the
questions on the certification test correctly
Every 3 years, an observer shall be required
to pass the proficiency test in section 2.1.3
in order to be certified.
2.3 The EPA (or applicable enforcement
agency) shall maintain records reflecting a
certified observer's successful completion of
the proficiency test, which shall include the
completed proficiency test checklists for the
certification runs.
2.4 An owner or operator of a coke oven
battery subject to subpart L of this pan may
observe a training and certification program
under this section.
3. Procedure for Determining VEFrom
Charging Systems During Charging
3.1 Number of Oven Charges. Refer to
$ 63.309(c)(l) of this part for the number of
oven charges to observe. The observer shall
observe consecutive charges. Charges that an
nonconsecuu've can only be observed when
necessary to replace observations terminated
pnor to the completion of a charge because
of visual interferences. (See section 3.5.)
3.2 Data Records. Record all the
Information requested at the top of the
charging system inspection sheet (Figure
303-1). For each charge, record the
i
-------
57926 Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27, 1993 / Rules «nd Regulations
identification number of th* oven being
charged, the approximate beginning time of
the charge, *""t the identification of the larry
car used for the charge.
3 3 Observer Position. Stand in an am or
move to positions on the topaide of the coke
oven battery with an unobstructed view of
the entire charging system. For wet coai
charging fyttesu or non-pipeline coal
charging lystams. the obeerver should have
an unobstructed vtow of the •""«•*«"' polnti
of the charging system, including larry car
hoppers, drop sleeves, and the topcide poru
of the oven being charged. Some rt"tgi"g
systems are configured so that all emission
points can only be aeen from • «*<«t«~» of
five ovens. For other bettarias. distance! of 8
io 12 owns are adequate.
3.4 Observation. The «*^"e period
begin*-when coal begins to flow Into the oven
and ends when the last charging port is
recapped. During the charging period.
observe all of the potential sources of VB
from the entire charging system. For wet coal
charging system* or non-pipeline coal
charging systems, sources of VB typically
ttandpipa cap on the oven being charged to
included as chanting VB.
3*4.1 UeflBg «tt
stopwatch iwithunitdtvtatoneoi at least OS
observed aa fallow*. Upon ebaarvtenv VB
smargliig fran efly part oi tie) davgnf)
«w«4^^M m^^^ >k • ^^u^^^^k^h ••*«» *k^ ^^K
systans, son uesBDpwMCfl. suine1 we
when VB are no lonyr observed
and restart the watch when VB i
3X2 WbenVB«
the sources as one, Tline overlapping VB as
continuottf VK. Tlxut *fa»fls»y pun of VB onto
far the time tttakea far the i ~
Note: When the slide gstt on a larry car
hopper closes after the coal his been added
to the oven, the seal may not be airtight On
occasions, a puff of amoks obsemd at the
drop slesvei it forced past the attde gate up
Into the larry car hopper sad may drift from
the top; time these VB either at the drop
sleeves or the hopper. If the larry car hopper
does not have a slide ga.te.or the tilde gate
is left open or partially dosed. VB may
quickly pan through the Uny car hopper
without being observed at the drop sleeves
and wffl appear as a strong surge of smoke;
time these as charging VB.
3.7 Total Thus Record. Record the total
time that VE were observed for seek charging
hi the appropriate column on the
_ lysten inspection sheet
3.8 Five charging observations (runs)
obtained fat accordance with this method
ihaJl be considered • valid set of
observation* for that day. No observation of
aa incomplete charge shall be included In •
dally set of observations that to lower than
the lowest reeding for • complete charge. If
both complete and UKJ""I>U|" charges have
been observed, the daily *et of observations
«h«n i~-i«.u flu ftr» highest Tshm
rii IP i 1 g/«»»«fc^.^fc^tfai|«>>mi..riMi.
(runs) obtained la accordance with thia
method shaU to considered a valid set of
1 observations onrtwhere it itsMt
3J) or i
of visual
view of the charting
* VBmthis^
»eoonds" OB Figure Mfr-l
3J Visntt DaananaBca. n nigirtee VB
from other sources at the coke evm battery
site (e-g., door leaks or ""•"'•"•'•fl water
vapor from the ook» oven wharf} prevent a
clear view of the charging system during a
charge, stop th* stopwatch and make a*
Figure 303-1. Label th* observation an
observation of an incomplete charge, and
observe another charp to fulfill th*
requirements, of asctkaB £.1.
34 VE Exemptions. Do not time the
following VE:
3.6.1 The VB from burning ccsmoidertng
coai rpilledoa top of the oven, topside port
lid. or lazry car surfaces;
Note: The VB from smoldering coal an
generally white or gray. Thee* VB geaanDy,
nave s plume of less than 1 meter long. If the
ooMivei cannot safsly md with maeoriahle
confidence determine that VB are from
charging, do not ooeat them as charging
3.6.2 The VB from the cok» evea doors or
from the leveler bee er
S.6J The VB that drift ten the top of a
Uny car hopper if the emissions had already
been timed aa VB from the drop sleeve.
not be) coDBoavecl e VBAB set (
cause the vehM of A to be less than MS.
3.9 Log Average. For each day on which
• vmttd only set of observations is obtained,
calculate the daily 90-deyieQmg log i
K A>^ —
IDaf
daily 9
M ,J,|\ | ,
il WnUV
cnivgiB^ opntton ebiTMCB brttegy ttilng
valid only
these data and thettpnviooa
Mts of obnvYBtftaDSft fai
with the
logarithmic avenge » e7 - 1 (Eq. 303 - 1)
when
••2,72.
n
X^Serooaom during the r» charge.
A-450 os the aamfaer of valid observations
duns V The value el A shall not be IMS
than 14A, except far puipcees of
nvistOBsiofthki
for such a
would not he
thkiperL
ahaflbe
Noeetof
vabd
4. Procedure for Determining VE From Coke
Own Door Areas
The intent of this procedure is to
detnrmlne VE from coke oven door areas by
carefully observing the door area from a
rtandard distance while walking at • normal
pace.
4.1 Number of Runs. Refer to
§63.30B(c)(l) of this part for the appropriate
number of runs.
4.2 Battery Traverse. To conduct a battery
traverse, walk the length of the battery on the
outside of the pusher machine and quench
car tracks at a steady, normal walking pace,
pausing to make appropriate entries on the
door arse, inspection sheet (Figure 303-2). A
single test rus consists of two timed
traverses, one far the coke side and one lor
the push tide. The walking pace shall not
exceed an average rate of 4 seconds per oven
door, excluding time spent moving around
stationary obstructions or waiting lor other
obstructions to mows from positions blocking
the view of a series of doors. Extra time is
allowed far each keek for the observer to
make the proper notation. A walking pace of
3 seconds pa* oven door bee been found to
be typical. Record th* actual traverse time
with a stopwatch.
4O.1 time only the time speat observing
the doors and reonrdint door leak*. To
itch wtth unit
dhriatoBaofOJi _
InlfViupliflOii Io that tHWM tto 1
required far th* obaarvar to BOM to positions
when the vtow of the battery to
•JOeW BaKDlBlV ftO e a
blocking the view of a esries of doors.
tU Varkwssitnations may arise that
will pnvert the obeerver from viewing a
door or a series of doors. Prior to the door
inspection, the
to linii|NBeiily i
for the duration
—r
.somet all
of the doon can ba viewed by the i ---
The observer has two options far deanng
with obstructions to view: (a) Slop the
stopwatch and watt for th* equipment to
move or th* fagittv* emissions to dissipate
befon completing IB* tnvscast or fb) stop the
stopwatch, skip 0« affected ovos, and move
to a position to coBttnue the tnvarse. Reetart
the stopwatch and continue the traverse.
After the compbtica of the traverse, if the
equipment has novad or the fugMre
•mistiOBS hsv* dissipe»d. Impact the
aflected doors. If the equrpment to still
preventing the observer from viewing the
doors, then the affected doors may be
counted as not observed. If option fb) to used
because of doors blocked by machines during
charging operations, then, of th* aflacted
doors, exchide the door from the most
recently charged oven from the Inspaotton.
Record the ovea numbers and make an
appropriate notation under •Comments'' OB
the door ana inspection sheet (Flfun 303-
«•
4.2J When batteries have sheds to
V'-
• valid set of
for a calculation under this
paragraph.
fron outside th* shad anises ow doon
cannot be adetfuauij viewed, athie case.
conduct the inepactka* Iran th* banch. B*
swan of special safety conslderattons
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ftfcnl lifjfiw / Vol. S«. No. 206 / W«dnMcky. October 27. 1993 / Rulei mud RuguktioM S7027
pertinent to wafting on the bane* and follow
the instruction* of company personnel on the
required equipment end operatioii*
procedures. If possible, conduct the bench
traverse whenever the bench I* dear of the
door machine acd hot coke guide.
4.3 Observation*. Record all the
Information requested at the top of the door
are* inspection sheet (Figure 303-2).
including the number of Inoperable ovens.
Record the clock ttme at the start of the
traverse oa each side of the battery. Record
which side 1* being Inspected. V*. coke ride
or push side. Other Information may be
recorded it the dlecretion of the observer,
such as the location of the leak (La., top of
the door, chuck door, etc.). the reason far any
Interruption of the traverse, or the position of
the sun relative to the battery end sky
condition* (I.*., uveicast. partly annoy, etc).
4.3.1 Begin the teat run by tlnrtmg the
stopwatch and traversing either tne coke side
or the push tide of the battery. Alter
completing on* *ide, stop the watch.
Complete this procedure on the other side. If
inspecting more than one battery, the
observer may view the push tide* and the
4.3.2 During Ike
ftdthe
i door. The door
i* considered teat** tf VI aw detected ka
one oieoae* oven aerweantneheaca and
the top of the battery between tiM adjacent
buck stay* fee,, the oven door, chuck door.
between the masonrjr Mot. back etay or
umfr or other aosjrcaa). Naaord<>L* avoa
number and mane the appropriate notation
on the door area inspection sheet (Figure
303-2).
Note: Multiple VB from the same door area
(e.g., VE from both the chuck door and the
push side door) are counted aa only one
emitting door, not a* multiple emitting doors.
4.3.3 Do not record the following sources
&s door aree VB:
5 Procedure for Determining VE from
Topside Port Littt and Offtake Systems
5.1 Number of Run*. Refer to
$ 63.309(c)(l) of this part for the number of
rum to be conducted. Simultaneous run* or
separate rum for the topside port lids and
offtake systems may be conducted.
5.2 Battery Traverse. To cos duct a
topside traverse of the battery, walk die
length of the battery at a steady, normal
walking pace, pausing only to make
appropriate entries on the topside inspection
sheet (Figure 303-3). The walking pace lhaJl
not exceed an average rate of 4 second* per
oven, excluding time spent moving around
stationary obstructions or waiting for other
obstructions to move from positions blocking
the view. Extra time is allowed for each teak
for the observer to make the proper notation.
4.34.1 VB
Record fne ow
an appropriate notattoa under TV •nmeniU;"
4JJJ VI from oven* taken out of
service. The owner or operator aheil notify
the observer a* to which ovens are out of
semoa. Record the oven aaaabar and make
an appropriate notation under "CommeoU;"
or
0.3.3 VEfcoBtot coke (hat baa been
spilled on the bench a* e taeuM of pushing.
44 Criteria far Acceptance. After
oomn4etiaj]thenaB.caJataMethenuximum
time allowed lo obeaoe the ovens ay the
following equation;
T=.(4xD,)+(10xL) (Eq.303-2)
where
T-Total time allowed for traverse, seconds:
tX-Total number of oven doors on the
bettarjr.and
UNumber of doors wttfc VB.
PLD =
where
PLD-Pe
•xlOO
akingdo
(Bq. 303-4)
4.4.1 If the total traverse time exceed* T.
void the run. and conduct another run to
satisfy the requirement* of $ 83.3O«c)(l) of
thUparL
4.5 Calculation* far Percent Leaking
Door* (Mi. Detenaine «ne total neanber of
dour • for wakJi ejoeervetfojaa wajej snede aai n^J**
the coke oven battery a* faUo«*r.
i far the test run;
of door* wtlh VI obeerved from
the yard; and
D,*»Total number of doors observed oa
opcnttna] oveae*
4.6.3 Vftiea trawnaa era conducted from
the bench under sheds, calculate the coke
side and the push tide separately. Uae the
following equation to calculate a verd-
equivalent reading:
L> = L.-(Nx0.06) (Eq. 303-5)
where
N«Total number of ovens* en tne battery;
U-Tard equltalent readlnB and
U"Number of doors wMh VB obearred from
the bench under shed*.
If L» I* lea* than saro, u*e MTO far L» in
Equation 303-6 in the calculation of PLD.
4.6.3.1 Use the following equation to
calculate PLD:
(Bq.303-6)
^) (Eq. 303-3)
where
PLO-Parcant leaking •
do
i farina
N.Totali
4J.t Par i
both the coke vide and the poah aide
tnverses). sum the number of doors with
door ana VB, For batlarte* aub^ect lo an
approved alternative standard under f 03.305
of this pert, calculate the ptub side and the
coke side PLD separately.
4.5.2 Calculate percent leaking doors by
using the following equation:
and D«»Tolal
run;
U-Yard equivalent nedine;
LytNumber of door* with 'VB observed from
the yard oa the pnaa
1 percent and record a* the perceot leaktesj
coke oven doors far the run.
4.5.3.2 30-day Rolling Average. For each
day on which a vabd observation i* obtained.
calculate the daily 30-day rolhng average for
each battery using these data and the 29
previous valid doily observation*, in
accordance with the following equation:
30
(Eq.303-7)
A walking pace of 3 seconds per oven is
typical. Record the actual traverte tone with
a stopwatch.
5.3 Topside Port Lid Observations To
observe lids of the ovens Involved in the
charging operation, the observer shall wait to
view the lids until approximately S minute*
after the completion of the charge. Record all
the Information requested on the topside
inspection sheet (Figure 303-3). Record the
clock tune when traverses begin and end. If
the observer's view is obstructed during the
traverse (e.g., steam from the coke wharf.
tarry car, etc), follow the guidelines given ID
section 4.2.2.
3.3.1 To perform a test run. conduct a
single traverse on the topside of the battery.
The observer shall walk near the center of the
battery but may deviate from this path to
avoid safety hazard* (such as open or closed
charging ports, luting buckets, lid removal
bars, and topside port lid* that have been
removed) and any other obstacle*. Upon
noting VE from the topside port lidls) of an
oven, record the oven number and port
number, then resume the traverse. If any
oven is dampered-off from the collecting
main for decarbonization, note this under
"Comments" for that particular oven.
Note: Count the number of topside ports.
not the number of points, exhibiting VE, Le .
:f a topside port has several points of VE.
count this as one port exhibiting VE.
5.3.2 Do not count the following as
topside port lid VE:
5.3.2.1 VE from between the brickwork
and oven lid casing or VE from crack* in the
oven brickwork. Note these VB under
"Comments:"
-------
57928 Federal Raguter / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
5 3.2.2 VE from topside ports involved in
a charging operation. Record the oven
number, and make an appropriate notation
d a., not observed because ports open for
charging) under "Comments:"
5.3.2.3 Topside ports having maintenance
work done. Record the oven number and
make an appropriate notation under
"Comments;" or
5 3.2.4 Condensing water from wet-
sealing material. Ports with only visible
condensing water from wet-sealing material
are counted as observed but not as having
5.3.2.5 Visible emissions from the flue
inspection ports and caps.
5.4 Offtake Systems Observations. To
perform a test run. traverse the battery as in
section 5.3.1. Look ahead and back two to
four ovens to get a clear view of the entire
offtake system for each oven. Consider visible.
emissions from the following points as
offtake system VE: (a) the flange between the
gooseneck and collecting main ("saddle"), (b)
the (unction point of the standpipe and oven
("standpipe base"), (c) the other parts of the
offtake system (e.g.. the standpipe cap), and
(d) the (unction points with ovens and
flanges of jumper pipes.
5.4.1 Do not stray from the traverse line
in order to get a "closer look" at any part of
the offtake system unless.it is to distinguish
leaks from interference* from other sources
or to avoid obstacles.
5.4.2 If the center-line does not provide a
clear view of the entire offtake system for
each oven (e.g.. when standpipes are longer
than IS feet), the observer may conduct the
travel1 se farther from (rather than closer to)
the offtake systems.
5.4.3 Upon noting a leak from an offtake
system duricg a traverse, record the oven
number. Resume the traverse. If the oven is
dampered-off from the collecting main for
decarbonization and VE are observed, note
this under "Comments" for that particular
oven.
5.4.4 If any part or parts of an offtake
system have VE. count it as one emitting
offtake system. Each stationary jumper pipe
is considered a single offtake system.
5.4.5 Do not count standpipe caps open
for a decarbonization period or standpipes of
an oven being charged as source of offtake
system VE Record the oven number and
write "Not observed" and the reason (i.e.,
decarb or charging) under "Comments."
Note: VE from open standpipes of an oven
being charged count as charging emissions.
All VE from closed standpipe caps count as
offtake leaks.
5.5 Criteria for Acceptance. After
completing the run (allow 2 traverses for
batteries with double mains), calculate the
mq«imiim time allowed to observe the
topside port lids and/or offtake systems by
the following equation:
T*(4secx N)+(10sec x Z) (Eq.(303-8)
where
T«Total time allowed tor traverse, seconds:
N-Total number of ovens in the battery; and
Z^Number of topside port lid* or offtake
systems with VE.
5.3.1 If the total traverse time exceeds T.
void the run and conduct another run to
satisfy the requirements of f 83.309(0(1) of
this part.
5.6 In determining tha percent leaking
topside port Uda and percent leaking offtake
systems, do not Include topside port lids or
offtake systems with VE from the following
ovens:
5.6.1 Empty ovens, including ovens
undergoing maintenance, which are properly
dampered off from the main.
5.6,2 Ovens being charged or being
pushed.
SA.3 Up to 3 full ovens that have been
dampered off from, tfr* m^in prior to pushing.
5.6.4 Up to 3 additional full oven» in the
pushing sequence that have been dampered
off from the nuin for offtake system cleaning.
for decarbonixation. for safety reasons, or
when a charging/pushing schedule involves
widely separated ovens (e.g,. a Marquard
system); or that have been dampered off from
the main for maintenance near the end of the
coking cycle. Examples of reasons that ovens
are dampered off for safety reasons are to
avoid exposing workers la area* with
insufficient clearance between standpipes
and the tarry car. or in areas where workers
could be exposed to games or hot gases from
open standpipes, and to avoid the potential
for removing a door on an oven that is not
dampered off BUOB the main.
S.6.S Topside Pott Uda. Determine the
percent leaking topside port lids for each run
as follows:
'v
PLL =
rVE
•xlOO
(Eq. 303-9)
where
PLL~Percent leaking topside port lids for the
run:
PvE*Number of topside port lids with VE;
PonsNumber of ports per oven;
N-Total number of ovens in the battery.
Nt'Number of inoperable ovens; and
Pno-Number of ports not observed.
5.6.5.1 Round off this percentage to the
nearest hundredth of 1 percent and record
this percentage as the percent leaking topside
port bds for the run.
5.6.5.2 30-day Rolling Average. For each
day on which a valid daily observation is
obtained, calculate the daily 30-day rolling
average for each battery using those data and
the 29 previous valid daily observations, in
accordance with the following equation-
30
(Eq.303-10)
-------
I VoL SB. Ha 206 / W«dn«id«y. October 27. 1883 / Raise and BngiihHnru 87929
5.6.6 Offtake Syttema. Determine the
percent leaking offtake •ywiemi for the run me
follow*
PLO =
-xlOO (Eq.303-11)
where
PLO-Percent
and
Tn^Numbar of offtake system* (excluding J«Number of Stationary Jumper pipe*.
CA4.1 Hound «*Y this peres
nearest hundredth of 1 percent
or
obtained, calcukte tha daily 30-day rolling
30
(Eq.303-,2)
6. Procedure far Determining VE Front
Collecting Maint
6.1 Traverse. To perians a (eat run,
travarae both the collecting main catwalk ami
the battery topelde along the rid* ctoeaat to
the collecting main. If tha batury ha* a
double main, conduct two eat* of traverses
far each run. La,, one set far
6.2 Data Recording. Upon noting VE from
any portion of • collection main. Identify tha
source ami appnodflBSjls Aumiflsi oi lha
•ource of VB and record the time under
"Collecting mala" on Figure 303-3; then
MMiiiM faf UlTtltf
64 Collecting Main Preuure Check. After
the completion «f the «Joor««*eree,4a«
topside port Ii4*. and offtake systems.
compare tha collecting main pressure during
the inspection to the «iii«rHi^ main prassure
during the previou* • to 24 hours. Record the
following:
from normal operations, and (c) the
explanation for any pressure deviation from
Bjafsnel operetteMe. If smy. ofiarad by the
operators. The owner or opera tar of the coke
battery shafl maintain (ha prassure recording
Z Wohlachleaal. P.. tnd DM. Wagoner.
Guideline for Development of a Quality
i Prog
traversea s«nrrsnre/quallty control (QA/Qqnecsesary
keep the QA/QC record* for at leaet 6
month*. The observer may periodically check
>he QA/QC saoasds to detetsaiaje their
completensai Tha owner or operator shall
provide access to (ha records within 1 hour
of jn
injpection, (b) piaience of preafun deviation
7. Bibliography
1. MUaan.IL.and A-Steln.GutdaUnaafar
Bvaiiutton of Vlsitjta &oiaviona Oaitiflcattont
Field PRKaduraa. Legal Arpactt. and
Background Material. U.S. Bnvinuunental
Pvotecdoai Agajasy. SPA PuMkaOoa No.
EPA-34O/1-76-007. April 1975.
Determination of Opacity Bmi*non from
Stationary Source*. U.S. Environmental
ftotecth^Agency.KfAfBbneattonNo.
EPA-650/4-005L Novambar 1B7S.
3. U^. Occupational Safety and Health
Admiiaitratton. Code of Federal MegnterJont.
title 29. chapter XVn. iactio& 1910.1029(g).
Waahlngton. DC Government Printing Office.
furjrl.lMO.
4. US. Enviconmeotal Protaction Agency.
Nattonal Emiafion Standard* for Haxardout
Air Poflutants; Coke Oven Bmlatlon* from
Wat-Coal Oiargad By-ftoduct Coke Ovan
Baltaiiee; Propoeed Rule and Notice of Public
Hearing. Waahlngton. DC Federal Begietar.
Vol 42. Ma 7* tUSae). April 23.1987.
-
I
-------
57930 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday, October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
174
CoBfMny HAM;
city. st«t*i _
bun no. .
VlBlbl*
nluiora.
••contfa
Figure 303-1. Charging system inspection.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J **
'
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57931
Conpany name:
City. State:
Observer name:
Inoperable ovens:
Traverse tine CS:
Tia» traverse
started/
completed
PS/CS
Traverse
Door
Nunfcer
175
Batterv no.: Date:
Total no. of ovens tn battery:
Certification exoiration date:
Company representatives):
tine PS: Valid run (T or «):
COMMntS
(no. of blocked doors, interruptions to traverse, etc.)
Figure 303-2. Door area inspection.
I
I
I
-------
57932 Federal Ragistar / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
176
Company name: Batterv no.: Date:
City. State: ., Total no. of ovens in battery:
Observer rume: Certification expiration date:
inoperable ovena: Cananv reoresentativets):
Total no. of lids: Total no. of offtakes: Total no. of iumr oioet:
Ovena not observed: Total traverse tiae: Valid run (T or N):
Tit* traverse
started/
completed
Typa »f Inspection
(ltd*, offtakes.
collecting nain)
Location of VE
(Oven f/Port f )
-
Cements
BIUJNO COOC K40-M-C
Figure 303-3. Topside inspection.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
4
If
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 57933
METHOD 303A—DETEJMINAT1OX OF
WSIBLE EMISSIONS FROM NOfSRECOVZRY
COKE OVEN BATTERIES
l Applicability and Principle
\ 1 Applicability. This method
determine* percent leaking doors.
1 2 Principle. A certified observer
visually determines the VE from coke oven
battery sources. This method does not require
that opacity of emissions be determined or
that magnitude be differentiated.
1.3 Definition*.
1 3.1 Bench. The platform structure in
front of the oven doors.
1.3.2 Nonncovery Coke Oven Battery. A
source consisting of a group of ovens
connected by common walls and operated aa
a unit, where coal undergoes destructive
distillation under negative pressure to
produce coke, and which Is designed for the
combustion of coke oven gas from which by-
products are not recovered.
1.3.3 Coke Oven Door. Each end
enclosure on the pusher side and the coking
side of an oven.
1.3.4 Coke Side. The side of a battery
from which the coke la discharged from
ovens at the end of the coking cycle.
1.3.5 Operating Oven. Any oven not out
of operation for rebuild or maintenance work
extensive enough to require the oven to be
skipped in the <-h«>giMj sequence.
1.3.6 Oven. A chMnhar in the coke oven
battery in which coal undergoes destructive
distillation to produce coke.
1 .3.7 Push Side. The aide of the battery
from which the coke is pushed from ovens
at the end of the coking cycle.
1.3.8 Run. The observation of visible
emissions from coke oven doors in
accordance with the procedures in this
method.
1.3.0 Shed. An enclosure that covers the
side of the coke oven battery, captures
emissions from pushing operations and from
leaking coke oven doors on the coke side or
pusher side of the coke oven battery, and
routes the emissions to a control device or
system.
2 1 Training. This method require* only
toe determination of whether VE occur and
does not require the determination of opacity
levels, therefore, observer certification
according to Method 0 in appendix A to part
60 of this chapter is not required However,
the first-tune observer (trainee) shall have
attended the lecture portion of the Method 9
certification course. Furthermore, before
conducting any VE observations, an observer
shall become familiar with nonrecovery coke
oven battery operations and with this test
method by observing for a minimum Of 4
hours the operation of a nonrecovery coke
oven battery.
3 Procedure for Determining VEFrom Cote
Oven Door Areas
The intent of this procedure is to
determine VE from coke oven door areas by
carefully observing the door area while
walking at a normal pace.
3.1 Number of Runs. Refer to
5 83.309(c)(l) of this pan for the appropriate
number of runs.
3.2 Battery Traverse To conduct a battery
traverse, walk the length of the battery on the
outside of the pusher «»>—M-* and quench
car tracks at • steady, normal walking pace,
pausing to make appropriate entries on the
door area inspection sheet (Figure 303A-1).
A single test run consists of two timed
traverses, one to the ooksi side and one far
the push side.
3.2.1 Various situations may arias) that
will prevent the ubaenei from viewing •
door or a series of doors. The obser»ei has
two options far dealing with obstructions to
view: (a) Wait for the equipment to move or
the fugitive emission* to dissipate before
completing the traverse; or (b) skip the
affected oven* and move to a position to
continue the traverse. Continue the traverse.
After the completion of the traverse. If the
equipment has moved or the fugitive
emissions have dissipated, complete the
traverse by Inspecting the affected door*.
Record the oven numbers and make an
appropriate notation under "Comments" on
the door area inspection sheet (Figure 303A-
U
3.2.2 When batteries have shade to
control pushing ttr1*"""*. conduct the
Inspection from outside the shed. U the shed
allow* such observations, or from the bench.
Be aware of special safety considerations
pertinent to walking on the bench and follow
the instruction* of company personnel on the
required equipment and operations
procedure*. If possible, conduct the bench
traverse whenever the bench is clew of the
door machine and hot coke guide.
3.3 Observations. Record ail the
information requested at the top of the door
area inspection sheet (Figure 303A-1),
Including the number of inoperable ovens.
Record which side Is being inspected, Le.,
coke side or push side. Other information
may be recorded at the discretion of the
observer, such as the location of the leak
(e.g., top of the door), the reason for any
Interruption of the traverse, or the position of
the sun relative to the battery and sky
conditions (i.e., overcast, partly sunny, etc.).
3.3.1 Begin the test run by traversing
either the coke side or the push side of the
battery. After completing one side, traverse
the other side.
3.3.2 Dunng the traverse, look around the
entire perimeter of each oven door. The door
Is considered leaking If VE are detected in
the coke oven door area. The coke oven door
area includes the entire area on the vertical
face of a coke oven between the bench and
the top of the battery. Record the oven
number and make the appropriate notation
on the door area inspection sheet (Figure
303A-1).
3 3.3 Do not record the following sources
as door area VE:
3.3.3.1 VE from ovens with door*
removed Record the oven number and maxe
an appropriate notation under "Comments;"
3.3.3.2 VB from owns where
maintenance work is being conducted.
Record the oven number and make an
appropriate notation under "Comments:" or
3.3.3.3 VE from hot coke that has been
spilled on the bench a* a result of pushing.
3.4 Calculations for percent leaking ooors
(PLD) Determine the total number of doors
for which observations were made on the
coke oven battery as follows:
D0. = (2xN)-(Dl+Dao)(Eq.303A-t)
where
rXk-Total number of doors observed on
operating oven*;
Di-Number of door* on nonoperating ovens;
D^BNumber of door* not observed; and
N-Total number of ovens In the battery.
3.4.1 For each test run (one run include*
both the coke side and the push side
traverses), sum the number of doors with
door area VE.
Note: Multiple VE from the same door area
are counted as only one emitting door, not as
multiple emitting door*.
3.4.2 Calculate percent leaking doors by
using the following equation:
PLD =
(Eq.303A-2)
where
PLD-Percent leaking door* far the teat run;
L^Number of door* with VB observed from
the yard; and
TXk-ToUl number of doon observed on
operating oven*.
3.4.3 When traverses are conducted from
the bench under sheds, calculate the coke
side and the) push side reading separately.
Use the following equation to calculate e
yard-equivalent reading to the coke side:
Lk = L.-(Nx0.06) (Eq.303A-3)
where
N »Total number of ovens on the battery;
L«= Yard-equivalent reading; and
L,=Number of doors with VB observed from
the bench under sheds.
If L» is less than rero, use cero for Lb in
Equation 303A-4 in the calculation of PLD.
3.4.3.1 Use the following equation to
calculate PLD:
PLD =
(Eq.303A--J)
where
PLD=Percent leaking coke oven door* for the
run;
L»=Yard equivalent reading;
LysNumber of door* with VE observed from
the yard on the push side; and
number of doors observed on
operating ovens.
Round off PLD to the nearest hundredth of
1 percent and record as the percent leaking
coke oven doors for the run.
3.4.3.2 30-day Rolling Average. For each
day on which a valid observation is obtained,
calculate the daily 30-day rolling average for
each battery using these data and the 29
previous valid daily observation*, in
accordance with the following equation:
t
-------
57934 Fedani
/ VoL 58, No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
30
(Eq.303-5)
4. Bibliography
1. Missan. R.. and A. Steia. Guidelines for
Evaluation of Visible EmiMions Certification.
Field Procedures, Legal Aspects, and
Background Material. VS. Eavuoamental
Protection Agency. EPA Publication No.
EPA-MO/t-75-007. April 1975.
2. Wohischleg*!. P.. and OB. Wagoner.
Guideline for Development of a Quality
Assurance Piugissu: Vohune DC—Visual
Determination of Opacity Emission from
Statlonar* Sooroaa. US. Kuvuuumental
Prolectioo Agaacf. EPA Publication No.
EPA-65Q/4-O05L Nowvnbar t»7S.
3. U.S. Occnpetioaai Safety aad Health
Administration. Code of Federal KegftaOont.
Title M. Chapter XVU. SecUoB l«10.102a(gj.
Washington. DC Govonmaat Printing Offic*
July 1.1990.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants-. Coke Oren Emissions from
Wet-Coal Charged By-Product Coke Oven
Batteries; Proposed Rule and Notice of Public
Hearing. Washington. DC Federal Register
Vol. 52. No. 78 (13S86). April 23. 1907.
-------
r* * ~^^^^y
$ Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 206 / Wednesday. October 27. 1993 / Rules end Regulations 37935
I**T&
jfcR
|'$
\*&
,f^
IM
¥••£
^^ 3**
ITly
w
il
I/B
•JS
-V,
-*.
1 5
V
1
Is
1 1
185
Company naiae: Battery no.: Date:
City. State: Total no. of oven* in battery:
Observer nane: Certification expiration date:
Inoperable oven*: Cojeanv representative!*):
Traverse tla* CS: Traverse ti«e PS: Valid rvn (Y or •):
Tiaat traverse
•tartad/
conpleted
PS/CS
Dear
Hi«toer
Conaent*
(no. of blocked door*, internet Ions to traverse, etc.)
Figure 303A-1. Door area inspection.
FR Doc. 93-26162 Filed 10-26-93. 8-45 am)
MUJNQ coot aao-ao-c
I
i i
i
-------
APPENDIX D
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE COKE OVEN NESHAP
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Below are answers to some of the questions concerning Method
303 certification, Method 303 application, and the coke oven
rule. This is provided as an informational bulletin. For
further clarification of the rule, Method 303, or the Method 303
certification course, contact Roy Huntley at (919) 541-1060 or
Amanda Agnew at (919) 541-5268.
1. WHEN MUST METHOD 303 INSPECTIONS BY CERTIFIED OBSERVERS
BEGIN?
Method 303 inspections for compliance with the new
regulation (i.e., daily inspections) for coke batteries who
choose the LAER track begin November 15, 1993. For batteries
that choose the MACT track, inspections must begin on
December 31, 1995.
2. WHO MUST BE CERTIFIED?
Anyone who inspects a coke battery to comply with the new
coke oven NESHAP must be a certified Method 303 observer. Under
the new rule, coke plants are not allowed to self-inspect, so
observations by employees of the coke plant will not be used to
determine compliance.
3. HOW DOES ONE CERTIFY?
One must attend and pass a Method 303 certification course.
To register, call Beth Butler at (919) 515-4659.
Schedule of Courses
September 27 - October l in Gary, IN. Certification course
at USX, Gary, IN.
November 1 - 5 in Birmingham, AL. Certification course at
ABC Coke, Tarrant, AL.
November 8 - 12 in Pittsburgh, PA. Certification course at
USX, Clairton, PA.
December 6 - 10 in Indianapolis, IN. Certification course
at Citizen's Gas, Indianapolis, IN.
4. HOW MUCH EXPERIENCE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ATTENDING THE
CERTIFICATION TRAINING COURSE?
Trainees shall have completed at least 12 hours of field
observations and shall have attended at least once the lecture
D-l
-------
portion of the EPA Method 9 certification (Method 9 of
Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60). The trainee should, but is not
required to, complete the field observation requirement at a coke
oven battery that they will be inspecting after becoming
certified.
During the 12 hours, the trainee shall observe the
operations of a coke oven battery as it pertains to Method 303
and shall also practice inspecting the battery using Method 303
or a method similar to Method 303. For people with no experience
with coke battery operations or coke oven inspection procedures,
the 12 hours of field observation must contain instruction from
an experienced coke oven observer, familiar with Method 303 or
similar methods and the operation of the coke oven batteries.
For people who are already familiar with coking operations
(because they work on coke batteries, for example) and the coke
oven inspection procedure (because they have inspected batteries,
for example), it is acceptable for them to use previous
experience to satisfy this requirement, providing their previous
inspection experience includes inspecting coke batteries for
door, lid, and offtake leaks, and timing charging emissions. If
not, then they will have to obtain that experience. The general
idea is for everyone to be familiar with coke battery operations
and the general concepts of counting door, lid, and offtake leaks
and timing charging emissions so that during the course, the
student can concentrate on learning Method 303.
5. HOW DOES ONE ARRANGE TO RECEIVE THE 12 HOUR FIELD
OBSERVATION?
Cooperation with the particular coke battery and the State
or Local Agency will, of course, be needed. Contact the
applicable State or Local agency for guidance.
6. HOW MUCH SAFETY TRAINING DO I NEED?
Prior to attending the Method 303 certification course, all
trainees shall have completed the 24 hour basic health and safety
training, or equivalent, and be fit-tested for a respirator.
Anybody who has not completed the necessary safety training will
not be certified. Any questions about how to obtain the proper
training, call Kirk Foster at (919) 541-4571.
7. WHAT DO I NEED TO BRING TO THE COURSE?
It is the responsibility of the trainees to supply their own
hard hat, steel-toed safety shoes, safety glasses with side
shields, and a fit-tested respirator. Also, trainees should
bring a clipboard, a stopwatch, and a scientific calculator or a
laptop computer with Lotus 123, version 2.1 or better (to run the
Method 303 spreadsheet).
D-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. WHAT 16 THE CERTIFICATION COURSE GOING TO BE LIKE AND HOW
LONG DOES IT LAST?
An agenda will be mailed to each trainee upon registration.
In general, the course is four or five days long and starts on a
Monday with a classroom lecture/workshop. This will either be
held at a hotel conference room or at the plant. During the
classroom portion of the certification course, the instructors go
over the method in detail. The Method 303 video will illustrate
the various procedures for inspecting a battery and a computer
program to calculate the results will be demonstrated. A test
will be given.
On Tuesday, the trainees go to the battery and groups of
5-8 will receive instruction from a panel member. After lunch,
the groups will go back to the batteries with the entire panel
for more practice. During Tuesday afternoon, the practice runs,
if acceptable to the panel, can be used to satisfy the
requirement in the rule for a practice run.
On Wednesday, the trainees return to the battery and begin
the certification runs with the panel. Trainees will be
certified when 1 practice run and 3 certifying runs have been
completed to the satisfaction of the panel. For many people,
certification will not be complete until Thursday. Friday should
be considered as an extra day to be used in the event of bad
weather.
9. HOW LONG DOES CERTIFICATION LAST AND HOW DOES ONE RE-
CERTIFY?
Certification lasts for one year. Observers re-certify
twice by viewing the Method 303 video and correctly answering all
of the questions on the Method 303 test. Every 3 years, an
observer must demonstrate proficiency to the Method 303 panel
again.
10. WHO PAYS FOR CERTIFICATION?
Each trainee, except employees of the US EPA and state and
local agencies, will have to pay a fee. Currently, the fee is
set at $1200. The rule provides for each owner or operator of a
coke oven battery to pay an inspection fee to defray the costs of
the inspection program. The formula for computing the inspection
fee uses the average hourly rate for private visible emissions
inspectors in the relevant market as one of its terms. Since the
overhead component of this average hourly rate will include the
costs of getting certified, the inspection fees will reimburse
state and local agencies and their contractors for costs incurred
in getting a sufficient number of certified inspectors to
administer the program.
D-3
-------
11. HOW DOES A BATTERY STRADDLE THE TRACKS?
There are two sets of emission limits; the MACT limits and
the extension track (the extension track is also called the LAER
extension track). Each battery must comply with one of the
tracks, but may, if so desired, straddle both tracks until
January 1998, at which time a selection is necessary. If a
battery wants to straddle both tracks, in other words, not commit
to either track, that battery will be subject to the more
stringent limits of the two tracks. The straddling ends on
January 1, 1998, when battery operators must declare which track
they intend to follow.
12. WHEN IS AN INCOMPLETE CHARGE ACCEPTABLE AND WHEN IS TIMING
LESS THAN 5 CHARGES A DAY ACCEPTABLE?
Section 3.8 of the Method reads as follows:
"Five charging observations (runs) obtained in
accordance with this method shall be considered a valid set
of observations for that day. No observation of an
incomplete charge shall be included in a daily set of
observations that is lower than the lowest reading for a
complete charge. If both complete and incomplete charges
have been observed, the daily set of observations shall
include the five highest values observed. Four or three
charging observations (runs) obtained in accordance with
this method shall be considered a valid set of charging
observations only where it is not possible to obtain five
charging observations, because of visual interferences (see
Section 3.5) or inclement weather prevent a clear view of
the charging system during charging. However, observations
from three or four charges that satisfy these requirements
shall not be considered a valid set of charging observations
if use of such set of observations in a calculation under
Section 3.9 would cause the value of A to be less than 145."
In plain language, the observer must time 5 complete
consecutive charges each day. If the observer's view of the
charging system becomes obstructed during the charge to the
extent that he thinks the charge has been compromised, the
observer stops the stopwatch, records the accumulated time, and
labels the charge an "incomplete charge". The observer then
times the next charge to replace the incomplete charge. If five
complete charges could not be obtained for that day, the
incomplete charge can be used as one of the five charges for that
day if at least one of the complete charges has a lower emission
time than the incomplete charge.
D-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13. THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE RULE THAT ALLOW BATTERIES WITH
SHEDS TO APPLY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE STANDARD. WHAT DOES THE
OBSERVER DO WITH BATTERIES THAT APPLY AND RECEIVE AN
ALTERNATIVE STANDARD?
The response to this question is best shown in an example.
In this example, Battery 1 has a coke-side shed and a baghouse to
control emissions. The owner applies for an alternative
standard, using the procedures in the regulation. After testing,
the battery receives an alternative standard of 11.0 PLD. The
coke-side doors under the shed of Battery 1 are now inspected
(from the yard if possible, from the bench if not, per
Method 303) once a week instead of once a day. The new PLD is
not averaged with any other reading. Instead, it is a never-to-
exceed leaking door limit. If the PLD for the coke-side with the
shed do not exceed 11.0 PLD for 12 consecutive weeks, then the
doors are inspected once a month. If any exceedance is recorded
during the monthly inspection, the frequency of inspection
returns to once a week.
In addition to the PLD limit, the observer must conduct a
weekly inspection of the shed for collection efficiency and may
have to read opacity, using Method 9, of the emissions at the
outlet of the baghouse. The word "may" is applicable because the
battery operator has the option of installing and maintaining a
continuous opacity monitor at the baghouse outlet.
Inspecting the shed for collection efficiency means walking
around the shed and looking for emissions escaping capture.
Pushing emissions are exempt.
14. IS THE OBSERVER REQUIRED TO INSPECT THE COLLECTING MAIN?
Procedures for conducting collecting main inspections are in
Method 303, but the observer is not required to inspect the
collecting main every day. The permitting authority will
determine the frequency of collecting main inspections by the
observer. However, the regulation requires the owner or operator
to inspect the collecting main daily.
15. CAN BATTERIES BE COMBINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING
INSPECTIONS (E.G., TO OBTAIN FIVE OBSERVATIONS TOTAL FOR
CHARGING INSTEAD OF TWO SETS OF FIVE OBSERVATIONS FOR TWO
BATTERIES)?
Batteries are defined in Appendix A of the rule, and as with
other parts of the rule, this list was negotiated in good faith
by all of the parties. If there is a demonstrable problem with
the way that batteries are defined in the appendix, a facility
may apply for an alternative method. However, combining of
batteries will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the
D-5
-------
delegated enforcement agency. To be considered for an
alternative method, the following criteria will apply:
• There must be a substantive need or reason for the
alternative method.
• The alternative method must apply to charging
observations only.
• Batteries that are to be combined to conduct a single
set of charging observations must be charged by a
single larry car operated by the same crew for both
batteries.
16. IF TWO OR MORE BATTERIES ARE CONNECTED BY COMMON WALLS, DOES
THIS CONSTITUTE ONE BATTERY?
Not necessarily. The easiest way to determine whether
something is considered one battery or two is to consult the list
of batteries that is in the regulation.
17. ARE VE FROM BYPASS STACKS OR OTHER SOURCES NOTED?
Any "event" can be noted in the comment portion of the
inspection form, but VE from bypass stacks are not covered under
the regulation.
18. THE GUIDANCE IN THE METHOD IS TO VARY THE TIME OF DAY OF THE
INSPECTIONS. DOES THIS MEAN NO NIGHT INSPECTIONS?
There is nothing in the method or rule that prevents someone
from conducting a Method 303 traverse at night.
19. PRE-HEATERS DRIVE OFF EXCESS MOISTURE. IS THIS CONSIDERED
COKE OVEN EMISSIONS?
Pre-heater emissions are not covered under this regulation.
20. WHEN DOES THE CHARGING PERIOD END FOR BATTERIES THAT USE
JUMPER PIPES OR ASSIST OVENS?
The charging period begins when coal begins to flow into the
oven and ends when the last charging port is recapped. If an
oven uses a movable jumper pipe and an assist oven during
charging, then emissions from the jumper pipe and the port of the
assist oven count as charging emissions. The charging period
ends when the last lid on the oven being charged is replaced.
D-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21. IS A BATTERY EXEMPT FROM MOV'8 DURING THE TRAINING OF THE
OBSERVERS?
It is not the policy of the EPA to exempt a source from
being cited for violations during a visit.
22. SHOULD FLAMES SEEN COMING FROM AN OVEN DOOR JAMB DURING A
DOOR TRAVERSE COUNT AS A DOOR LEAK?
The procedures in Method 303 determine the presence of
visible emissions. Flames are not counted as VE. However, any
plume from the flame that is visible during a proper traverse can
be counted as VE.
23. DOES THE NEW COKE OVEN RULE SUPERSEDE OTHER STATE RULES?
No. The coke battery is still obligated to comply with all
state or county rules that are currently in place.
D-7
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF BATTERIES AND THEIR OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF OPERATING COKE PLANTS AS OF APRIL 1992
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DATE OF ORIGINAL
CONSTRUCTION NUMBER
PLANT BATTERY OR LAST KNOWN OF
REBUILD OVENS
ABC Coke, Tenant, AL
Acme Steel, Chicago, IL
Armco Inc., Middetown, OH
Atmco Inc., Ashland, KY
Bethlehem Steel, Bethlehem, PA
Bethlehem Steel, Bums Harbor, IN
Bethlehem Steel, Lackawanna, NY
Citizens Gas, Indianapolis, IN
Empire Coke, Holt, AL
Erie Coke, Erie, PA
Geneva Steel, Provo, UT
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL
Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN
Koppers, Woodward, AL
(defined as two separate batteries)
LTV Steel, Cleveland, OH
(plant shutdown in 1992)
LTV Steel, Pittsburgh. PA
A
5
6
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
A
2
3
1
2
7
8
E
H
1
1
2
A
B
1
2
3
4
2
3
6
7
9
10
11
1
2A
2B
4A.4B
5
6
7
P1
P2
P3N
P3S
P4
1968
1941
1951
1979
1978
1976
1977
1952
1953
1978
1976
1941
1941
1983
1972
1952
1962
1946
1941
1979
1978
1978
1952
1943
1944
1944
1944
1944
1942
1965
1950
1956
1959
1970
1978
1978
1977
1969
1947
1952
1952
1952
1960
1961
1961
1961
1953
78
25
29
50
50
57
57
76
76
70
80
102
102
82
82
76
76
47
41
72
40
20
23
35
59
32
56
50
65
65
65
87
87
51
69
60
40
38
56
29
63
63
59
59
59
59
79
HEIGHT
(m)
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
3.5
5.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
6.0
6.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
COKE CAPACITIES
(1,000 METRIC TONS/YR)
BF FOUNDRY OTHER
COKE COKE COKE*
226
226
466
466
316
305
528
591
200
200
809
664
340
340
245
223
120
211
188
268
268
131
223
224
281
482
252
161
128
55
248
248
256
256
289
289
382
317
63
73
83
75
82
70
35
58
89
97
128
25
29
34
31
28
14
19
29
Continued
E-l
-------
LIST OF OPERATING COKE PLANTS AS OF APRIL 1992
No. PUNT BATTERY
17 LTV Steel, Chicago, IL
16 LTV Steal, Warren, OH
19 National Steal, Ecorse, Ml
20 National Steel, Granite City, IL
21 New Boston, Portsmouth, OH
22 Sharon Steel, Monessen, PA
23 Shenango, Pittsburgh, PA
(Battery 4 shutdown in 1992)
24 Sloss Industries, Birmingham, AL
25 Toledo Coke, Toledo, OH
26 Tonawanda, Buffalo, NY
27 USX, dairton, PA
28 USX, Gary, IN
29 Wheeling-Pitt. East Steubenville,
WV
Totals for by-product batteries
30 Jewell Coal and Coke, Vansant, VA
( Batteries 2,3A,3B,3C)
2
4
5
A
B
1
1B
2
1
4
3
4
5
C
1
1
2
3
7
8
9
13
14
15
19
20
B
2
3
5
7
1
2
3
8
83
DATE OF ORIGINAL
CONSTRUCTION NUMBER
OR LAST KNOWN OF
REBUILD OVENS
1982
1979
1992
1980
1982
1964
1981
1980
1983
1952
1952
1956
1959
1953
1962
1955
1955
1955
1954
1954
1954
1989
1989
1979
1976
1978
1982
1975
1976
1954
1954
1955
1953
1964
1977
Nonrecovery process
60
85
85
45
45
70
37
19
56
35
30
30
60
57
60
64
64
64
64
64
64
61
61
61
87
87
75
57
57
77
77
47
47
51
79
4878
HEIGHT
(m)
6.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.3
4.3
6.1
62
6.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
6.0
COKE CAPACITIES
(1,000 METRIC TONS/YR)
BF FOUNDRY OTHER
COKE COKE COKE*
558
447
795
250
250
341
212
105
301
151
111
111
260
260
260
260
260
260
270
270
270
450
450
760
700
680
250
250
151
151
163
782
21894
590
119 48
127 52
188 62
1476 499
List from Appendix A in the rule and report on cost analysis (Docket item VI-C-37).
*Other coke is used in other industries (mineral wool, sugar, etc.).
Estimates exclude breeze and most assume 8% loss from screening, transport.
E-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(0
0)
75
*•*
(A
•a
Q)
0)
.2
0)
ffl
c
Q)
o
o
o
------- |