[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36836-36868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16289]
[[Page 36835]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 36836]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6768-3]
RIN 2060-AE48
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities. The EPA has identified integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities as a major source of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions. These proposed standards will implement section 112(d)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP
emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT).
The HAP emitted by facilities in the integrated iron and steel
manufacturing source category include metals (primarily manganese and
lead with small quantities of other metals) and trace amounts of
organic HAP (such as polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and carbon
disulfide). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause
adverse health effects, including chronic and acute disorders of the
blood, heart, kidneys, reproductive system, and central nervous system.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 11, 2001.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 3, 2001, a public hearing will be held on
August 13, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-2000-44, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier,
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-2000-
44, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The
EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC
beginning at 10 a.m.
Docket. Docket No. A-2000-44 contains supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside
Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Mulrine, Metals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-5289, electronic mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks
in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket
number: A-2000-44. No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales,
U.S. EPA, OAQPS Document Control Officer, Attn: Phil Mulrine, 411 W.
Chapel Hill Street, Room 740B, Durham, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose
information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality
accompanies a submission when it is received by the EPA, the
information may be made available to the public without further notice
to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mary
Hinson, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5601, in advance of
the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing
must also call Mary Hinson to verify the time, date, and location of
the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these
proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of this proposed
rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout
the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow
members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and
locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the
CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature, a copy of the rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC NAICS Example of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated iron and steel mills.............. 3312 331111 Steel companies, sinter plants, blast
furnaces, basic oxygen process
furnace shops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36837]]
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7781 of the
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
B. How do we develop NESHAP?
C. What source category is affected by this proposed rule?
D. What processes are used at integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities?
E. What HAP are emitted and how are they controlled?
F. What are the health effects associated with emissions from
integrated iron and steel manufacturing processes?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
B. What are the emission limitations?
C. What are the operation and maintenance requirements?
D. What are the initial compliance requirements?
E. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
G. What are the compliance deadlines?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the affected sources?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. How did we determine the bases and levels of the proposed
standards?
D. How did we select the initial compliance requirements?
E. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
F. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy
impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996(SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The category
of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP, Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing, was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater
than 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
The NESHAP for new and existing sources developed under section 112
must reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is
achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission
reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental benefits, and
energy requirements. Emission reductions may be accomplished through
promulgation of emission standards under section 112(d). These may
include, but are not limited to:
Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions of HAP
through process changes, substitution of materials, or other
modifications;
Enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
Collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
Design, equipment, work practice or operational standards
or any combination thereof if it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission standard (including requirements for operator
training or certification); or
A combination of the above.
Section 112 requires us to establish standards that are no less
stringent than a certain minimum baseline, we refer to this as the
``MACT floor.'' For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than the standards
for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources (excluding certain sources) for categories and
subcategories with 30 or more sources. For categories and subcategories
with fewer than 30 sources, the standards cannot be less stringent than
the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing five
sources.
We may take alternative approaches to establishing the MACT floor,
depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available data.
The three approaches most commonly used involve reliance on State
regulations or permit limits, source test data that characterize actual
emissions, and use of a technology floor with an accompanying
demonstrated achievable emission level that accounts for process and/or
air pollution control device variability.
Section 112(d) allows us to distinguish among classes, types, and
sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. For example, we can
establish classes of sources within a category or subcategory based on
size and establish a different emission standard for each class,
provided both standards are at least as stringent as the MACT floor for
that class of sources.
We evaluate several alternatives (which may be different levels of
emission control or different levels of applicability or both) to
select the one that best reflects the appropriate MACT level. The
selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the
control level selected must be technically achievable. In selecting an
alternative, we consider the achievable HAP emission reduction (and
possibly other pollutants that are co-controlled), cost and economic
impacts, energy impacts, and other environmental impacts. The objective
is to achieve the maximum degree of emission reduction without
unreasonable economic or other impacts. The regulatory alternatives
selected for new and existing sources may be different because of
different MACT floors, and separate regulatory decisions may be made
for new and existing sources.
We then translate the selected regulatory alternative into a
proposed rule. The public is invited to comment on the proposal during
the public comment period. Based on an evaluation of these comments, we
reach a final decision and promulgate the standards.
C. What Source Category Is Affected by This Proposed Rule?
Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us to list all categories of
major and area
[[Page 36838]]
sources of HAP for which we will develop national emission standards.
We published the initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57
FR 31576). ``Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing'' is one the
source categories on the initial list. The listing was based on our
determination that integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities
may reasonably be anticipated to emit a variety of HAP listed in
section 112(b) in quantities sufficient to be major sources.
An integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility produces steel
from iron ore. The integrated iron and steel manufacturing source
category includes sinter production, iron production, and steel
production.
D. What Processes Are Used at Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities?
The primary processes of interest because of their potential to
generate HAP emissions include sinter plants, blast furnaces that
produce iron, and basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPF) that produce
steel. There are also several ancillary processes, including hot metal
transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy. Iron
and steel are produced at 20 plant sites in the United States (U.S.)
that have a total of 39 blast furnaces, 50 BOPF, and 9 sinter plants.
Integrated iron and steel plants are located in ten States; however,
the majority of the iron and steel is produced in Indiana, Ohio, and
Illinois.
The sintering process converts fine-sized raw materials, including
iron ore, coke breeze, limestone, mill scale, and flue dust, into an
agglomerated product (sinter) of suitable size for charging into the
blast furnace. The raw materials are mixed with water to provide a
cohesive matrix and then placed on a continuous traveling grate called
the sinter strand. A burner hood at the beginning of the sinter strand
ignites the coke in the mixture, after which the combustion is self
supporting and provides sufficient heat (2,400 to 2,700 degrees
Fahrenheit) to cause surface melting and agglomeration of the mix. On
the underside of the sinter strand are a series of windboxes that draw
combusted air down through the material bed into a common duct leading
to a gas cleaning device (either a venturi scrubber or a baghouse).
The fused sinter is discharged at the end of the sinter strand
where it is crushed and screened. Undersize sinter is recycled to the
mixing mill and back to the strand. The remaining sinter product is
cooled in open air or in a circular cooler with mechanical fans. The
cooled sinter is crushed and screened for a final time, then the fines
are recycled and the product is sent to be charged to the blast
furnace. Generally, 2.5 tons of raw materials, including water and
fuel, are required to produce 1 ton of product sinter.
Iron is produced in blast furnaces by the reduction of iron bearing
materials with a hot gas. The large, refractory lined furnace is
charged through its top with iron ore, iron ore pellets, sinter, flux
(limestone and dolomite), and coke, which provides fuel and forms a
reducing atmosphere in the furnace. Many modern blast furnaces also
inject pulverized coal to reduce the quantity of coke required. Iron
oxides, coke, coal, and fluxes react with the heated blast air injected
into the bottom of the furnace to form molten reduced iron, carbon
monoxide (CO), and slag. The molten iron and slag collect in the hearth
at the base of the furnace. The by-product gas is collected through
offtakes located at the top of the furnace and is recovered for use as
fuel.
The molten iron and slag are removed, or cast, from the furnace
periodically. The casting process begins with drilling a hole, called
the taphole, into the clay-filled iron notch at the base of the hearth.
During casting, molten iron flows into runners that lead to transport
ladles. Slag also flows from the furnace and is directed through
separate runners to a slag pit adjacent to the casthouse, or into slag
pots for transport to a remote slag pit. At the conclusion of the cast,
the taphole is replugged with clay. The area around the base of the
furnace, including all iron and slag runners, is enclosed by a
casthouse.
The blast furnace by-product gas, which is collected from the
furnace top, contains CO and particulate matter (PM). As a fuel, the
blast furnace gas has a low heating value, about 75 to 90 British
thermal units per cubic foot (Btu/ft3). Before it can be
efficiently burned, the PM must be removed from the gas. Initially, the
gases pass through a settling chamber or dry cyclone to remove about 60
percent of the particulate. Next, the gases undergo a one or two stage
cleaning operation. The primary cleaner is normally a wet scrubber,
which removes about 90 percent of the remaining particulate. The
secondary cleaner is a high-energy wet scrubber (usually a venturi)
which removes up to 90 percent of the particulate that eludes the
primary cleaner. Together, these control devices provide a clean fuel
with less than 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) of PM.
A portion of this gas is fired in the blast furnace stoves to preheat
the blast air, and the rest is used in other plant operations.
After the molten iron (called ``hot metal'') is produced in the
blast furnace, it is transferred to the BOPF shop. Brick-lined torpedo
cars are used because their insulating properties lower heat loss from
the iron. Hot metal transfer occurs when the molten iron is transferred
(``reladled'') from the torpedo car to the BOPF shop ladle.
Hot metal is desulfurized by adding various reagents such as soda
ash, lime, and magnesium. The reagents are usually injected
pneumatically with either dry air or nitrogen. Following
desulfurization, any slag formed is skimmed from the ladle and the hot
metal is transferred to a BOPF.
In the BOPF, molten iron from a blast furnace and iron scrap are
refined by lancing (or injecting) high-purity oxygen. The input
material is typically 70 percent hot metal and 30 percent scrap metal.
The oxygen reacts with carbon and other impurities to remove them from
the metal. Because the reactions are exothermic, no external heat
source is necessary to melt the scrap and to raise the temperature of
the metal to the desired range for tapping. For a BOPF, tapping begins
when the furnace is tilted to remove steel and slag and ends when the
furnace returns to an upright position. The large quantities of CO
produced by the reactions in the BOPF can be controlled by combustion
at the mouth of the furnace and then vented to gas cleaning devices, as
with open hoods, or combustion can be suppressed at the furnace mouth,
as with closed hoods.
The BOPF is a large (up to 400-ton capacity) refractory lined pear-
shaped furnace. There are two major variations of the process.
Conventional BOPF have oxygen blown into the top of the furnace through
a water-cooled lance (top-blown). In the newer Quelle Basic Oxygen
process (Q-BOP), oxygen is injected through tuyeres located in the
bottom of the furnace (bottom-blown). A typical BOPF cycle consists of
the scrap charge, hot metal charge, oxygen blow (refining) period,
testing for temperature and chemical composition of the steel, alloy
additions and reblows (if necessary), tapping, and slagging. The full
furnace cycle typically ranges from 25 to 45 minutes.
Ladle metallurgy is a secondary step of the steelmaking process
performed in a ladle after the initial refining process in the BOPF is
completed. The purpose of ladle metallurgy (also referred to as
secondary steelmaking) is to produce steel that satisfies the many
stringent requirements associated with surface and internal quality as
well as
[[Page 36839]]
mechanical properties. Nearly all of the integrated iron and steel
facilities perform some type of ladle metallurgy, such as vacuum
degassing, ladle refining, reheating, alloy addition, argon/oxygen
decarburization, argon stirring, and lance powder injection.
After the steel has been refined in the BOPF and ladle metallurgy
operations, the molten metal is transferred to a continuous casting
operation where it is cast and subsequently rolled into a semi-finished
product, such as a bloom, billet, or slab.
E. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are They Controlled?
1. Sinter Plants
The primary source of HAP emissions from sinter plants (over 40
percent) is the windbox exhaust. The windbox exhaust is a high volume
stream of hot gases on the order of 300,000 to 600,000 dscfm. Control
devices applied include baghouses and venturi scrubbers. The HAP
emissions include HAP metal compounds, primarily lead and manganese,
which comprise about 3 percent of the total PM. Organic HAP compounds,
including both volatile and semivolatile HAP such as polycyclic organic
matter, are also emitted. The organic compounds are formed from oily
materials, mostly rolling mill scale, that are used in the sinter feed.
Most plants minimize emissions of organic compounds by carefully
monitoring and limiting the quantity of oil introduced with the sinter
feed.
The discharge end emission points include the crusher, hot screen
and various transfer points as the hot sinter is conveyed to the
cooler. The sinter cooler stack is also an emission point. These
operations are a source of PM emissions from the dusty sinter product
and account for only 7 percent of the HAP emissions from the sinter
plant. The most significant HAP found in emissions from the discharge
and sinter cooler is manganese, which comprises only about 0.75 percent
of the PM.
2. Blast Furnace Casthouse
The primary source of blast furnace emissions is the casting
operation. Particulate emissions are generated when the molten iron and
slag contact air above their surface. Casting emissions are also
generated by drilling and plugging the taphole. The occasional use of
an oxygen lance to open a clogged taphole can increase emissions.
During the casting operation, iron oxides, magnesium oxide and
carbonaceous compounds are generated as PM. The only significant HAP
found in the PM is manganese, which comprises about 0.6 percent of the
PM.
Casting emissions are controlled by evacuation through capture
hoods to a baghouse or by suppression techniques. The basic concept of
suppression techniques that use steam or inert gas is to prevent the
formation of pollutants by preventing ambient air from contacting the
molten surfaces. Newer furnaces have been constructed with evacuated
covered runners and local hooding ducted to a baghouse.
3. Hot Metal Transfer, Desulfurization, and Slag Skimming
Hot metal transfer from the torpedo car into the BOPF shop ladle is
accompanied by the emissions of kish, a mixture of fine iron oxide
particles together with larger graphite particles. The reladling
generally takes place under a hood to capture these emissions.
Emissions during desulfurization are created by both the reaction of
the reagents injected into the metal and the turbulence during
injection. The pollutants emitted are mostly iron oxides, calcium
oxides, and oxides of the compound injected. The sulfur reacts with the
reagents and is skimmed off as slag.
The emissions generated from desulfurization and slag skimming are
usually collected by a hood positioned over the ladle and vented to a
baghouse. Many plants perform hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and
slag skimming at the same station to take advantage of a single capture
and control system. Manganese is the predominant HAP in the PM
emissions. The level of manganese is expected to be comparable to that
of PM from the casthouse (on the order of 0.6 percent).
4. Basic Oxygen Process Furnace
Emissions from the BOPF occur during charging, the oxygen blow and
tapping. Fugitive emissions escape through the BOPF shop roof monitor,
and stack emissions are released through primary and secondary control
systems. The predominant compounds emitted are iron oxides, and the
most significant HAP is manganese. Manganese comprises about 1 percent
of the particulate, which is more than all of the other HAP metals
combined.
Emissions during oxygen blow periods are controlled using a primary
hood capture system located directly over the open mouth of the
furnaces. Two types of capture systems are used to collect exhaust gas
as it leaves the furnace mouth: a closed hood design that suppresses
combustion, and an open hood design that promotes combustion. A closed
hood fits snugly against the furnace mouth, ducting all PM and CO to a
venturi scrubber. The CO is flared at the scrubber outlet stack. The
open hood design allows combustion air to be drawn into the hood, thus
burning the CO. Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and venturi scrubbers
are used as the primary controls for open hood BOPF.
Charging and tapping emissions are controlled by a variety of
evacuation systems and operating practices. Charging hoods, tapside
enclosures, and full furnace enclosures are used to capture these
emissions and send them either to the primary control device or to a
secondary device, usually a baghouse. Almost all closed hood BOPF have
a secondary capture and control system, whereas many open hood BOPF
rely on the primary system for capture and control of fugitive
emissions.
5. Ladle Metallurgy
Most BOPF shops have a ladle metallurgy station where various
adjustments are made to the steel's physical and chemical properties.
Almost all ladle metallurgy stations are enclosed or hooded, and any
fume from the vessel is ducted to a baghouse. There are few data on the
HAP composition of ladle metallurgy emissions; however, the composition
should be similar to that of emissions from the BOPF (primarily
manganese).
F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Processes?
There are a variety of metal HAP contained in the PM emitted from
iron and steel manufacturing processes. These include primarily
manganese and lead, with much smaller quantities of antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Organic HAP compounds are released in trace amounts from the sinter
plant windbox exhaust and include polycyclic organic matter (such as
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and chlorinated dibenzodioxins and
furans), and volatile organics such as benzene, carbon disulfide,
toluene, and xylene. These HAP are associated with a variety of adverse
health effects including chronic and acute disorders of the blood,
heart, kidneys, reproductive system, and central nervous system.
Manganese and lead comprise the majority of the metal HAP
emissions. Health effects in humans have been associated with both
deficiencies and excess intakes of manganese. Chronic exposure to low
levels of manganese in the diet is considered to be nutritionally
essential in humans, with a
[[Page 36840]]
recommended daily allowance of 2 to 5 milligrams per day. Chronic
exposure to high levels of manganese by inhalation in humans results
primarily in central nervous system (CNS) effects. Visual reaction
time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination were affected in
chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by feelings of
weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask-like face, and psychological
disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher levels.
Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male workers afflicted
with manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. We have classified
manganese in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.
Lead is a very toxic element, causing a variety of effects at low
dose levels. Brain damage, kidney damage, and gastrointestinal distress
may occur from acute exposure to high levels of lead in humans. Chronic
exposure to lead in humans results in effects on the blood, CNS, blood
pressure, and kidneys. Children are particularly sensitive to the
chronic effects of lead, with slowed cognitive development, reduced
growth and other effects reported. Reproductive effects, such as
decreased sperm count in men and spontaneous abortions in women, have
been associated with lead exposure. The developing fetus is at
particular risk from maternal lead exposure, with low birth weight and
slowed postnatal neurobehavioral development noted. Human studies are
inconclusive regarding lead exposure and cancer, while animal studies
have reported an increase in kidney cancer from lead exposure by the
oral route. We have classified lead as a Group B2, probable human
carcinogen.
Trace quantities of organic HAP, such as chlorinated dibenzodioxins
and furans (CDD/F) and benzene, have been detected in the windbox
exhaust at sinter plants. One CDD/F compound, 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD, commonly called ``dioxin'')
is listed singly as a HAP. Other CDD/F compounds, many of which cause
adverse health effects in the same way as dioxin, are HAP under the
definition of polycyclic organic matter. Exposure to CDD/F mixtures
causes chloracne, a severe acne-like condition, and has been shown to
be extremely toxic in animal studies. Dioxin itself is known to be a
developmental toxicant in animals, causing skeletal deformities, kidney
defects, and weakened immune responses in the offspring of animals
exposed during pregnancy. Human studies have shown an association
between dioxin and soft-tissue sarcomas, lymphomas, and stomach
carcinomas. We have classified dioxin as a probable human carcinogen
(Group B2).
Acute inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause
drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory
tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic
inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood,
including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in
occupational settings. Reproductive effects have been reported for
women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the
developing fetus have been observed in animal tests. Increased
incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood
cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene.
We have classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen.
In addition to HAP, the proposed rule also would reduce PM
emissions, which are controlled under national ambient air quality
standards. Briefly, emissions of PM have been associated with
aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and
increased risk of premature death.
We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health
experienced by exposed individuals can range from mild to severe. The
extent and degree to which the health effects may be experienced
depends on:
Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
The ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
The frequency and duration of exposures; and
Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics,
age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary
significantly with the population.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
The affected sources are each new and existing sinter plant, blast
furnace, and BOPF shop at an integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility that is a major source. A new affected source is one
constructed or reconstructed after July 13, 2001. An existing affected
source is one constructed or reconstructed on or before July 13, 2001.
The proposed rule covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse;
and the BOPF, BOPF shop roof monitor, and BOPF ancillary operations
(hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag skimming, and
ladle metallurgy).
B. What Are the Emission Limitations?
The proposed rule includes PM emission limits and opacity limits as
well as operating limits for capture systems and control devices.
Particulate matter and opacity serve as a surrogate measures of HAP
emissions.
1. Sinter Plants
The proposed PM emission limit for the windbox exhaust stream, 0.3
pounds per ton (lb/ton) of product sinter, is the same for existing and
new sinter plants. The proposed rule limits PM emissions from a
discharge end to 0.02 gr/dscf for an existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf at
a new plant. The discharge end PM limit is a flow-weighted average for
one or more control devices that operate in parallel. A 20 percent
opacity limit is proposed for secondary emissions from a discharge end
at an existing sinter plant; a 10 percent opacity limit is proposed for
a new sinter plant. The proposed PM emission limits for sinter cooler
stacks are 0.03 gr/dscf for an existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf for a
new plant.
2. Blast Furnaces
The proposed PM emission limit for a control device applied to
emissions from a casthouse is 0.009 gr/dscf for the casthouse at a new
or existing blast furnace. The proposed opacity limits are 20 percent
for a casthouse at an existing blast furnace and 15 percent for a
casthouse at a new blast furnace (both 6-minute averages).
3. Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces
For primary emissions from BOPF, we are proposing different PM
emission limits based on hood system (closed or open). For BOPF with
closed hood systems, we are proposing a PM emission limit of 0.024 gr/
dscf which would apply only during periods of primary oxygen blow. For
BOPF with open hood systems, we are proposing a PM emission limit of
0.019 gr/dscf which would apply during all periods of the steel
production cycle. The primary oxygen blow is the period in which oxygen
is initially blown into the furnace and does not include any subsequent
reblows. The steel production cycle begins when the furnace is first
charged with either scrap or hot metal and ends 3 minutes after slag is
removed. The PM emission limits are the same for BOPF at new and
[[Page 36841]]
existing BOPF shops. The proposed PM emission limits for a control
device applied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF are 0.01 gr/
dscf for an existing BOPF shop and 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
Secondary emissions are those not controlled by the primary emission
control system, including emissions that escape from open and closed
hoods and openings in the ductwork to the primary control system.
For the BOPF shop, a PM emission limit of 0.007 gr/dscf is proposed
for a control device applied to emissions from ancillary operations
(hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or ladle metallurgy) at
a new or existing BOPF shop. For the BOPF roof monitor, a 20 percent
opacity limit is proposed for secondary emissions from the BOPF or BOPF
shop operations in an existing BOPF shop. This opacity limit is based
on 3-minute averages. For a new BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown
furnace, a 10 percent opacity limit is proposed (6-minute average)
except that one 6-minute period not to exceed 20 percent may occur once
during each steel production cycle. For a new BOPF shop housing a top-
blown furnace, a 10 percent opacity limit is proposed (3-minute
average) except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once during each steel production cycle.
For capture systems applied to emissions from a sinter plant
discharge end or blast furnace casthouse, the proposed rule provides
two options: maintain the hourly average volumetric flow rate through
each separately ducted hood at or above the level established during
the performance test, or maintain the total hourly average volumetric
flow rate at the control device inlet at or above the level established
during the performance test with all capture system dampers in the same
positions as during the performance test.
The same options are available in the operating limits proposed for
capture systems applied to secondary emissions from a BOPF. However,
the averaging period is the steel production cycle rather than each 1-
hour period.
The proposed operating limit for baghouses requires that the bag
leak detection system alarm not sound for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a semiannual reporting period. For a venturi
scrubber, the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate
must remain at or above the level established during the initial
performance test. For an ESP, the hourly average opacity must remain at
or below the level established during the initial performance test. The
proposed rule requires plants to submit information on monitoring
parameters if another type of control device is used.
The proposed rule also requires sinter plants to maintain the oil
content of the feedstock at or below 0.025 percent. This limit is based
on a 30-day rolling average.
C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
All plants subject to the proposed rule would be required to
prepare and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6(e) of the NESHAP General
Provisions. A written operation and maintenance plan is also required
for capture systems and control devices subject to an operating limit.
This plan must describe procedures for monthly inspections of capture
systems, preventative maintenance requirements for control devices, and
corrective action requirements for baghouses. In the event of a bag
leak detection system alarm, the plan must include specific
requirements for initiating corrective action to determine the cause of
the problem within 1 hour, initiating corrective action to fix the
problem within 24 hours, and completing all corrective actions needed
to fix the problem as soon as practicable.
D. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
The proposed rule requires performance tests to demonstrate that
each affected source meets all applicable emission and opacity limits.
The PM concentration would be measured using EPA Method 5, 5D, or 17 in
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The proposed rule also allows plants to use
a method developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), Standard Test Method for High-Volume Sampling for Solid
Particulate Matter and Determination of Particulate Emissions (ASTM
D4536-96). Plants may use this method instead of the sampling equipment
and procedures required by EPA Method 5 or 17 when testing a positive
pressure baghouse, but must use the sample traverse location and number
of sampling locations required by EPA Method 5D. The EPA Method 9 in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, is proposed for determining the opacity of
emissions, with special instructions for computing 3-minute averages.
The proposed testing requirements also include procedures for
establishing site-specific operating limits for capture systems and
control devices and for revising the limits, if needed, after the
performance test.
The proposed rule also requires a performance test to demonstrate
initial compliance with the operating limit for the oil content of the
sinter plant feedstock. This test would require measurements of the oil
content using EPA Method 9071B (Revision 2, April 1998) for 30
consecutive days and computing the 30-day rolling average. To
demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed operation and
maintenance requirements, plants would certify in their notification of
compliance status that they have prepared the written plans and will
operate capture systems and control devices according to the procedures
in the plan.
E. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
The proposed rule would require plants to conduct performance tests
at least twice during each title V operating permit term (at midterm
and renewal) to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and
opacity limits. Plants also would be required to monitor operating
parameters for capture systems and control devices subject to operating
limits and carry out the procedures in their operation and maintenance
plan.
For capture systems, a continuous parameter monitoring system
(CPMS) is required to measure and record the volumetric flow rate
through each separately ducted hood or the total volumetric flow rate
at the control device inlet. Plants electing to monitor the total
volumetric flow rate also must check the capture system dampers at
least once a day (every 24 hours) to verify that all dampers are in the
same position as during the initial performance test. To demonstrate
continuous compliance, plants must keep records documenting compliance
with the rule requirements for monitoring, the operation and
maintenance plan, and installation, operation, and maintenance of CPMS.
For baghouses, plants would be required to monitor the relative
change in PM loading using a bag leak detection system and make
inspections at specified intervals. The bag leak detection system must
be installed and operated according to the EPA guidance document
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/R-98-015,
September 1997. The document is available on the TTN at
http:www.epa.gov/ ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf. If the system does not work
based on the triboelectric effect, it must be installed and operated
consistent
[[Page 36842]]
with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. The
basic inspection requirements include daily, weekly, monthly, or
quarterly inspections of specified parameters or mechanisms with
monitoring of bag cleaning cycles by an appropriate method.
To demonstrate continuous compliance, the proposed rule requires
records of bag leak detection system alarms and records documenting
conformance with the operation and maintenance plan, as well as the
inspection and maintenance procedures.
For venturi scrubbers, plants would be required to use CPMS to
measure and record the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water
flow rate. To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants would keep
records documenting conformance with the monitoring requirements and
the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for CPMS.
For ESP, plants would be required to use a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) to measure and record the average hourly
opacity of emissions exiting each stack of the control device. Plants
must operate and maintain the COMS according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8 of the NESHAP General Provisions and Performance
Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. These requirements
include a quality control program including a daily calibration drift
assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit for
the sinter plant feedstock, plants would be required to determine the
oil content every 24 hours (from the composite of three samples taken
at 8-hour intervals) and compute and record the 30-day rolling average
oil content for each operating day.
F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Table 4 to proposed subpart FFFFF lists each of the
requirements in the General Provisions (Secs. 63.2 through 63.15) with
an indication of whether they do or do not apply.
The plant owner or operator would be required to submit each
initial notification required in the NESHAP General Provisions that
applies to their facility. These include an initial notification of
applicability with general information about the facility and
notifications of performance tests and compliance status.
Plants would be required to maintain the records required by the
NESHAP General Provisions that are needed to document compliance, such
as performance test results; copies of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plans and associated corrective action records; monitoring
data; and inspection records. Except for the operation and maintenance
plan for capture systems and control devices, all records must be kept
for a total of 5 years, with the records from the most recent 2 years
kept onsite. The proposed rule requires that the operation and
maintenance plan for capture systems and control devices subject to an
operating limit be kept onsite and available for inspection upon
request for the life of the affected source or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the rule requirements.
Semiannual reports are required for any deviation from an emission
limitation, including an operating limit. Each report would be due no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period. If no
deviation occurred, only a summary report would be required. If a
deviation did occur, more detailed information would be required.
An immediate report would be required if there were actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that were not consistent
with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations
if the owner or operator demonstrates to the authority with delegation
for enforcement that the source was operating in accordance with the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
G. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
The owner or operator of an existing affected source would have to
comply within [24 MONTHS OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register]. New or reconstructed sources that startup on or
before the effective date of the final rule must comply by the
effective date of the final rule. New or reconstructed sources that
startup after the effective date of the final rule must comply upon
initial startup.
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?
Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in
the source category or subcategory to which the emission limitations,
work practice standards, and other regulatory requirements apply. The
affected source may be the same collection of equipment and processes
as the source category or it may be a subset of the source category.
For each rule, we must decide which individual pieces of equipment and
processes warrant separate standards in the context of the CAA section
112 requirements and the industry operating practices.
We considered three different approaches for designating the
affected source: the entire integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility, groups of emission points, and individual emission points. In
selecting the affected sources for regulation, we identified the HAP-
emitting operations, the HAP emitted, and the quantity of HAP emissions
from the individual or groups of emissions points. We concluded that
designating the group of emission points associated with each of the
major processes as the affected source is the most appropriate
approach. The major processes include sinter production in a sinter
plant, iron production in a blast furnace, and steel production in a
BOPF shop. Consequently, we selected the sinter plant, blast furnace,
and BOPF shop as the affected sources. The proposed rule includes
requirements for the control of emissions from the windbox exhaust,
discharge end, and cooler at sinter plants; the blast furnace
casthouse; the BOPF shop including both primary and secondary emissions
from the furnace; and the ancillary operations in the BOPF shop (hot
metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy).
B. How Did We Select the Pollutants?
For the proposed rule, we decided that it is not practical to
establish individual standards for each specific type of metallic HAP
that could be present in the various processes (e.g., separate
standards for manganese emissions, separate standards for lead
emissions, and so forth for each of the metals listed as HAP and
potentially could be present). When released, each of the metallic HAP
compounds behave as PM. As a result, strong correlations exist between
air emissions of PM and emissions of the individual metallic HAP
compounds. The control technologies used for the control of PM
emissions achieve comparable levels of performance on metallic HAP
emissions. Therefore, standards requiring good control of PM will also
achieve good control of metallic HAP emissions. Therefore, we decided
to establish standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the
individual
[[Page 36843]]
types of metallic HAP. In addition, establishing separate standards for
each individual type of metallic HAP would impose costly and
significantly more complex compliance and monitoring requirements and
achieve little, if any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be
achieved using the surrogate pollutant approach based on total PM.
For stack discharges, we have traditionally relied on setting
numerical emission limits, sometimes coupled with limits on opacity. In
the case of fugitive emissions, we have traditionally relied on setting
visible emission standards, typically expressed as opacity limits.
C. How did we determine the bases and levels of the proposed standards?
Sinter plant windbox exhaust
There are nine sinter plants in the U.S.; however, only seven are
currently operating. The windbox exhaust is controlled by a baghouse at
four plants and by a venturi scrubber at five plants. Useful test data
on actual emissions are available for six of the nine plants, two
equipped with baghouses and four equipped with venturi scrubbers. In
each case, the data reflect the results of performance tests comprised
of the average of three test runs, expressed in terms of total PM.
An initial characterization of achievable performance based on
concentration (gr/dscf) suggested that baghouses perform substantially
better than do scrubbers. Concentration values recorded for the two
baghouses are two to nearly four times lower than those recorded for
the four scrubbers. Upon closer scrutiny, we determined that much of
the difference in perceived performance is due to the fact that
baghouses require the addition of relatively large quantities of
ambient air to cool the hot windbox exhaust gases prior to control,
whereas scrubbers do not. To correct for this difference, we
transformed the test results into a pounds of PM emissions per ton of
sinter format. The test results expressed in terms of the hourly mass
rate were converted to annual emissions assuming 8,760 hours per
operating year. The resultant annual emissions were then divided by a
best estimate of annual sinter production for each plant (average for
the 5-year period from 1995 through 1999). The results range from 0.26
to 0.33 lb PM/ton of sinter. Averaging the results for the top five
performers produces a MACT floor value of 0.29 lb PM/ton of sinter.
Relying on the median value produces a MACT floor value of 0.30 lb/ton.
Included among the top five performers are two baghouses and three
venturi scrubbers, which indicates that both control devices are
capable of achieving the MACT floor level of control as expressed in
the lb/ton format.
The windbox exhaust gas can contain appreciable quantities of
organic HAP, including both volatile and semivolatile compounds. There
is strong evidence that demonstrates that the quantity of organic HAP
emitted is directly related to the quantity and oil content of the mill
scale component of the sinter feed. United States sinter plants limit
organic emissions by carefully monitoring and limiting the oil content
of the sinter feed. This pollution prevention control measure is an
effective method for preventing, and thus reducing, emissions of
organic HAP. Two plants in Indiana have performed testing to relate oil
content with emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The test
results show a strong correlation between oil content and potential VOC
emissions.
One of the organic pollutants of concern that has been related to
oil content is a family of compounds called polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins and furans (D/F). A 1994 paper \1\ identified sinter
plants in Germany as one of the most important industrial sources of
D/F. Tests showed an average concentration in the windbox exhaust of 47
nanograms (ng) expressed in toxic equivalency (TEQ)/per cubic meter
(m\3\) and annual emissions of 122 grams (g) TEQ. The D/F emissions
were attributed to high levels of oils and chlorinated organics in the
waste materials recycled to the sinter plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lahl, Uwe. Sintering Plants of Steel Industry--PCDD/F
Emission Status and Perspective. In Chemosphere, vol. 29, nos. 9-11,
pages 1939-1945. 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We decided to perform testing at two representative facilities to
characterize D/F emissions from U.S. sinter plants, one that uses a
venturi scrubber as the windbox control device and one that uses a
baghouse. The tests were performed in 1997 on the venturi scrubber in
East Chicago, IN and on the baghouse in Youngstown, OH. These plants
routinely monitor the oil content of their sinter feed, which averages
0.014 percent oil at the East Chicago, IN facility and 0.025 percent
oil at the Youngstown, OH facility. The average D/F concentration from
three 4-hour runs at each plant ranged from 0.2 ng TEQ/m\3\ at the East
Chicago, IN facility to 0.8 ng TEQ/m\3\ at the Youngstown, OH facility,
both far below the levels reported for the German sinter plant.
Assuming typical operation of each plant (310 days/yr), annual
emissions would range from 0.7 to 2.8 g TEQ/yr, well below the levels
indicated by the German data. Based upon emission factors derived from
these test results, we estimate nationwide emissions from all U.S.
sinter plants to be 26 g TEQ/yr, which corresponds to less than 1
percent of current estimates of the national inventory from all
sources.
We surveyed the operators of all seven active sinter plants, as
well as the two inactive plants, to obtain information on the oil
content of their sinter feed. Four of the active plants provided data
that ranged in magnitude from 976 samples collected over 1 year
(sampling about three times per day) to 14 samples collected over 14
months (monthly sampling). All four plants carefully monitor their
sinter feed for oil to minimize emissions of VOC. In addition, plants
with baghouses are motivated to limit oil content due to concerns over
blinding of bags and possible fire hazards. The other three active
plants and the two inactive plants provided little data since none
routinely monitor oil content. The four plants providing data reported
long-term averages of 0.014, 0.02, 0.02, and 0.025 percent,
respectively. We conclude that limiting substantially the oil content
in the sinter feed represents the MACT floor for organic HAP in the
windbox exhaust.
We know of no control devices besides venturi scrubbers and
baghouses that can achieve better emissions reductions than that
indicated by the level of performance selected as the MACT floor. As a
result, we are selecting 0.3 lb/ton as the standard. We selected 0.3
lb/ton as opposed to either 0.29 or 0.30 lb/ton to provide a modest but
warranted margin of safety given the relatively limited data available
for this standard setting and the inherent uncertainty associated with
the needed transformations of the test data from mass rate to mass per
ton.
For the PM limit, we also considered setting alternative
concentration limits that would be tailored to each type of control
device--baghouses and venturi scrubbers. Concentration limits (e.g.,
gr/dscf) have several advantages over a
lb/ton format when determining compliance. A lb/ton format requires
that three measurements be made very accurately: The concentration of
PM in the exhaust gas, the volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, and the
sinter production rate. Concentration is directly measured by EPA
reference methods (such as Method 5), and there is no uncertainty
introduced by additional measurements or calculations. The
concentration limit is a direct and accurate measure of how
[[Page 36844]]
well the emission control device is performing.
The two plants with baghouses averaged 0.007 and 0.009 gr/dscf when
meeting the 0.3 lb/ton MACT floor level of control. Individual runs
ranged from 0.004 to 0.01 gr/dscf. Considering the run-to-run
variability, we conclude that an appropriate alternative concentration
limit for baghouses used for the control of windbox exhaust gases would
be on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf. As noted previously, plants with
baghouses introduce large volumes of tempering air to cool the windbox
exhaust gas prior to entering the baghouse, whereas plants with venturi
scrubbers do not. Consequently, a concentration limit for scrubbers,
reflecting an equivalent level of control as baghouses, would of
necessity be higher than one for baghouses. The four plants equipped
with scrubbers recorded average concentration values of 0.017, 0.017,
0.025, and 0.026 gr/dscf when meeting the 0.3 lb/ton MACT floor level
of control. Individual runs ranged from 0.014 to 0.029 gr/dscf. Since
all four of these scrubbers represent MACT, an alternative
concentration limit for scrubbers would be on the order of 0.03 gr/dscf
considering run-to-run variability. We request comments on both the
appropriateness of setting concentration limits in addition or instead
of a lb/ton limit and on the suggested values for these limits.
Relative to sinter feed oil content, we know of no control measures
beyond this pollution prevention measure which would be more effective
in limiting HAP organic emissions from sinter plant windboxes. Based on
our review of the data obtained through our survey on oil content, we
select a limit of 0.025 percent oil in sinter feed as representative of
the MACT floor. Although 0.025 percent is the highest average value
reported by the four plants, all of the averages are low, all are
indicative of careful control of oil content, and for all intents and
purposes are indistinguishable.
Sinter plant discharge end
The sinter plant discharge end is comprised of sinter breakers
(crushers), hot screens, conveyors, and transfer points that are
designed to separate undersize sinter and to transfer the hot sinter to
the cooler. In most cases, these discharge end operations are housed in
a building. Emissions are usually controlled by local hooding and
ventilation to one or more baghouses or wet scrubbers. Seven plants use
baghouses and two plants use wet scrubbers.
Existing State regulations include both building opacity standards
to limit releases of fugitive emissions (those escaping capture) and PM
emission standards assigned to control devices. Five of the seven
operating sinter plants are subject to a building opacity limit. One
plant is subject to a 10 percent limit (6-minute average), and four
plants are subject to 20 percent limits (6-minute average). The PM
limits for control devices vary substantially from plant to plant both
in terms of format and numerical values. Four plants have concentration
limits for total PM (0.01, 0.02, 0.02, and 0.03 gr/dscf), one has
concentration limits for PM-10, and three have mass rate limits (42.9,
50, and 50 lb/hr).
We have credible source test data on actual emissions from only one
plant--the refurbished sinter plant in Youngstown, OH. Captured
emissions from the discharge end are ventilated to a relatively new
baghouse (1991) for control. We have no data from any source on the
opacity of fugitive emissions that escape capture from the discharge
end.
In selecting the MACT floor for the discharge end, we evaluated all
of the available information on control measures, State regulations,
and actual emissions. Due to the limited information on actual
emissions available, we concluded that the available information on
State regulations provided the best and most complete information for
establishing floor conditions for both the discharge end building and
control devices. We believe that these State limits are in fact a
reasonable representation of what is actually achieved in practice and
are, therefore, suitable proxies for establishing MACT floor
conditions. The existing State emission limits reflect a level of
performance which we would expect from the capture systems and control
devices which are currently applied to the control of emissions from
sinter plant discharge ends.
As noted above, five plants are subject to State standards that
limit the opacity of visible emissions released from the discharge end
building. These range from 10 percent (one plant) to 20 percent (four
plants). We chose the median value as the MACT floor, which is 20
percent opacity based on a 6-minute average.
For control devices, we examined the top five most stringent
existing State permit limits for total PM emissions. These include the
four concentration limits cited above and a fifth value derived from
the lowest mass rate limit to which a plant is subject (42.9 lb/hr),
which is equivalent to 0.02 gr/dscf. The resulting five most stringent
limits are 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.02 and 0.03 gr/dscf. Averaging these
five values produces a MACT floor limit of 0.02 gr/dscf.
We examined options to go beyond the floor level of control. One
option is a concentration limit lower than the floor level of 0.02 gr/
dscf. For example, the installation of a new pulse jet baghouse could
conceivably achieve a concentration limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. We estimate
the capital cost of a new pulse jet baghouse designed for a flow rate
of 120,000 dscfm (typical for discharge ends) to be $3.5 million and
the total annual cost to be $840,000 per year. We estimate the
corresponding reduction in HAP metals achieved by reducing the PM
concentration from 0.02 to 0.01 gr/dscf (for 120,000 dscfm and 0.75
percent metal HAP in the PM) to be 0.34 tons per year. The cost per ton
of HAP is $2.5 million. We believe that the high cost, coupled with the
small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond the
floor alternative. We could not identify any other beyond the floor
alternatives. Consequently, we chose the floor level of control (0.02
gr/dscf) as MACT.
For new source MACT, we chose an opacity limit of 10 percent (6-
minute average) based on the most stringent emission limit currently in
place (Sparrows Point, MD). For control devices used on the discharge
end, we relied on test data for the baghouse at the Youngstown, OH
sinter plant. We believe this baghouse represents the best controlled
similar source among the seven operating plants. It is a relatively
recent installation (1991) and is a state-of-the-art pulse jet unit.
The discharge end at this facility is comprised of a sinter breaker,
single deck hot screen, four-stack sinter cooler, and a double deck
cold screen. Capture systems are used for the breaker, hot screen, cold
screen, and about 40 transfer points. The capture system is ventilated
to a four compartment pulse jet baghouse with polyester bags at a rate
of 140,000 dscfm.
Three test runs were conducted in 1991. The runs range from 0.005
to 0.006 gr/dscf and average 0.006 gr/dscf. Rounding the results of
this single performance test (average of three runs) would support a
new source MACT concentration limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. We believe that
rounding from 0.006 to 0.01 is justified given the data are limited to
the one performance test conducted in 1991.
The numerical limit selected for the standard is the same as that
established for MACT: (1) An opacity limit of 20 percent (6-minute
average) for the building and a concentration limit of
[[Page 36845]]
0.02 gr/dscf for control devices for existing sinter plants, and (2) an
opacity limit of 10 percent (6-minute average) and a concentration
limit of 0.01 gr/dscf for new sinter plants.
For compliance demonstration purposes, we are proposing a flow-
weighted average for emission control devices on the discharge end.
Some plants employ multiple control devices applied to the several
emission points that comprise the discharge end (crushers, screens,
conveyor transfer points). For example, one plant routes emissions from
the crusher to one baghouse, and emissions from screens and conveyors
are sent to a second baghouse. Averaging emissions across multiple
control devices provides flexibility and enhances achievability. With
this approach, some air pollution control devices may under perform and
others may over perform provided that the average concentration
weighted by volumetric flow rate meets the concentration limit for the
discharge end.
Sinter plant cooler
Sinter plant coolers are large diameter circular tables through
which ambient air is drawn to cool the hot sinter after screening.
Seven plants operate sinter coolers to cool the sinter product prior to
storage. Two plants that are not currently operating have no cooler and
stockpile hot sinter directly. Of the seven plants with coolers, three
vent directly to the atmosphere, one vents to a cyclone, two vent to a
baghouse, and one vents half of the cooler exhaust to a baghouse with
the remainder vented directly to the atmosphere. Five plants are
currently subject to State emission limits expressed as concentration
or mass rate while two plants are not subject to State emission limits.
Information on actual releases is limited to one source test of
controlled emissions from the cooler located at the Youngstown, OH
plant that is equipped with a baghouse.
We examined all of the available information on controls, State
limits, and actual emissions. We decided that existing State permit
limits provide the best information for establishing the floor.
Emission source test data on actual emissions are limited to one
source. We believe that a technology approach would provide a limit
that is less representative of actual performance because it would
result in a floor based on cyclone control or a 50/50 no control/
baghouse control split (technology for which we have no emission test
data from within this source category).
Three plants are subject to State permit limits on emission
concentrations (0.01, 0.03, and 0.03 gr/dscf), and two plants are
subject to State mass rate permit limits. We converted the mass rates
in lb/hr to equivalent concentration limits in gr/dscf based on the
volumetric flow rate through the subject coolers. The two mass rate
limits resulted in equivalent concentration values of 0.03 and 0.05 gr/
dscf. Averaging the five concentration limits produces a floor value
for existing sources of 0.03 gr/dscf.
We considered a level of control beyond the floor. A new pulse jet
baghouse installed on the sinter cooler could reduce emissions to 0.01
gr/dscf. We estimated the capital cost of a new baghouse designed for a
flow rate of 200,000 dscfm as $5.5 million with a total annual cost of
$1.3 million per year. The reduction in HAP emissions associated with
reducing the PM concentration from 0.03 to 0.01 gr/dscf (at 0.75
percent HAP in the PM) is from 1.7 to 0.6 tons per year. The cost per
ton of HAP is $1.2 million. We believe that the high cost, coupled with
the small emission reduction, does not justify this beyond the floor
alternative. We could not identify any other beyond the floor
alternatives. Consequently, we selected the floor (0.03 gr/dscf) as
MACT for existing sources.
We evaluated the source test data for the baghouse located at
Youngstown, OH and the most stringent existing limit to develop MACT
for new sources. The baghouse is a modern pulse jet unit that averaged
0.009 gr/dscf during the test. Individual runs were 0.005, 0.005, and
0.018. Coincidentally, the most stringent existing State permit limit
for sinter coolers, which is applied at a different plant, is 0.01 gr/
dscf. Given that the baghouse source test result and the most stringent
emission limit are ostensibly the same, we selected 0.01 gr/dscf as the
proposed standard for sinter coolers at new sinter plants.
Blast furnace casthouse
The casthouse is a building or structure that encloses the section
of the blast furnace where hot metal and slag are tapped from the
furnace. The emissions from the blast furnace casthouse are fugitive
emissions that escape through the roof monitor and other building
openings during tapping. The emissions are primarily metal oxide fumes
that are formed when air contacts the surface of the molten metal.
Factors affecting these emissions include the duration of tapping, the
exposed surface area of metal and slag, and the presence or absence of
runner covers and flame suppression, which reduce contact with air.
As described previously, these emissions are controlled in one of
two fundamentally different ways, flame suppression or conventional
ventilation practices and control. Flame suppression consists of
blowing natural gas over the iron runners and torpedo cars. The
combustion of the gas consumes oxygen, which retards (suppresses) the
formation of emissions. Ventilation practices employed include the use
of localized hooding and ventilation applied at the iron trough and
iron and slag runners. Alternatively, the casthouse may be totally
enclosed and evacuated. Eighteen of the 39 blast furnaces have capture
and control systems, 16 are controlled by baghouses and two are
controlled by one wet scrubber.
As a means for limiting fugitive emissions of PM from the casthouse
during hot metal tapping, most States have developed visible emission
standards that limit the opacity of emissions discharged from the
casthouse roof monitor or other openings. The most common limit is 20
percent (6-minute average), which is applied to 24 of the 39
casthouses. States also apply particulate limits on gases discharged
from control devices used to capture tapping emissions. The most common
form is a concentration limit, typically on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf.
We evaluated the available information on actual emissions, State
limits, and control measures in selecting the floor for opacity from
existing casthouses. Attempts to locate actual opacity data proved
unsuccessful. Since most of the States have developed opacity
standards, we concluded that State regulations provided the best
information for establishing floor conditions.
The most stringent opacity limit is 15 percent (6-minute average)
and is applied to two casthouses. The next most stringent limit is 20
percent (6-minute average), which is applied to 24 casthouses. For
existing sources, we selected the 20 percent opacity limit as the floor
for the roof monitor, which is the median of the top five most
stringent limits and by far the most representative.
As with existing sources, MACT for new sources is also based on
existing State limits since we were unable to locate and obtain data on
actual emissions. As noted above, the most stringent State limit is 15
percent opacity (6-minute average). This limit applies to the
casthouses for the Number 7 blast furnace at East Chicago,
[[Page 36846]]
IN and the Number 3 blast furnace at Lorain, OH. Therefore, we have
selected 15 percent opacity (6-minute average) as the floor for new
sources.
We also examined available information on actual emissions, State
limits, and control measures to develop the floor for control devices
applied to casthouse emissions. There are 18 casthouses equipped with
hooding and ventilation equipment to limit fugitive emissions. Sixteen
use a baghouse for the control of captured emissions. Industry survey
information on the baghouses indicate they are similar in design and
performance. Most are pulse jet baghouses with air-to-cloth ratios of
around 4 feet per minute (fpm). We selected baghouses with these
minimum design features as the MACT floor technology for controlled
emissions from blast furnace casthouses.
To determine the level of control associated with the use of a
baghouse, we obtained available performance test data that
characterized baghouse performance for four of the 16 baghouses. The
database includes a total of eight source tests; four tests at one
facility, two tests at another facility, and single tests at the two
other facilities. Each performance test is comprised of three
individual test runs. The three-run averages for each of the eight
tests range from 0.002 to 0.009 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs
range from 0.001 to 0.009 gr/dscf.
The highest emitting unit is the Granite City, IL facility for
which we have information on four independent performance tests. The
performance tests range from 0.006 to 0.009 gr/dscf with individual
runs ranging from 0.003 to 0.009 gr/dscf. Three tests were conducted in
1988 and one in 1985, and all tests met the facility's State limit of
0.01 gr/dscf.
Since each of the baghouses is considered a MACT floor unit, we
must set the standard at a point that accommodates the performance
indicated by the highest emitting unit which we believe reflects a
reasonable worst-case scenario. Consequently, the level of control
associated with the MACT floor is 0.009 gr/dscf. We believe this
emission limit represents a reasonable expectation of performance for
an appropriately designed and well maintained and operated baghouse
used to control blast furnace casthouse emissions. Therefore, we
selected a concentration limit of 0.009 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for
both new and existing blast furnace casthouses.
For the casthouse opacity standard, we selected the same format and
values as that established for the MACT floors. For existing
casthouses, we selected an opacity limit for the roof monitor of 20
percent using 6-minute averages. For new casthouses, we selected an
opacity limit for the roof monitor of 15 percent using 6-minute
averages.
Relative to control devices, we examined options for better
emissions reductions. However, we could find no control alternatives
that would provide additional reductions in HAP emissions for blast
furnace casthouses beyond that achieved by a well-designed and operated
baghouse. Consequently, we have chosen the limit of 0.009 gr/dscf, the
level achieved in practice with the use of a baghouse, as the standard
for both new and existing sources.
BOPF primary emission control systems
Primary emissions from the BOPF refer to the particulate emissions
generated during the steel production cycle which are captured and
controlled by the primary emission control system. The majority of the
emissions occur during the oxygen blow. The oxygen blow is the period
in the steel production cycle when oxygen is lanced or injected into
the vessel. Some shops operate open hood furnaces and others use closed
hood systems. Open and closed hood furnaces are very different in terms
of design and operation, pollutant loading, and emissions. Open hood
systems are characterized by very high primary exhaust air flow rates
due to the large quantities of combustion air introduced at the furnace
mouth to support CO combustion. In contrast, closed hood systems, which
include hoods that are tightly fitted to the vessel to suppress CO
combustion, are characterized by much lower exhaust air flow rates.
Typical flow rates for open hood systems are 200,000 to 500,000 acfm,
while closed hood designs are usually less than 100,000 acfm.
There are 50 BOPF located in 23 BOPF shops. The 50 BOPF include 34
furnaces with open hood systems at 16 shops and 16 furnaces with closed
hood systems at eight shops. All of the BOPF have capture and control
systems for the primary emissions. For the open hood systems, eight
shops are controlled by venturi scrubbers and eight shops are
controlled by ESP. All eight of the closed hood shops are controlled by
venturi scrubbers. Each shop is subject to existing State limits with a
wide variety of formats, including concentration limits in gr/dscf and
lb/1,000 lb gas for PM or PM10, mass emission rate limits in
lb/hr, and process weighted limits in lb/ton of steel. In addition, the
emission test period required for compliance with the existing State
limits varies from testing over the steel production cycle, only during
the oxygen blow, for 1-hour runs, and for 2-hour runs.
We developed separate subcategories for open and closed hood
furnaces due to the operational differences and volumetric air flow
rates between the two designs. This subcategorization is consistent
with the development of separate standards for open and closed hood
BOPF for the new source performance standard (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart N.
We examined the available test data for open hood BOPF, existing
State limits, and control measures to evaluate options for selecting
the MACT floor. We concluded that the source test data could not be
used to rank the relative performance of all of the shops for two
reasons. In several instances, the periods during which testing was
conducted differed substantially from plant to plant. Some plants
tested only during periods of oxygen blowing while others tested during
the entire production cycle from charge to tap. The emissions generated
and the control performance can be quite different depending on the
part of the production cycle tested. For example, the largest amount of
emissions is generated during the oxygen blow, and this period presents
the greatest challenge to the control device. Another difficulty with
some of the source test data is that measurements were made for PM-10
rather than for total PM which is the basis for the proposed PM limit.
As discussed earlier, there are two basic problems which prevent us
from assessing the relative stringency of existing State limits and
putting them on a common basis. The existing State limits are in
different formats, and the required testing periods associated with the
limits vary from plant to plant. Any attempt to convert them to a
common basis requires assumptions on parameters such as typical
volumetric flow rates and steel production rates, both of which have
the potential to introduce significant errors in the conversion.
Because the available data and State limits are not useful to
identify the five best-performing sources, we opted for the technology
floor approach. Control devices applied to primary emissions at open
hood shops include both ESP and venturi scrubbers. We have source test
data and design information for seven of the 16 open hood shops, five
with ESP and two with venturi scrubbers. The test data indicate that
the ESP perform better than the venturi scrubbers. All the test data
(charge-to-tap measurements) for the ESP are less than 0.019 gr/dscf.
All of the ESP are similar in design and
[[Page 36847]]
operation. All have three to five fields in series and operate at
specific collection areas greater than 300 square feet per thousand
cubic feet per minute. Data for the two plants with venturi scrubbers,
operating at pressure drops of 25 to 35 inches of water, averaged 0.025
and 0.035 gr/dscf, respectively. Based on these test data, we conclude
the existing inventory of ESP constitutes the MACT floor technology for
open hood BOPF.
We examined the test data for the five ESP for which we have both
design information and emission source test data. As noted previously,
all are similar in design and operation. We have data from 13 different
source tests; seven emission source tests at one facility, three tests
at another facility, and single tests at three other facilities. Each
of the performance tests is comprised of three individual test runs.
Each run was conducted over an entire furnace cycle from charge to tap.
The three-run averages for each of the 13 tests range from 0.004 to
0.019 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs range from 0.003 to 0.025
gr/dscf. Since each of the ESP is considered a MACT floor unit, we must
set the MACT floor at a level that reflects a reasonable worst-case
scenario and that accommodates the ordinary and unavoidable variability
in the performance of the MACT technology. We selected the highest
three-run average value of 0.019 gr/dscf for the MACT floor.
We also believe that this emission limit represents the best
performance that can reasonably be expected of an appropriately
designed and well maintained and operated ESP applied to open hood BOPF
emissions. Therefore, we selected 0.019 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for
open hood BOPF at both new and existing BOPF shops.
We examined the available test data for closed hood BOPF, existing
State limits, and control measures to evaluate options for selecting
the MACT floor. As was the case with open hood BOPF, we also had
limited actual emission data and a mixture of different formats for
State emission limits from closed hood BOPF. We looked at the
technology used to control primary emissions from closed hood BOPF and
found that all 16 of the furnaces at the eight closed hood shops use
high-energy venturi scrubbers. Closed hood systems produce an exhaust
gas high in CO which precludes the use of other types of control
devices (such as baghouses or ESP) due to potential explosion or fire
hazards.
We collected information on the design and operation of these
scrubbers through an industry survey. These scrubbers operate at a
pressure drop of 50 inches of water or more, and most have liquid-to-
gas ratios greater than 10 gallons per thousand cubic feet of gas. We
selected high-energy venturi scrubbers with a pressure drop of 50
inches of water or more as the floor technology for closed hood BOPF.
We have recent test data for only one of the eight closed hood
shops. In addition, we have performance test data from five other
furnaces that were collected and used to develop the NSPS. All tests
include three test runs and all were performed only during the oxygen
blow. Each of these plants use the MACT floor technology for closed
hood shops, which is a high-energy venturi scrubber with a pressure
drop of 50 inches of water or more. The three run averages for each of
the six tests range from 0.015 to 0.024 gr/dscf. Results from
individual runs range from 0.013 to 0.031 gr/dscf.
Since each of the scrubbers is considered a MACT floor unit, we
must set the MACT floor emission limit at a level that reflects a
reasonable worst-case scenario and that accommodates the ordinary and
unavoidable variability in the performance of the MACT technology. We
selected the highest three run average value of 0.024 gr/dscf as the
MACT floor. We also believe that this value represents the best
performance that can reasonably be expected of an appropriately
designed and well maintained and operated high-energy venturi scrubber
applied to closed hood BOPF emissions. Therefore, we have selected
0.024 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for closed hood BOPF at both new and
existing BOPF shops.
We examined options for better emissions reductions for open hood
BOPF. However, we could not find any control alternatives that would
provide reductions in HAP emissions beyond that demonstrated to be
achievable by ESP. Consequently, the floor (0.019 gr/dscf) was chosen
as the standard for both new and existing sources.
We examined options for more effective control for closed hood
BOPF. However, we could not find any alternative that would provide
greater reductions in HAP emissions from closed hood BOPF than high
energy venturi scrubbers. Consequently, the MACT floor (0.024 gr/dscf)
was chosen as the standard for both new and existing sources.
BOPF secondary emission control systems
Secondary or fugitive emissions occur from the BOPF when the molten
iron and scrap metal are charged to the furnace, and when the molten
steel and slag are tapped from the furnace. The emissions generated are
primarily metal oxides formed when oxygen in the air reacts with the
molten iron or steel. Twelve of the 23 BOPF shops have a separate
capture and control system for BOPF charging and tapping emissions. Ten
of these shops use baghouses and the other two use scrubbers. Existing
State limits for the control devices range from 0.0052 to 0.015 gr/dscf
and the NSPS limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. The most common limit is 0.01 gr/
dscf. Available data on secondary BOPF emissions are limited to one
test run at a facility using a baghouse, for which we have limited
documentation. This one test run measured a concentration value of
0.001 gr/dscf.
In selecting the MACT floor for existing sources, we evaluated all
of the available information on existing control measures, State
regulations, and actual emissions. Due to the limited information on
actual emissions available, we concluded that State regulations
provided the best and most complete information for establishing floor
limitations for secondary BOPF emission control systems. We believe
that these State limits are in fact a reasonable representation of what
is actually achieved in practice and are, therefore, suitable proxies
for establishing MACT floor conditions. The existing State emission
limits reflect a level of performance which, based on engineering
judgement, we would expect from the capture systems and control devices
which are currently applied to the control of emissions from secondary
BOPF emission control systems.
We examined the top five most stringent existing emission limits
for total PM. The five plants with the most stringent secondary BOPF
emission State limits are subject to concentration limits of 0.0052,
0.006, 0.01, 0.01 and 0.012 gr/dscf. Each of these is associated with a
facility with baghouse controls. The median of the five values produces
a MACT floor limit of 0.01 gr/dscf.
It is not likely that one test run will adequately reflect the full
range of performance of a particular technology, and the results of the
one available test run appear to represent, at most, what this type of
control is able to achieve under very favorable circumstances.
Therefore, we do not believe that it represents the actual level of
performance that this technology is capable of consistently achieving.
We believe that 0.01 gr/dscf reasonably represents the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources in the
category.
[[Page 36848]]
Consequently, we chose 0.01 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for existing
sources.
As with existing sources, MACT for new sources is also based on
existing State limits since we have no credible data on actual
emissions beyond the single test run. As noted above, the most
stringent State limit is 0.0052 gr/dscf. Consequently, we chose 0.0052
gr/dscf as the MACT floor for new sources.
Because of the limited amount of data available, we could not
identify any basis for developing a limit more stringent than the floor
for either new or existing BOPF shops. Consequently, we chose the MACT
floor as the standard for new and existing BOPF shops, 0.01 gr/dscf for
existing sources, and 0.0052 gr/dscf for new sources.
Hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle
metallurgy
There are several different ancillary operations performed within
the BOPF shop: (1) Operations associated with the molten iron before it
is charged to the BOPF (hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and slag
skimming), and (2) treatment of the molten steel after tapping (various
ladle metallurgy operations). The emissions from these operations are
primarily metal oxides formed when oxygen in the air reacts with the
molten iron or steel.
Molten iron is transported from the blast furnace casthouse to the
BOPF shop in a torpedo car and transferred to a vessel at the reladling
(or hot metal) station, where it is usually desulfurized and slag is
skimmed from the surface. Emissions from these operations are captured
by local hooding and controlled by a baghouse. Existing State emission
limits for these operations range from 0.0052 to 0.04 gr/dscf, but most
are on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf.
The steel from the BOPF is usually transferred to a ladle where
final adjustments in temperature and chemistry are made in an operation
known as ladle metallurgy. Emissions from ladle metallurgy are captured
by a close fitting hood and ducted to a baghouse. Existing State limits
for ladle metallurgy are a mixture of mass emission rates in lb/hr and
concentration limits in gr/dscf. The mass emission rate limits range
from 0.42 to 7.5 lb/hr, and the concentration limits range from 0.0052
to 0.02 gr/dscf.
In selecting the MACT floor for existing sources, we evaluated all
of the available information on control techniques, State regulations,
and actual emissions. Relative to information on actual emissions, we
have information on three tests of hot metal transfer and
desulfurization and seven tests of ladle metallurgy. Since all of the
facilities using controls use baghouses and have similar types of
emissions, we selected baghouses as the MACT floor technology for hot
metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy.
To develop the MACT floor limitation, we examined source test data
for three of the 23 baghouses that control emissions from hot metal
transfer and desulfurization, and for seven of the 20 baghouses that
control emissions from ladle metallurgy. Each performance test is
comprised of three individual runs. The three-run averages for the ten
tests range from 0.001 to 0.012 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs
range from 0.001 to 0.021 gr/dscf.
Since each of the baghouses is considered a MACT floor unit, we
must set the MACT floor at a level that reflects a reasonable worst-
case situation and that accommodates the ordinary and unavoidable
variation in the performance of the MACT technology. We looked at both
the highest three-run averages and highest individual runs measured. In
this case, both were obtained on the same baghouse, 0.012 and 0.021 gr/
dscf. An examination of the test results on all ten baghouses indicates
that these results are 2 to 2.5 times higher than those obtained on the
next highest emitting unit, suggesting that this baghouse is either an
under performer or that the test results include an outlier.
Eliminating the 0.021 gr/dscf value from the three-run average produces
an average of 0.007 gr/dscf which is in line with the next highest
emitting unit's three-run average of 0.006 gr/dscf and the highest
individual run of 0.0085 gr/dscf. Consequently, we believe the 0.021
gr/dscf value is an outlier and does not reflect the level of
performance demonstrated to be achievable for a baghouse applied to
emissions from hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and ladle
metallurgy operations.
We also believe that a concentration limit of 0.007 gr/dscf
represents the best reasonable expectation of performance for a
baghouse applied to these emission points. Therefore, we selected 0.007
gr/dscf as the MACT floor limit for emissions from hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy operations at both new and
existing BOPF shops.
We know of no control alternatives that would provide additional
reductions in HAP emissions for hot metal transfer, desulfurization,
slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy beyond that achieved with
baghouses. Consequently, the MACT floor (0.007 gr/dscf) was chosen as
the standard for both new and existing sources.
BOPF shop fugitive emissions
The BOPF shop is a building or structure that houses several
operations involved in steelmaking. These include hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, slag skimming stations; one or more BOPF for refining
iron into steel; and ladle metallurgy stations. Fugitive emissions from
these operations in the BOPF shop exit through the roof monitor and
other building openings.
In selecting the MACT floor for existing sources, we evaluated all
of the available information on existing control measures, State
regulations, and actual emissions. We were unable to locate any opacity
data to establish MACT floors for BOPF fugitive emissions based on
actual opacity readings. However, most States have visible emission
standards that limit opacity from BOPF shops during all periods of the
production cycle. In addition, there are existing NSPS opacity limits
applicable to fugitive emissions from BOPF shops. We believe that State
regulations provide the best and most complete information for
establishing floor limitations for fugitive emissions from BOPF shops.
We believe that these State limits are in fact a reasonable
representation of what is actually achieved in practice and are,
therefore, suitable proxies for establishing MACT floor conditions. The
existing State opacity limits reflect a level of performance which,
based on engineering judgement, we would expect to be achievable for
fugitive emissions from BOPF shops.
We decided to look at top and bottom blown furnaces independently
based on operational differences between the two designs. For top blown
furnaces, the most stringent and also the most common State standard is
a 20 percent limit (3-minute average) that is applied to 13 of the 20
BOPF shops that operate top blown furnaces. For bottom blown furnaces,
the BOPF shop with the most stringent standard is subject to a 10
percent opacity limit (6-minute average, with one exception per cycle
up to 20 percent). A second shop has three furnaces subject to a 20
percent limit (3-minute average). A third shop has two furnaces subject
to a 20 percent limit (6-minute average), and a third subject to a 10
percent limit (3-minute average), with one 3-minute average greater
than 10 percent but less than 20 percent applied only during hot metal
transfer or skimming operations. Similar to the existing State
standards, the NSPS for top blown furnaces applies during the entire
production cycle. However, the NSPS for bottom blown furnaces applies
only during periods of hot metal transfer
[[Page 36849]]
and slag skimming. Both standards limit opacity to less than 10 percent
(3-minute average), except that one 3-minute average greater than 10
percent but less than 20 percent can occur during each applicable
performance period.
We are selecting a 20 percent (3-minute average) opacity limit as
the MACT floor for existing sources for both new and existing top blown
and bottom blown BOPF shops. In both cases, this level of control
corresponds to the median level of control achieved by the top five
performing shops. For top blown BOPF shops, the MACT floor for new
sources is an opacity limit of 10 percent (3-minute average), except
for one 3-minute average greater than 10 percent but less than 20
percent. This limit is based on the most stringent existing limit
applicable to top blown BOPF shops (the existing NSPS). For bottom
blown BOPF shops, we are selecting a MACT floor limit of 10 percent
opacity (6-minute average with one exception per cycle up to 20
percent) for new sources, based on the most stringent existing State
limit. This limit is more stringent than the NSPS since it applies
during all periods of the production cycle rather than only during hot
metal transfer and skimming.
Because of the limited amount of data available, we could not
identify any basis for developing a limit more stringent than the floor
for either new or existing BOPF shops. Consequently, we chose the MACT
floor as the standard for both new and existing bottom and top blown
BOPF shops. For both existing bottom blown and top blown BOPF shops, we
selected an opacity limit for fugitive emissions of 20 percent using 3-
minute averages. For new bottom blown BOPF shops, we selected an
opacity limit for fugitive emissions of 10 percent opacity limit (6-
minute average, with one exception per cycle up to 20 percent), which
is based on the most stringent State limit. For new top blown BOPF
shops, we are selecting an opacity limit of 10 percent (3-minute
average), except that one 3-minute average greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent can occur during each steel production cycle.
D. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?
The proposed rule requires a performance test for each control
device to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable PM limit,
and the reference method for PM is EPA Method 5 or 5D in 40 CFR part
60, appendix A (or ASTM 4536-96). The proposed rule also requires that
a certified observer conduct a performance test by EPA Method 9 in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine the opacity of fugitive
emissions. Consistent with Method 9 and the requirements of the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), we are requiring that
opacity observations be made for at least 3 hours. We are also
requiring that compliance testing for PM and opacity be performed
during the production period with the greatest emissions, which is
during tapping for the blast furnace; during the steel production cycle
for open hood BOPF; and during the oxygen blow for closed hood BOPF.
For the measurement of oil content, we chose EPA Method 9071B, ``n-
Hexane Extractable Material for Sludge, Sediment, and Solid Samples.''
This method is used to quantify low concentrations of oil in solid
materials by extracting the sample with hexane to dissolve the oil,
evaporating the hexane, and weighing the residue (oil). This is
consistent with the method specified in Indiana's regulation for the
oil content of sinter feed. Three samples of the sinter feed must be
taken at 8-hour intervals each day. The three samples are composited
and analyzed for oil content to provide a measure of the percent oil in
the sinter feed for that day. The daily results are averaged over a 30-
day period on a rolling basis to determine the 30-day rolling average.
We chose a format of a 30-day rolling average for the standard because
it is consistent with the data on which the limit is based, which were
long term averages of historical measurements, and provides for
dampening of possible short-term intermittent spikes in oil content.
We also require that certain operating limits be determined during
the initial compliance test to ensure that capture and control devices
operate properly on a continuing basis. All operating limits must be
established during a performance test that demonstrates compliance with
the applicable emission limit. During performance tests for PM,
operating limits must be established for pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate for venturi scrubbers, and opacity (using a COMS) for
ESP. During opacity observations of roof monitors, operating limits
must be established for capture systems used on the sinter plant
discharge end, blast furnace casthouse, and BOPF secondary emissions.
Two options are available for the operating limits for these capture
systems: (1) Establish a minimum volumetric flow rate for each
individual duct, or (2) establish a minimum volumetric flow rate for
the total flow to the control device along with settings for damper
positions.
E. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
For continuous compliance, we chose periodic performance testing
for PM and opacity, which is consistent with current permit
requirements. We consulted with several States on how they were
implementing title V permitting requirements for performance tests. In
general, performance tests are repeated every 2.5 to 5 years, depending
on the magnitude of the source. Consequently, we decided that
performance tests should be repeated no less frequently than twice per
permit term of a source's title V operating permit (at mid-term and
renewal).
Continuous compliance provisions were also established for capture
equipment used on the discharge end, blast furnace casthouse, and BOPF
secondary emissions to ensure the emissions are captured. There are two
options: (1) Monitor the volumetric flow rate in each individual duct,
or (2) monitor the total volumetric flow rate to the control device in
combination with damper positions. These parameters must be in the
range established during the EPA Method 9 performance test. We believe
this monitoring will be sufficient to assure that ventilation adequate
for the capture of fugitive emissions consistent with that demonstrated
during the initial performance test will be maintained.
We also developed procedures to ensure that control equipment is
operating properly on a continuous basis. When baghouses are used, the
alarm for the bag leak detection system must not sound for more than 5
percent of the time in any semiannual reporting period. Venturi
scrubbers must be monitored for pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate, and they must not fall below the limits established during the
performance test. Electrostatic precipitators must be monitored for
opacity using COMS. The opacity must not exceed the operating limit
established during the performance test. If a facility uses equipment
other than a baghouse, venturi scrubber, or ESP to control emissions
from an affected source, the owner or operator would be required to
send us a monitoring plan containing information on the type of device,
performance test results, appropriate operating parameters to be
monitored, operating limits, and operation and maintenance.
For demonstrating continuous compliance with the oil content
standard on sinter plant feed, we chose daily sampling and analysis of
sinter
[[Page 36850]]
plant feed with daily compliance determined against a 30-day rolling
average.
F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A). One-time notifications are needed by EPA to
know what facilities are subject to the standard, if a facility has
complied with the rule requirements, and when certain events such as
performance tests and performance evaluations are scheduled. Semiannual
compliance reports containing information on any deviation from the
rule requirements are also required. These reports would include
information on any deviation that occurred during the reporting period;
if no deviation occurred, only summary information would be required.
Consistent with the General Provisions, we also require an immediate
report of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction where the actions taken
in response were not consistent with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. This information is needed to determine if changes to
the plan need to be made. Records would be required of information
needed to document compliance with the rule requirements. These
notifications, reports, and records are the minimum needed to ensure
initial and continuous compliance.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
Generally, we do not expect the impacts of the proposed rule to be
very serious or significant. Most plants have and continue to operate
air pollution control equipment sufficient to meet all or most of the
emission limitations contained in the proposed rule. Our best
projection is that four plants will have to upgrade or install new
control equipment on one or more of the affected sources. One plant
does not have controls for fugitive emissions from their blast furnace
casthouse and may have to install a capture and control system. One
plant is expected to install new venturi scrubbers for their primary
emission control system in the BOPF shop, and another plant will need
to upgrade their venturi scrubbers. One of these plants may also need
to install a capture and control system for fugitive emissions from the
BOPF because they operate a closed hood BOPF without a capture system.
Two plants use venturi scrubbers as the control devices for fugitive
emissions from the BOPF; these plants may need to replace the scrubbers
with baghouses.
A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?
The installation of new controls and upgrades discussed in the
preceding paragraph will result in reductions in emissions of metal HAP
and PM. We estimate that the new capture and control system for the
blast furnace casthouse will reduce these emissions by 90 percent, a
reduction of 2 tons per year (tpy) of HAP and 324 tpy of PM. The new
BOPF scrubbers at one plant and upgrade at another will result in a 50
percent reduction in emissions, 2.8 tpy of HAP and 315 tpy of PM. The
new capture and control system for fugitive emissions from the BOPF
would result in a 90 percent reduction in emissions, 6 tpy of HAP and
600 tpy of PM. We expect that the upgrade or replacement of the two
scrubbers used as controls for BOPF fugitive emissions would result in
a 50 percent reduction in emissions, 2.7 tpy of HAP and 270 tpy of PM.
Overall, the proposed standard is expected to reduce metal HAP
emissions by 13 tpy and PM emissions by about 1,500 tpy.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The nationwide capital and annual costs of new and upgraded capture
and control systems are estimated at $34 million and $5.9 million/yr,
respectively. The total nationwide annual costs (including monitoring
and recordkeeping) are about $6.2 million/yr. These costs are based on
a new primary control system for one BOPF shop, upgraded controls at
another, two new capture and control systems for secondary BOPF
emissions, and one new capture and control system for a blast furnace
casthouse. In addition, the estimate includes the cost of bag leak
detection systems for baghouses.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to determine the
impacts of the proposed rule on both the industry and the U.S. market
for steel mill products. We estimate the economic impacts in both areas
to be negligible. We project the price of steel mill products, in
aggregate, to increase by less than 0.1 percent with domestic
production from integrated mills declining by only 3,100 short tons.
This slight decline in production at affected integrated mills is
somewhat offset by increases at nonintegrated domestic steel producers
(600 short tons) and foreign imports (600 short tons). In terms of
industry impacts, the integrated steel producers are projected to
experience a slight decrease in operating profits of $5.2 million
annually, which reflects increased costs of compliance and associated
reductions in revenues from producing final steel mill products. In
addition, we don't foresee any individual integrated facility being in
jeopardy of closure because of the proposed standards.
Based on the market analysis, the annual costs to society of the
proposed rule are projected to be $5.9 million. As a result of slightly
higher prices for steel mill products, the final consumers of these
products will incur an additional $1.7 million annually. Integrated
steel mills are expected to decline $5.2 million annually in profits
related to directly incurred control costs and reduced product
revenues. Non-integrated steel mills that directly compete with
integrated mills in these markets and are unaffected by today's
proposed rule will experience a slight increase in profits of $0.6
million. Similarly, foreign steel producers will also experience a
slight increase in profits of $0.4 million due to the slightly higher
prices and increases in imports to the U.S. market. For more
information, consult the economic impact analysis supporting this
proposed rule.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
Implementation of the rule as proposed would be expected to result
in a small increase in solid waste: 3,200 tpy of sludge and 1,200 tpy
of dust. The energy increase could be expected to be 24,000 megawatt-
hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new venturi
scrubbers.
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from all
interested parties. You need to submit full supporting data and
detailed analysis with your comments to allow use to make the best use
of them. Be sure to direct your comments to the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-2000-44 (see ADDRESSEES).
We are requesting comments on two specific issues. The first is
whether the emission limit for the windbox exhaust at sinter plants
should be expressed in terms of lb/ton of sinter (0.3 lb/ton),
concentration (0.01 gr/dscf for baghouses and 0.03 gr/dscf for
scrubbers), or a combination. The second issue is whether MACT
standards are warranted for the discharge end and sinter cooler at
sinter plants and for ladle metallurgy operations in the BOPF shop. The
[[Page 36851]]
discharge end contributes only 1 percent of the HAP emissions from
sinter plants, and the cooler contributes less than 10 percent. Ladle
metallurgy contributes less than 1 percent of the HAP emissions from
BOPF shops.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this regulatory action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this
action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review
under Executive Order 12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. None of
the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments, and
the proposed rule would not preempt any State laws that are more
stringent. Therefore, it will not have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In
addition, the proposed rule is required by statute and, if implemented,
will not impose any substantial direct compliance costs. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by
Executive Order 13175. However, this proposed rule was developed during
the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. Development
of the final rule will address tribal considerations under Executive
Order 13175. Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a
regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities,
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA
consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or
operate integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. The
proposed rule is required by statute and will not impose any
substantial direct compliance costs. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to
[[Page 36852]]
influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is technology based and not based on
health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed
because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater
stringency at a reasonable cost. Further, this proposed rule has been
determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost
of this proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than
$6 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. et seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for
NAICS code 331111 (i.e., Iron and Steel Mills) of 1,000 or fewer
employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
Based on the above definition of small entities, the Agency has
determined that there are no small businesses within this source
category that would be subject to this proposed rule. Therefore,
because this proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2003.01), and a copy may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail
at [email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy also may
be downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The rule would require applicable one-time notifications required
by the General Provisions for each affected source. As required by the
NESHAP General Provisions, all plants would be required to prepare and
operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants also would
be required to prepare an operation and maintenance plan for capture
systems and control devices subject to operating limits. Records would
be required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the monitoring,
operation, and maintenance requirements for capture systems, control
devices, and monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are
required. These reports would describe any deviation from the
standards, any period a continuous monitoring system was ``out-of-
control,'' or any startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where actions
taken to respond were inconsistent with startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. If no deviation or other event occurred, only a
summary report would be required. Consistent with the General
Provisions, if actions taken in response to a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction event are not consistent with the plan, an immediate report
must be submitted within 2 days of the event with a letter report 7
days later.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 5,512 labor
[[Page 36853]]
hours per year at a total annual cost of $352,302, including labor,
capital, and operation and maintenance.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2136), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in
any correspondence. Because OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 13, 2001, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by August 13, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in this proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA proposes
to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, and 17 in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A; Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B; and OSW 846 Method 9071B. Consistent with the
NTTAA, we conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, and OSW 846
Method 9071B. The search and review results have been documented and
placed in Docket A-2000-44.
One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable to
PS-1. The standard ASTM D6216 (1998), Standard Practice for Opacity
Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and
Performance Specifications, has been incorporated by reference into PS-
1 (65 FR 48920, August 10, 2000).
Another voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D4536-96, Particulate
(Matter) Modified High Volume, is being proposed as an alternative to
the sampling equipment and procedures in Method 5 or 17 in conducting
emissions testing of positive pressure baghouses. The ASTM D4536-96
equipment and procedures would be used in conjunction with the sample
traverse and calculations as described in Method 5D for the
application. We invite comments on whether including this ASTM standard
method is appropriate for this or other applications.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standards we propose to use
in this rule, our search for emissions monitoring procedures identified
15 other voluntary consensus standards. We determined that 12 of these
15 standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the
purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, we do not propose to include
these 12 voluntary consensus standards in this proposed rule. Our
detailed review comments for these 12 standards are in Docket A-2000-
44.
Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were unavailable at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of this proposed rule because they are under development by
the voluntary consensus body. Our review comments for these three
standards are in Docket A-2000-44.
The EPA invites comment on the compliance demonstration
requirements proposed in this rule and specifically invites the public
to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Commentors should also explain why this regulation should adopt these
voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's
standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the
recommendation, including method validation data the procedure used to
validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40
CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
The EPA test methods and performance specifications that would be
required for integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities are
included in Secs. 63.7822, 63.7823, and 63.7831 of the proposed rule.
Under Sec. 63.8 of the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Iron and steel,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 19, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(20) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(20) ASTM D4536-96, Standard Test Method for High-Volume Sampling
for Solid Particulate Matter and Determination of Particulate
Emissions,
[[Page 36854]]
IBR approved [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] for Sec. 63.7822.
* * * * *
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart FFFFF to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
What This Subpart Covers
63.7780 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7781 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
63.7784-63.7789 [Reserved]
Emission Limitations
63.7790 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.7791-63.7799 [Reserved]
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
63.7801-63.7809 [Reserved]
General Compliance Requirements
63.7810 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.7811-63.7819 [Reserved]
Initial Compliance Requirements
63.7820 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7822 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter?
63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
63.7824 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating
limits?
63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations that apply to me?
63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7827-63.7829 [Reserved]
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.7831 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
63.7832 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
63.7834 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
63.7836-63.7839 [Reserved]
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7842 What records must I keep?
63.7843 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
63.7844-63.7849 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
63.7850 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7851 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.7853-63.7879 [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.7780 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate
initial and continuous compliance with all applicable emission
limitations and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart.
Sec. 63.7781 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facility that is (or is part of) a major
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first
compliance date that applies to you. Your integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facility is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.
Sec. 63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source
at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility.
(b) The affected sources are each new or existing sinter plant,
blast furnace, and basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shop at your
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility.
(c) This subpart covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse;
and the BOPF shop including each individual BOPF and shop ancillary
operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag
skimming, and ladle metallurgy).
(d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or BOPF shop at your integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facility is existing if you commenced
construction or reconstruction of the affected source before July 13,
2001.
(e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or BOPF shop at your integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facility is new if you commence
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after July
23, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the
definition of ``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation and operation and maintenance requirement in
this subpart that applies to you no later than [2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], then you must comply with each emission limitation and
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to
you by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must comply with each emission limitation and operation
and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon
initial startup.
(d) If your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is an
area source that becomes a major source of HAP, the following
compliance dates apply to you:
[[Page 36855]]
(1) Any portion of the existing integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facility that is a new affected source or a new
reconstructed source must be in compliance with this subpart upon
startup.
(2) All other parts of the integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility must be in compliance with this subpart no later than 2 years
after it becomes a major source.
(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.7840. Several of these notifications must be submitted before
the compliance date for your affected source.
Secs. 63.7784-63.7789 [Reserved]
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.7790 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit and opacity limit in Table 1
to this subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit for capture and control
devices in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section that applies
to you.
(1) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse, you must:
(i) Maintain the hourly average volumetric flow rate through each
separately ducted hood in the capture system at or above the minimum
level established during the initial performance test; or
(ii) Maintain the total hourly average volumetric flow rate at the
control device inlet at or above the minimum level established during
the initial performance test and all capture system dampers in the same
position as during the initial performance test.
(2) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a
BOPF, you must:
(i) Maintain the average volumetric flow rate through each
separately ducted hood in the capture system for each steel production
cycle at or above the minimum level established during the initial
performance test; or
(ii) Maintain the total average volumetric flow rate at the control
device inlet for each steel production cycle at or above the minimum
level established during the initial performance test and all capture
system dampers in the same position as during the initial performance
test.
(3) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1, you must operate the baghouse such that the bag leak
detection system does not alarm for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in any semiannual reporting period.
(4) For each venturi scrubber applied to meet any particulate
emission limit in Table 1, you must maintain the hourly average
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum
levels established during the initial performance test.
(5) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
BOPF, you must maintain the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting
the control device stack at or below the level established during the
initial performance test.
(6) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device
other than a baghouse, venturi scrubber, or electrostatic precipitator
must submit a description of the device; test results collected in
accordance with Sec. 63.7822 verifying the performance of the device
for reducing emissions of particulate matter to the atmosphere to the
levels required by this subpart; a copy of the operation and
maintenance plan required in Sec. 63.7800(b); and appropriate operating
parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance
with the applicable emission limitation(s). The monitoring plan
identifying the operating parameters to be monitored is subject to
approval by the Administrator.
(c) For each sinter plant, you must maintain the 30-day rolling
average oil content of the sinter plant feedstock at or below 0.025
percent.
Secs. 63.7791-63.7799 [Reserved]
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Sec. 63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels
required by this subpart.
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system and
control device subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b). Each
plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the
performance of the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors,
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g.,
presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by
dents or accumulated dust in ductwork, and fan erosion). The operation
and maintenance plan also must include requirements to repair any
defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next scheduled
inspection.
(2) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(3) In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered,
you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm
within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the
cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the
corrective action as soon as practicable. Actions may include, but are
not limited to:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repair the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
Secs. 63.7801-63.7809 [Reserved]
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7810 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction as defined
in Sec. 63.2.
(b) During the period between the compliance date specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.7783 and the date upon which continuous
monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any applicable
operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control
equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
[[Page 36856]]
Secs. 63.7811-63.7819 [Reserved]
Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7820 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) As required in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance
test within 180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified
in Sec. 63.7783 for your affected source to demonstrate initial
compliance with each emission and opacity limit in Table 1 to this
subpart that applies to you, and the 30-day rolling average oil content
limit for the sinter plant feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(c).
(b) For each operation and maintenance requirement that applies to
you where initial compliance is not demonstrated using a performance
test or opacity observation, you must demonstrate initial compliance
within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.7783.
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July
13, 2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the
proposed emission limit or the promulgated emission limit no later than
[180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] or no later than 180 days after startup of the
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between [INSERT
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE Federal Register] and
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], and
you chose to comply with the proposed emission limit when demonstrating
initial compliance, you must conduct a second performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the promulgated emission limit by [3 YEARS
AND 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], or after startup of the source, whichever is later,
according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable emission and opacity limits in Table 1
to this subpart no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and renewal)
during each term of your title V operating permit.
Sec. 63.7822 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.
(b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for
particulate matter in Table 1 to this subpart, follow the test methods
and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to
the following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter:
(i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of
the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5, 5D, or 17, as applicable, to determine the
concentration of particulate matter. You can also use ASTM D4536-96
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) as an alternative to the
sampling equipment and operating procedures in Method 5 or 17 when
testing a positive pressure baghouse, but you must use the sample
traverse location and number of sampling points described in Method 5D.
(2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet
of gas during each particulate matter test run. Three valid test runs
are needed to comprise a performance test.
(c) For each sinter plant windbox exhaust stream, you must complete
the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Include procedures in your source test plan for measuring and
recording the sinter production rate for each test run in tons per
hour; and
(2) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep) for
each test run using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP13JY01.000
Where:
Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions of particulate matter,
lb/ton;
C = Concentration of particulate matter, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
P = Production rate of sinter during the test run, tons/hr; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.
(d) If you apply two or more control devices in parallel to
emissions from a sinter plant discharge end, compute the average flow-
weighted concentration for each test run using Equation 2 of this
section as follows:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP13JY01.001
Where:
Cw = Flow-weighted concentration, gr/dscf;
Ci = Concentration of particulate matter from exhaust stream
``i'', gr/dscf; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust
stream ``i'', dscfm.
(e) For a control device applied to emissions from a blast furnace
casthouse, sample for an integral number of furnace tapping operations
sufficient to obtain at least 1 hour of sampling for each test run.
(f) For a primary emission control device applied to emissions from
a BOPF with a closed hood system, sample only during the primary oxygen
blow and do not sample during any subsequent reblows. Continue sampling
for each run for an integral number of primary oxygen blows.
(g) For a primary emission control system applied to emissions from
a BOPF with an open hood system and for a control device applied solely
to secondary emissions from a BOPF, you must complete the requirements
of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Sample only during the steel production cycle. Discontinue
sampling during periods of abnormal operation. Record the start and end
time of each steel production cycle and each period of abnormal
operation; and
(2) Sample for an integral number of steel production cycles. The
steel production cycle begins when the scrap or hot metal is charged to
the furnace (whichever operation occurs first) and ends 3 minutes after
the slag is emptied from the vessel into the slag pot. Consecutive
cycles are not required for determining compliance.
(h) For a control device applied to emissions from BOPF shop
ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or
ladle metallurgy), sample only when the operation(s) is being
conducted.
[[Page 36857]]
Sec. 63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(h)(5) and
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) You must conduct each visible emissions performance test such
that the opacity observations overlap with the performance test for
particulate matter.
(c) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in
Table 1 to this subpart for a sinter plant discharge end or a blast
furnace casthouse:
(1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(2) Obtain a minimum of 30 6-minute averages. For a blast furnace
casthouse, make observations during tapping of the furnace. Tapping
begins when the furnace is opened, usually by creating a hole near the
bottom of the furnace, and ends when the hole is plugged.
(d) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in
Table 1 to this subpart for BOPF shops:
(1) For an existing BOPF shop:
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter except
as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(ii) Instead of procedures in section 2.4 of Method 9 in appendix A
to part 60 of this chapter, record observations to the nearest 5
percent at 15-second intervals for at least three steel production
cycles.
(iii) Instead of procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix
A to part 60 of this chapter, determine the 3-minute average opacity
from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second
intervals.
(2) For a new BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF:
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(ii) Select the highest and second highest sets of 6-minute average
opacities for each steel production cycle.
(3) For a new BOPF shop housing a top-blown BOPF:
(i) Determine the opacity of emissions according to the
requirements for an existing BOPF shop in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(ii) Select the highest and second highest sets of 3-minute average
opacities for each steel production cycle.
(4) Opacity observations must cover the entire steel production
cycle and must be made for at least three cycles. The steel production
cycle begins when the scrap or hot metal is charged to the furnace
(whichever operation occurs first) and ends 3 minutes after the slag is
emptied from the vessel into the slag pot. Consecutive cycles are not
required for determining compliance.
(5) Determine and record the starting and stopping times of the
steel production cycle.
Sec. 63.7824 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?
(a) For a capture system applied to emissions from a sinter plant
discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to an operating
limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1) for flow rate, you must establish a site-
specific operating limit(s) according to the procedures in paragraph
(a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for
the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood:
(i) Using the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
required in Sec. 63.7830(a)(1), measure and record the actual
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood in the capture
system during each visible emissions performance test.
(ii) Compute and record the hourly average volumetric flow rate for
the performance test. Your operating limit is the lowest hourly flow
rate value in a test that meets the opacity limit.
(2) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii) for
total flow rate and damper position:
(i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(a)(2), measure and
record the total volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet
during each visible emissions performance test.
(ii) Compute and record the hourly average flow rate for the
performance test. Your operating limit is the lowest hourly flow rate
value in a test that meets the opacity limit.
(iii) Record the position of each damper for the capture system
damper position during the visible emissions performance test. Your
operating limit is the position of each damper.
(b) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a
BOPF and subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2) for flow
rate, you must establish a site-specific operating limit(s) according
to the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for
the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood:
(i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(b)(1), measure and
record the actual volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted
hood in the capture system for each steel production cycle during the
visible emissions performance test.
(ii) Compute and record the average volumetric flow rate for each
steel production cycle during the performance test. Your operating
limit is the lowest average flow rate value in a test that meets the
opacity limit.
(2) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii) for
total flow rate and damper position:
(i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(b)(2), measure and
record the total volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet for
each steel production cycle during the visible emissions performance
test.
(ii) Compute and record the average flow rate for the performance
test. Your operating limit is the lowest average flow rate value in a
test that meets the opacity limit.
(iii) Record the position of each damper for the capture system
damper position during the visible emissions performance test. Your
operating limit is the position of each damper.
(c) For a venturi scrubber subject to operating limits for pressure
drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you must
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(d), measure and record
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate during each run of the
particulate matter performance test.
(2) Compute and record the hourly average pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating
limits are the lowest average pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate value in any of the three runs that meet the applicable emission
limit.
(d) For an electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5) for opacity, you must establish a site-
specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required
in Sec. 63.7830(e), measure and record the opacity of emissions from
each control device stack during each run of the particulate matter
performance test.
[[Page 36858]]
(2) Compute and record the hourly average opacity for each
individual test run. Your operating limit is the highest hourly opacity
in any of the three runs that meet the emission limit.
(e) You may change the operating limits for a capture system,
venturi scrubber, or electrostatic precipitator if you meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating
limit.
(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(f) To determine compliance with the operating limit for the oil
content of the sinter plant feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(c), follow the
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Sample the feedstock three times a day (once every 8 hours),
composite the three samples each day, and analyze the composited
samples using Method 9071B ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846 (Revision 2, April
1998) (Incorporated by reference).
(2) Continue the sampling and analysis procedure for 30 consecutive
days.
(3) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average using that day's
value and the 29 previous daily values.
Sec. 63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each affected source subject to an emission or opacity
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you have demonstrated initial
compliance if:
(1) You meet the conditions in Table 2 to this subpart; and
(2) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to the
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1), you have established appropriate
site-specific operating limit(s) and:
(i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for
flow rate, you have a record of the actual volumetric flow rate through
each separately ducted hood measured during the performance test in
accordance with Sec. 63.7824(a)(1); or
(ii) If you elect the operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii)
for total flow rate and damper position, you have a record of the total
volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control device measured during
the performance test and the position of each damper during the test in
accordance with Sec. 63.7824(a)(2); and
(3) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a
BOPF and subject to the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limit(s) and:
(i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for
flow rate, you have a record of the actual volumetric flow rate through
each separately ducted hood measured during each steel production cycle
in the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(b)(1); or
(ii) If you elect the operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii)
for total flow rate and damper position, you have a record of the total
volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control device measured during
each steel production cycle in the performance test and the position of
each damper during the test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(b)(2); and
(4) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(c); and
(5) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you have established an
appropriate site-specific operating limit and have a record of the
opacity measurements made during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.7824(d).
(b) For each existing or new sinter plant subject to the operating
limit for the oil content of the feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(c), you have
demonstrated initial compliance if the 30-day rolling average of the
oil content of the feedstock, measured during the initial performance
test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(f), is no more than 0.025 percent.
(c) For each emission limitation that applies to you, you must
submit a notification of compliance status according to
Sec. 63.7840(e).
Sec. 63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) You have demonstrated initial compliance if you certify in your
notification of compliance status that:
(1) You have prepared the operation and maintenance plan according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7800(b); and
(2) You will operate each capture system and control device
according to the procedures in the plan; and
(3) You submit a notification of compliance status according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7840(e).
(b) [Reserved]
Secs. 63.7827-63.7829 [Reserved]
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to an
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1), you must meet the requirements
in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for
flow rate, you must at all times monitor the hourly average actual
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood using a CPMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a).
(2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii), you must at all times monitor the
average hourly total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control
device using a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a)
and make a visual check at least once every 24 hours to verify that
each damper for the capture system is in the same position as during
the initial performance test.
(b) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a
BOPF and subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you must
meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for
flow rate, you must at all times monitor the average actual volumetric
flow rate through each separately ducted hood for each steel production
cycle using a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a).
(2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii), you must at all times monitor the
average total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control device
for each steel production cycle using a CPMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a) and make a visual check at least once
every 24 hours to verify that each damper for the capture system is in
the same position as during the initial performance test.
(c) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7790(b)(3) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must at
all times monitor the relative
[[Page 36859]]
change in particulate matter loadings using a bag leak detection system
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(b) and conduct
inspections at their specified frequencies according to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the manual.
(2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
(7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
(8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
(d) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you
must at all times monitor the hourly average pressure drop and water
flow rate using a CPMS according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7831(c).
(e) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you must at all times monitor
the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting each control device
stack using a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(f).
Sec. 63.7831 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
(a) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse that is subject to
operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1) for flow rate and for each
capture system applied to secondary emissions from a BOPF that is
subject to operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2) for flow rate, you
must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow
and that reduces swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the flow rate.
(3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7790(b)(3) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must
install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according
to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot)
or less.
(2) The system must provide output of relative changes in
particulate matter loadings.
(3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset
level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the
appropriate plant personnel.
(4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997. You may obtain a copy of this guidance
document by contacting the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) at 800-553-6847. You may install, operate, and maintain other
types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with the
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
(5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time.
(6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity
or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time,
except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
(7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(c) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7790(b)(4) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you
must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For the pressure drop CPMS, you must:
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and
external corrosion.
(ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
(iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
(vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(2) For the scrubber water flow rate CPMS, you must:
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream
disturbances.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the flow rate.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS for a capture
system applied to emissions from a sinter plant discharge end or blast
furnace casthouse and each CPMS for a venturi scrubber according to the
[[Page 36860]]
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of three of
the required four data points to constitute a valid hour of data.
(2) Each CPMS must have valid hourly data for at least 95 percent
of every averaging period.
(3) Each CPMS must determine and record the hourly average of all
recorded readings.
(e) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS for a capture
system applied to secondary emissions from a BOPF according to the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period during a steel production cycle.
(2) Each CPMS must have valid data for at least 95 percent of every
averaging period.
(3) Each CPMS must determine and record the average of all recorded
readings for a steel production cycle.
(f) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you must install, operate, and
maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) You must install each COMS and conduct a performance evaluation
of each COMS according to Sec. 63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
(2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec. 63.8. At a
minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration
drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero
alignment of each COMS.
(3) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to
Sec. 63.8(e) and your quality control program. Identify periods the
COMS is out of control, including any periods that the COMS fails to
pass a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit,
or annual zero alignment audit.
(4) You must determine and record the hourly average opacity using
all the 6-minute averages collected for periods during which the COMS
is not out of control.
Sec. 63.7832 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times an affected source is operating.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels or to fulfill a minimum data availability requirement,
if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other
periods in assessing compliance.
(c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions.
Sec. 63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each affected source subject to an emission or opacity
limit in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance
according to the requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.
(b) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to an
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
of this section:
(1) If you elect the operating limit for flow rate in
Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i):
(i) Maintaining the hourly average volumetric flow rate through
each separately ducted hood at or above the level established during
the initial or subsequent performance test;
(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements; and
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the actual
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood according to
Sec. 63.7831(d).
(2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii):
(i) Maintaining the hourly average total volumetric flow rate at
the control device inlet at or above the level established during the
initial or subsequent performance test and all capture system damper
positions in the same positions as during the initial or subsequent
performance test;
(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements;
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the total
volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet according to
Sec. 63.7831(d); and
(iv) Checking all capture system dampers at least once each day (24
hours) to verify each damper is in the same position as during the
initial or subsequent performance test and recording all information
needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(c) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a
BOPF and subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you must
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) If you elect the operating limit for flow rate in
Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i):
(i) Maintaining the average volumetric flow rate through each
separately ducted hood for each steel production cycle at or above the
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test;
(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements; and
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the actual
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood according to
Sec. 63.7831(e).
(2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii):
(i) Maintaining the average total volumetric flow rate at the
control device inlet for each steel production cycle at or above the
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test and
all capture system damper positions in the same positions as during the
initial or subsequent performance test;
(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements;
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the total
volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet according to
Sec. 63.7831(e); and
(iv) Checking all capture system dampers at least once each day (24
hours) to verify each damper is in the
[[Page 36861]]
same position as during the initial or subsequent performance test and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements.
(d) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit for the bag
leak detection system alarm in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Maintaining each baghouse such that the bag leak detection
system alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating
time during any semiannual reporting period. To determine the percent
of time the alarm sounded:
(i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak
detection system are not included in the calculation.
(ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and all the actions you took
during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the
procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour.
(iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the
alarm.
(v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the
total operating time multiplied by 100.
(2) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated
corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on
which corrective action was completed.
(3) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7830(c)(1) through (8) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection
system beyond the limits specified in Sec. 63.7831(b)(6), you must
include a copy of the required written certification by a responsible
official in the next semiannual compliance report.
(e) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you
must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements
of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Maintaining the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water
flow rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial
or subsequent performance test;
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each venturi scrubber CPMS according
to Sec. 63.7831(c) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec. 63.7831(d) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(f) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the site-
specific opacity operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you must
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Maintaining the hourly average opacity of emissions no higher
than the site-specific limit established during the initial or
subsequent performance test;
(2) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data
according to Sec. 63.7831(f).
(g) For each new or existing sinter plant subject to the operating
limit for the feedstock oil content in Sec. 63.7790(c), you must
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Sampling and recording the oil content of the sinter plant
feedstock every 24 hours according to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7824(f);
(2) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average oil content
for each operating day; and
(3) Maintaining the oil content of the feedstock no higher than
0.025 percent at all times.
Sec. 63.7834 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each capture system and control device subject to an
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in
Sec. 63.7800(b) by completing the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section:
(1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems according to
Sec. 63.7800(b)(1) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements;
(2) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device
according to Sec. 63.7800(b)(2) and recording all information needed to
document conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak
detection system alarm according to Sec. 63.7800(b)(3) and recording
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and
maintenance plan required in Sec. 63.7800(b) onsite and available for
inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the life of the
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to
the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emission limitation in Sec. 63.7790 that applies to you. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You also must
report each instance in which you did not meet each operation and
maintenance requirement in Sec. 63.7800 that applies to you. These
instances are deviations from the emission limitations and operation
and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be
reported according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7841.
(b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(1) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations,
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Secs. 63.7836-63.7839 [Reserved]
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.6(h)(4)
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b)
[[Page 36862]]
through (h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than [120
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start your new affected
source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must submit your initial notification no later
than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, opacity
observation, or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit
a notification of compliance status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.7783 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes
first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in
Sec. 63.7783.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your
first compliance report is due.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(3)(iii)(A), you may
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and,
as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance
requirements in Secs. 63.7833 and 63.7834 that apply to you, a
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations
or operation and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS or COMS) was out-of-control as specified in
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which
the CPMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Sec. 63.7790
that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with an emission
limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the
information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the
corrective action taken.
(8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including the information in
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown,
control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and
other unknown causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source
operating time during the reporting period.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
[[Page 36863]]
(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or
71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation or
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of
a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may
have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected
source to your permitting authority.
Sec. 63.7842 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the following records:
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and
opacity observations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as
required in Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
(3) Previous (that is, superceded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(c) You must keep the records required in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for
visual observations.
(d) You must keep the records required in Secs. 63.7833 and 63.7834
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and
operation and maintenance requirement that applies to you.
Sec. 63.7843 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Secs. 63.7844-63.7849 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.7850 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 4 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.7851 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce
this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find
out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart under Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited
to, an instrument that operates on tribroelectric, light scattering,
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
Basic oxygen process furnace means any refractory-lined vessel in
which high-purity oxygen is blown under pressure through a bath of
molten iron, scrap metal, and fluxes to produce steel. This definition
includes both top and bottom blown furnaces, but does not include argon
oxygen decarburization furnaces.
Basic oxygen process furnace shop means the place where steelmaking
operations that begin with the transfer of molten iron (hot metal) from
the torpedo car and end prior to casting the molten steel, including
hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, refining in a basic
oxygen process furnace, and ladle metallurgy occur.
Basic oxygen process furnace shop ancillary operations means the
processes where hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag
skimming, and ladle metallurgy occur.
Blast furnace means a furnace used for the production of molten
iron from iron ore and other iron bearing materials.
Bottom-blown furnace means any basic oxygen process furnace in
which oxygen and other combustion gases are introduced into the bath of
molten iron through tuyeres in the bottom of the vessel or through
tuyeres in the bottom and sides of the vessel.
Casthouse means the building or structure that encloses the bottom
portion of a blast furnace where the hot metal and slag are tapped from
the furnace.
[[Page 36864]]
Certified observer means a visible emission observer certified to
perform EPA Method 9 opacity observations.
Desulfurization means the process in which reagents such as
magnesium, soda ash, and lime are injected into the hot metal, usually
with dry air or nitrogen, to remove sulfur.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
Discharge end means the place where those operations conducted
within the sinter plant starting at the discharge of the sintering
machine's traveling grate including (but not limited to) hot sinter
crushing, screening, and transfer operations occur.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or
operating limit.
Hot metal transfer station means the location in a basic oxygen
process furnace shop where molten iron (hot metal) is transferred from
a torpedo car or hot metal car used to transport hot metal from the
blast furnace casthouse to a holding vessel or ladle in the basic
oxygen process furnace shop. This location also is known as the
reladling station or ladle transfer station.
Integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility means an
establishment engaged in the production of steel from iron ore.
Ladle metallurgy means a secondary steelmaking process that is
performed typically in a ladle after initial refining in a basic oxygen
process furnace to adjust or amend the chemical and/or mechanical
properties of steel.
Primary emission control system means the combination of equipment
used for the capture and collection of primary emissions (e.g., an open
hood capture system used in conjunction with an electrostatic
precipitator or a closed hood system used in conjunction with a
scrubber).
Primary emissions means particulate matter emissions from the basic
oxygen process furnace generated during the steel production cycle
which are captured and treated in the furnace's primary emission
control system.
Primary oxygen blow means the period in the steel production cycle
of a basic oxygen process furnace during which oxygen is blown through
the molten iron bath by means of a lance inserted from the top of the
vessel (top-blown) or through tuyeres in the bottom and/or sides of the
vessel (bottom-blown).
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in
Sec. 63.2.
Secondary emission control system means the combination of
equipment used for the capture and collection of secondary emissions
from a basic oxygen process furnace.
Secondary emissions means particulate matter emissions that are not
controlled by a primary emission control system, including emissions
that escape from open and closed hoods, lance hole openings, and gaps
or tears in ductwork to the primary emission control system.
Sinter cooler means the apparatus used to cool the hot sinter
product that is transferred from the discharge end through contact with
large volumes of induced or forced draft air.
Sinter plant means the machine used to produce a fused clinker-like
aggregate or sinter of fine iron-bearing materials suited for use in a
blast furnace. The machine is composed of a continuous traveling grate
that conveys a bed of ore fines and other finely divided iron-bearing
material and fuel (typically coke breeze), a burner at the feed end of
the grate for ignition, and a series of downdraft windboxes along the
length of the strand to support downdraft combustion and heat
sufficient to produce a fused sinter product.
Skimming station means the locations inside a basic oxygen process
furnace shop where slag is removed from the top of the molten metal
bath.
Steel production cycle means the operations conducted within the
basic oxygen process furnace shop that are required to produce each
batch of steel. The following operations are included: scrap charging,
preheating (when done), hot metal charging, primary oxygen blowing,
sampling, (vessel turndown and turnup), additional oxygen blowing (when
done), tapping, and deslagging. The steel production cycle begins when
the scrap or hot metal is charged to the furnace (whichever operation
occurs first) and ends after the slag is emptied from the vessel into
the slag pot.
Top-blown furnace means any basic oxygen process furnace in which
oxygen is introduced into the bath of molten iron by means of an oxygen
lance inserted from the top of the vessel.
Windboxes means the compartments that provide for a controlled
distribution of downdraft combustion air as it is drawn through the
sinter bed of a sinter plant to make the fused sinter product.
Secs. 63.7853-63.7879 [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 Emission and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must comply with each
applicable emission and opacity limit in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must comply with each of the
For . . . following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at You must not cause to be discharged
a new or existing sinter plant.. to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.3 lb/ton of product
sinter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Each discharge end at an a. You must not cause to be
existing sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain
particulate matter in excess of
0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
that exhibit opacity greater than
20 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36865]]
3. Each discharge end at a new a. You must not cause to be
sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain, on a
flow weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
that exhibit opacity greater than
10 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Each sinter cooler stack at an You must not cause to be discharged
existing sinter plant. to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.03 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Each sinter cooler stack at a You must not cause to be discharged
new sinter plant. to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Each casthouse at an existing a. You must not cause to be
blast furnace. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.009 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast furnace
that exhibit opacity greater than
20 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Each casthouse at a new blast a. You must not cause to be
furnace. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.009 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast furnace
that exhibit opacity greater than
15 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Each basic oxygen process a. You must not cause to be
furnace (BOPF) at a new or discharged to the atmosphere any
existing BOPF shop. gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with a closed hood system that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.024 gr/dscf during the
primary oxygen blow; and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with an open hood system that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.019 gr/dscf during the
steel production cycle; and
c. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device used solely for the
collection of secondary emissions
from the BOPF that contain
particulate matter in excess of
0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Each hot metal transfer, You must not cause to be discharged
skimming, desulfurizaiton, and to the atmosphere any gases that
ladle metallurgy operation at a exist from a control device that
new or existing BOPF shop. contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.007 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Each roof monitor at an You must not cause to be discharged
existing BOPF shop. to the atmosphere any secondary
emissions that exit any opening in
the BOPF shop or any other building
housing the BOPF or BOPF shop
operation that exhibit opacity
greater than 20 percent (3-minute
average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Each roof monitor at a new a. You must not cause to be
BOPF shop. discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 6-minute
period not to exceed 20 percent may
occur once per steel production
cycle.
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 of Subpart FFFFF to Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7825(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial
For . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at The process-weighted mass rate of
an existing or new sinter plant. particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream at a new or existing
sinter plant, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(c), did not exceed
0.3 lb/ton of product sinter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Each discharge end at an a. The flow-weighted average
existing sinter plant. concentration of particulate matter
from one or more control devices
applied to emissions from a
discharge end, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(d), did not exceed
0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each discharge end,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36866]]
3. Each discharge end at a new a. The flow-weighted average
sinter plant. concentration of particulate matter
from one or more control devices
applied to emissions from a
discharge end, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(d), did not exceed
0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each discharge end,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 10
percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Each sinter cooler stack at an The average concentration of
existing sinter plant. particulate matter from a sinter
cooler stack, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(b), did not exceed
0.03 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Each sinter cooler stack at a The average concentration of
new sinter plant. particulate matter from a sinter
cooler stack, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(b), did not exceed
0.01 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Each casthouse at an existing a. The average concentration of
blast furnace. particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.009 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each casthouse,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Each casthouse at a new blast a. The average concentration of
furnace. particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.009 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each casthouse,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 15
percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Each basic oxygen process a. The average concentration of
furnace (BOPF) at a new or particulate matter from a primary
existing BOPF shop. emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with a closed
hood system, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(f), did not exceed
0.024 gr/dscf; and
b. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with an open
hood system, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(g), did not exceed
0.019 gr/dscf; and
c. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a control
device applied solely to secondary
emissions from a BOPF, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(g), did
not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Each hot metal transfer, The average concentration of
skimming, desulfurization, or particulate matter from a control
ladle metallurgy operation at a device applied to emissions from
new or existing BOPF shop. hot metal transfer, skimming,
desulfurization, or ladle
metallurgy, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(h), did not exceed
0.007 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Each roof monitor at an The opacity of secondary emissions
existing BOPF shop. from each BOPF shop, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(d), did
not exceed 20 percent (3-minute
average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Each roof monitor at a new a. The opacity of the highest set of
BOPF shop. 6-minute averages from each BOPF
shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
percent and the second highest set
of 6-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent.
b. The opacity of the highest set of
3-minute averages from each BOPF
shop housing a top-blown BOPF,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(d), was less than 20
percent and the second highest set
of 3-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
Emission and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. Maintaining emissions of
an existing or new sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.3
lb/ton of product sinter, and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Each discharge end at an a. Maintaining emissions of
existing sinter plant. particulate matter from one or more
control devices at or below 0.02 gr/
dscf, and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
at or below 20 percent (6-minute
average), and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36867]]
3. Each discharge end at a new a. Maintaining emissions of
sinter plant. particulate matter from one or more
control devices at or below 0.01 gr/
dscf, and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
at or below 10 percent (6-minute
average), and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Each sinter cooler stack at an a. Maintaining emissions of
existing sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.03
gr/dscf, and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Each sinter cooler stack at a a. Maintaining emissions of
new sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.01
gr/dscf, and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Each casthouse at an existing a. Maintaining emissions of
blast furnace. particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.009 gr/dscf,
and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast furnace
at or below 20 percent (6-minute
average), and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Each casthouse at a new blast a. Maintaining emissions of
furnace. particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.009 gr/dscf,
and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or
building housing the casthouse at
or below 15 percent (6-minute
average), and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Each basic oxygen process a. Maintaining emissions of
furnace (BOPF) at a new or particulate matter from the primary
existing BOPF shop. emission control system for a BOPF
with a closed hood system at or
below 0.024 gr/dscf, and
b. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from the primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with an open hood system at or
below 0.019 gr/dscf, and
c. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from a control
device applied solely to secondary
emissions from a BOPF at or below
0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop, and
d. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Each hot metal transfer, a. Maintaining emissions of
skimming, desulfurization, and particulate matter from a control
ladle metallurgy operation at a device at or below 0.007 gr/dscf.
new or existing BOPF shop. and
b. Conducting subsequent
performance tests at least twice
during each term of your title V
operating permit (at midterm and
renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Each roof monitor at an a. Maintaining the opacity of
existing BOPF shop. secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing the BOPF or shop
operation at or below 20 percent (3-
minute average), and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Each roof monitor at a new a. Maintaining the opacity (for any
BOPF shop. set of 6-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building shop housing a bottom-
blown BOPF or shop operation at or
below 10 percent, except that one 6-
minute period greater than 10
percent but no more than 20 percent
may occur once per steel production
cycle,
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any
set of 3-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or shop operation at or below 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle, and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at least twice during each
term of your title V operating
permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
As required in Sec. 63.7850, you must comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in
the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject FFFFF Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.2........................... Definitions............ Yes....................
Sec. 63.3........................... Units and Abbreviations Yes....................
Sec. 63.4........................... Prohibited Activities.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.5........................... Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
[[Page 36868]]
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), Compliance with Yes....................
(f), (g), (h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9). Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i).................. Determining Compliance No..................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
with Opacity and VE Method 9 in appendix A
Standards. to part 60 of this
chapter to comply with
roof monitor opacity
limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)................. Applicability and No..................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Performance Test Dates. performance test
applicability and
dates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.7(a)(3), (b), (c)-(h)....... Performance Testing Yes.
Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring Requirements Yes.................... CMS requirements in
(3), (c)(4)(i)-(e), (c)(7)-(8), Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(i
(f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4). i), (c)(5) and (6),
(d), and (e) apply
only to COMS for
electrostatic
precipitators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)..................... Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements for require flares.
Control Devices in
Sec. 63.11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)..................... Continuous Monitoring No..................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
System Requirements. requirements for
operation of CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)..................... RATA Alternative....... No..................... Subpart FFFFF does not
require continuous
emission monitoring
systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9........................... Notification Yes.................... Additional
Requirements. notifications for CMS
in Sec. 63.9(g) apply
to COMS for
electrostatic
precipitator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.9(g)(5)..................... DATA Reduction......... No..................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
data reduction
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1)-(2)(xii), Recordkeeping and Yes.................... Additional records for
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6), Reporting Requirements. CMS in Sec.
(c)(9)-(15), (d), (e)(1)-(2), 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(e)(4), (f). (15), and reports in
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)
apply only to COMS for
electrostatic
precipitators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............. CMS Records for RATA No..................... Subpart FFFFF doesn't
Alternative. require continuous
emission monitoring
systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)................ Records of Excess No..................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Emissions and record requirements.
Parameter Monitoring
Exceedances for CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.11.......................... Control Device No..................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements. require flares.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.12.......................... State Authority and Yes.
Delegations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secs. 63.13-63.15................... Addresses, Yes.
Incorporation by
Reference,
Availability of
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-16289 Filed 7-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P