[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48338-48358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17787]
[[Page 48337]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2004 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48338]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2003-0051; FRL-7797-8]
RIN 2060-AJ96
National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 27, 1993, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, the EPA issued technology-based national emission standards to
control hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by coke oven batteries.
This proposal would amend the standards to include more stringent
requirements for certain by-product coke oven batteries to address
health risks remaining after implementation of the 1993 standards. We
are also proposing amendments to the 1993 standards for emissions of
hazardous air pollutants from non-recovery coke oven batteries.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 8,
2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0051, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20460. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0051.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov websites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other information,
such as copyrighted materials, is not placed on the Internet and will
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy form at the National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries
Docket, Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0051 or A-79-15, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lula Melton, Emission Standards
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C439-02),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2910, fax number (919) 541-3207, e-mail
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAIC
Cateogry code Examples of regulated
\1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................... 331111 Existing by-product coke
324199 oven batteries subject to
emission limitations in
40 CFR 63.302(a)(2) and
non-recovery coke oven
batteries subject to new
source emission
limitations in 40 CFR
63.303(b). These are
known as ``MACT track''
batteries
Federal government................. ....... Not affected
State/local/tribal government...... ....... Not affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.300
of the national emission standards for coke oven batteries. 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.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as
CBI
[[Page 48339]]
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0051. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete
version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's proposed amendments is also available on the Worldwide Web
(WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed amendments 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.
D. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
by August 30, 2004, a public hearing will be held on September 8, 2004.
If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA
Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina or at an
alternate site nearby.
E. How Is This Document Organized?
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for development of the
proposed amendments?
B. What is our approach for developing these standards?
C. What is unique about the regulatory regime for coke ovens?
D. How does today's action comply with the requirements of
section 112(d)(8) and (i)(8) that specifically apply to regulation
of coke ovens?
E. What is cokemaking?
F. What HAP are emitted from cokemaking?
G. What are the health effects associated with these HAP?
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
B. What are the proposed requirements?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. How did we estimate risks?
B. What did we analyze in the risk assessment?
C. How were cancer and noncancer risks estimated?
D. How did we estimate the atmospheric dispersion of emitted
pollutants?
E. What factors are considered in the risk assessment?
F. How did we calculate risks?
G. How did we assess environmental impacts?
H. What are the results of the risk assessment?
I. What is our decision on acceptable risk and ample margin of
safety?
J. What determination is EPA proposing pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6)?
K. Why are we amending the requirements in the 1993 national
emission standard for door leaks on non-recovery batteries?
L. What are the estimated cost impacts of the proposed
amendments?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
II. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for Development of the Proposed
Amendments?
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, after EPA has
identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed
in the CAA, section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate national
technology-based emission standards for sources within those categories
that emit or have 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 (known as ``major sources''), as well as for certain
``area sources'' emitting less than those amounts. These technology-
based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable
(after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and
environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The EPA is then
required to review these technology-based standards and to revise them
``as necessary, taking into account developments in practices,
processes and control technologies,'' no less frequently than every 8
years.
The second stage in standard-setting is described in section 112(f)
of the CAA. This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report
to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk
posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the
MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the
means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons
in proximity to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation
regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted this
report (``Residual Risk Report to Congress,'' EPA-453/R-99-001) in
March 1999. The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in
the report, triggering the second stage of the standard-setting
process, the residual risk phase.
Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each section 112(d)
source category whether the MACT standards protect public health with
an ample margin of safety. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified
as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to
emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than one
in one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety. The EPA must also adopt more stringent standards to
prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined in section 112(a)(7)
as ``any significant and widespread adverse effect * * * to wildlife,
aquatic life, or natural resources * * *.''), but must consider cost,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so.
B. What Is Our Approach for Developing These Standards?
Following our initial determination that the individual most
exposed for the emissions category considered exceeds a 1 in a million
excess individual cancer risk, our approach to developing residual risk
standards is based on a two-step determination of acceptable
[[Page 48340]]
risk and ample margin of safety. The first step, consideration of
acceptable risk, is only a starting point for the analysis that
determines the final standards. The second step determines an ample
margin of safety which is the levels at which the standards are set.
The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA.
However, section 112(f)(2)(B) retains EPA's interpretation of the terms
``acceptable level'' and ``ample margin of safety'' provided in our
1989 rulemaking (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Benzene Emissions from
Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage
Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants,'' essentially directing EPA to use the interpretation set out
in that notice \1\ or to utilize approaches affording at least the same
level of protection.\2\ The EPA likewise notified Congress in its
Residual Risk Report that EPA intended to use the Benzene NESHAP
approach in making section 112(f) residual risk determinations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This reading is confirmed by the Legislative History to
section 112(f); see, e.g., ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990,'' vol. 1, page 877 (Senate Debate on
Conference Report).
\2\ Legislative History, vol. 1 p. 877, stating that: ``* * *
the managers intend that the Administrator shall interpret this
requirement [to establish standards reflecting an ample margin of
safety] in a manner no less protective of the most exposed
individual than the policy set forth in the Administrator's benzene
regulations * * *.''
\3\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001, March
1999, p. ES-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), we stated
as an overall objective:
* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, we
strive to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to
health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest
number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no
higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; and (2) limiting to no
higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in a million]
the estimated risk that a person living near a facility would have
if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations
for 70 years.
As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report, these goals
are not ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but rather broad objectives
to be weighed ``with a series of other health measures and factors.''
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What Is Unique About the Regulatory Regime for Coke Ovens?
The proposed amendments are case-specific for HAP *emissions from
coke oven doors, lids, offtake systems, and charging. As explained
below, Congress enacted a unique regulatory regime for control of coke
oven HAP emissions. Thus, because these emissions are treated uniquely
under the CAA, the methods and policies reflected in the proposed
amendments should not necessarily be construed as setting a precedent
for future rules under the residual risk program established by section
112(f).
As explained in more detail later in this preamble, emissions from
charging, door leaks, and topside (lids and offtake systems) leaks are
subject to specific statutory requirements and schedules. In
particular, section 112(d)(8) established a deadline of December 31,
1992 for the promulgation of MACT standards for designated emission
points from these sources and established special requirements for the
standards. In addition, section 112(i)(8) established the framework for
an alternative regulatory approach that allowed these sources to defer
residual risk standards until 2020 by electing to meet two tiers of
more stringent standards reflecting the lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) (a technology-based standard more stringent than MACT). The
regulations (58 FR 57911, October 27, 1993) included a second set of
additional, more stringent standards for MACT track batteries that must
be met on and after January 1, 2003, unless superseded by residual risk
standards promulgated under section 112(f).
D. How Does Today's Action Comply With the Requirements of Section
112(d)(8) and (i)(8) That Specifically Apply to Regulation of Coke
Ovens?
Section 112 includes several provisions that specifically govern
our implementation of section 112(d) and (f) with respect to coke
ovens. First, section 112(d)(8) sets specific minimum targets for
technology-based standards promulgated for emissions from charging,
door leaks, and topside leaks at coke ovens. Section 112(i)(8)
establishes two ``tracks'' of technology-based standards and specifies
different compliance timetables depending on the track chosen by the
source. These tracks are generally referred to as the MACT track and
the LAER track.
The LAER track batteries are those sources that elected to meet
more stringent technology-based standards beginning in 1993. The LAER
standards become more stringent over time with the final LAER
technology standards becoming effective in 2010. The LAER track
batteries are exempt from any residual risk standards until 2020.
Consequently, today's proposed amendments would not set residual risk
standards for LAER track batteries.
Today's proposed amendments would instead apply to those existing
by-product coke oven batteries that chose the MACT track (five
batteries at four plants). These existing by-product coke oven
batteries were required, beginning in 1995, to comply with the 1993
MACT standards promulgated for charging, door leaks, and topside leaks.
Unlike the LAER track batteries, the MACT track batteries are not
entitled to an extension of the residual risk compliance date. Thus,
today's action determines, in accordance with section 112(f)(2), that
residual risk standards are required for MACT track batteries and
accordingly proposes residual risk standards for them.
The specific provisions in section 112(d)(8) and (i)(8) only apply
to charging, door leak, and topside leak emissions at coke oven
batteries. Our initial list of source categories published on July 16,
1992 (57 FR 31576) also contains a category entitled, ``Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks.'' We promulgated MACT standards
for these emission points on April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18008). An
assessment and decision on any potential residual risk standards for
those emission points is required by 2011.
Because the pushing, quenching, and battery stack emission points
are an integral part of the same facilities covered by the MACT
standards for charging, door leaks, and topside leaks (they not only
are part of the same process but emit the same HAP), it is important to
consider emissions from all of these points in assessing the risk
associated with HAP emissions from coke ovens.\5\ As explained more
fully below, we are proposing to make residual risk determinations on a
facilitywide basis and we further propose that it is reasonable to
defer a total facility risk determination until we make a residual risk
determination for
[[Page 48341]]
the pushing, quenching, and battery stack emission points. Thus, our
determination of the ample margin of safety level for the total coke
oven facility (all emission points from coke oven batteries) will not
be fully addressed until residual risk assessments for all coke plant
source categories are completed. Nonetheless, we include estimates of
total facility risks in today's proposal, and we believe that the
standards we are proposing today for charging, doors, and topside leaks
are sufficiently stringent so that when all residual risk standards
have been set for coke plant source categories, the public will be
protected with an ample margin of safety from the combined emissions
from all emission points from coke oven batteries. We specifically
request comment on our proposed use of the facilitywide approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Legislative History, vol. 1, p. 868, where Sen.
Durenberger stated that ``EPA shall consider the combined risks of
all sources that are colocated with such sources within the same
major source.'' The Senator continued, however, that these standards
need not be set at the same time, provided ``the standard for the
categories in the first group must be sufficiently stringent so that
when all residual risk standards have been set, the public will be
protected with an ample margin of safety from the combined emissions
of all sources within a major source.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What Is Cokemaking?
In a coke oven battery, coal undergoes destructive distillation to
produce coke. The coke industry consists of two sectors, integrated
plants and merchant plants. Integrated plants are owned by or
affiliated with iron- and steel-producing companies that produce
furnace coke primarily for consumption in their own blast furnaces.
There are nine integrated plants owned by six iron and steel companies.
These plants account for 72 percent of United States (U.S.) coke
production. Independent merchant plants produce furnace and foundry
coke for sale on the open market. Foundry coke is used in foundry
furnaces for melting scrap iron to produce iron castings. There are ten
merchant plants. As of April 2003, there are 19 coke plants operating
56 coke oven batteries; 46 are by-product batteries, and ten are non-
recovery batteries.
A typical by-product battery consists of 40 to 60 adjacent ovens
with common side walls made of high quality silica and other types of
refractory brick. A weighed amount or specific volume of coal is
discharged from the coal bunker into a larry car--a charging vehicle
that moves along the top of the battery. The larry car is positioned
over the empty, hot oven; the lids on the charging ports are removed;
and the coal is discharged from the hoppers of the larry car into the
oven. Typically, the individual slot ovens are 36 to 56 feet long, 1 to
2 feet wide, and 8 to 20 feet high, and each oven holds between 15 and
25 tons of coal.
The coal is heated in the oven in the absence of air to
temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg] F) which
drives off most of the volatile organic constituents of the coal as
gases and vapors, forming coke which consists almost entirely of
carbon. The organic gases and vapors that evolve are removed through an
offtake system and sent to a by-product plant for chemical recovery and
coke oven gas cleaning.
Coking temperatures generally range from 1,650 to 2,000[deg]F and
are on the higher side of the range to produce blast furnace coke.
Coking continues for 15 to 18 hours to produce blast furnace coke and
25 to 30 hours to produce foundry coke.
At the end of the coking cycle, doors at both ends of the oven are
removed, and the incandescent coke is pushed out of the oven by a ram
that is extended from the pusher machine. The coke is pushed through a
coke guide into a special rail car, called a quench car, which
transports the coke to a quench tower, typically located at the end of
a row of batteries. Inside the quench tower, the hot coke is deluged
with water so that it will not continue to burn after being exposed to
air. The quenched coke is discharged onto an inclined ``coke wharf'' to
allow excess water to drain and to cool the coke.
There are two non-recovery plants (ten non-recovery batteries)
operating in the U.S. As the name implies, this process does not
recover the chemical by-products as does the by-product coking process.
All of the coke oven gas is burned and instead of recovery of
chemicals, this process allows for heat recovery and cogeneration of
electricity. Non-recovery ovens operate under negative pressure and are
of a horizontal design (as opposed to the vertical design used in the
by-product process).
F. What HAP Are Emitted From Cokemaking?
The primary HAP emitted from cokemaking are ``coke oven
emissions,'' which includes many organic compounds. Constituents of
primary interest because of adverse health effects include semi-
volatiles, such as polycyclic organic matter (POM) and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The emissions also include volatile
organic compounds (VOC), such as benzene, toluene, and xylene.
Emissions occur at multiple stages of the coking process. Coke oven
emissions can be released when the oven is charged with coal. During
coking with the oven under positive pressure, emissions occur from
leaking doors, lids, and offtakes. On rare occasions during an
equipment failure or process upset, coke oven emissions may occur from
bypass stacks. We promulgated emission standards for each of these
emission points with limits for charging, doors, lids, and offtakes and
a requirement to flare any bypassed coke oven gas (40 CFR part 63,
subpart L) in 1993.
Coke oven emissions are also released from pushing, quenching, and
battery stacks. As noted earlier, we promulgated MACT standards that
address these three emission points (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) in
2003.
Emissions of HAP also occur from the by-product plant that recovers
various chemicals from the coke oven gas. The primary HAP in these
emissions is benzene. We promulgated the NESHAP for benzene emissions
from coke by-product recovery plants (40 CFR part 61, subpart L) in
1989.
G. What Are the Health Effects Associated With These HAP?
The toxic constituents of coke oven emissions, the listed HAP,
include both gases (e.g., VOC such as benzene) and respirable
particulate matter (PM) of varying chemical composition. In addition to
the noncarcinogenic effects, there is concern over the potential
carcinogenic and/or cocarcinogenic effects of POM, as well as various
aromatic compounds (e.g., benzene) and trace metals (e.g., arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, and nickel).
The HAP that would be controlled by the proposed amendments are
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse
health effects include chronic health disorders (e.g., cancers, blood
disorders, central nervous system and respiratory effects) and acute
health disorders (e.g., irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes
and depression of the central nervous system).
The degree of adverse health effects experienced by exposed
individuals can vary widely. The extent and degree to which the health
effects may be experienced depend on various factors, many of which
have been considered in the risk assessment performed for the proposed
amendments and discussed later in this preamble. Those factors include:
Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
Ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
Frequency and duration of exposures; and
Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics,
age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary
significantly within the population.
[[Page 48342]]
Studies of coke oven workers who were exposed to higher levels of
coke oven emissions than the populations affected by these proposed
amendments have reported an increase in cancer of the lung, trachea,
bronchus, kidney, prostate, and other sites. Chronic (long-term)
exposure of workers to coke oven emissions has also been associated
with conjunctivitis, severe dermatitis, and lesions of the respiratory
system and digestive system. We have classified coke oven emissions as
a Group A, known human carcinogen.
One of the more important constituents of coke oven emissions (from
a health effects point of view) is the trace metal arsenic, a known
human carcinogen. Studies of humans occupationally exposed to higher
levels of arsenic than the populations affected by these proposed
amendments have found increased incidence of lung cancers. Chronic
(long-term) exposure to inorganic arsenic has also been associated with
irritation of the skin and mucous membranes, and with neurological
injury. Animal studies of inhalation exposure have indicated
developmental effects.
Another important constituent of coke oven emissions, benzene, is a
known human carcinogen. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the
tissues that form white blood cells) has been observed in humans
occupationally exposed to benzene, and we have derived a range of
inhalation cancer unit risk estimates for benzene. The value at the
high end of the range was used in this assessment. Chronic (long-term)
inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood,
including reduced numbers of red blood cells, in occupationally exposed
humans. Reproductive effects have been reported in women exposed by
inhalation to high levels of benzene, and adverse effects for high dose
exposures on the developing fetus have been observed in animal tests.
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
The affected sources would be each coke oven battery subject to the
emission limitations in 40 CFR 63.302 or 40 CFR 63.303 (i.e., the MACT
track batteries). As noted above, the proposed amendments would cover
emissions from doors, topside port lids, offtake systems, and charging
on existing by-product coke oven batteries and emissions from doors and
charging on new and existing non-recovery batteries.
B. What Are the Proposed Requirements?
For existing by-product batteries, the proposed amendments would
limit visible emissions from coke oven doors to 4 percent leaking doors
for tall batteries and for batteries owned or operated by a foundry
coke producer. Short batteries would be limited to 3.3 percent leaking
doors. Visible emissions from other emission points would be limited to
0.4 percent leaking topside port lids and 2.5 percent leaking offtake
systems. No change would be made in the limit for charging--emissions
must not exceed 12 seconds of visible emissions per charge. Each of
these visible emission limits would be based on a 30-day rolling
average. The proposed amendments would replace the less stringent
limits that became effective on January 1, 2003, for MACT track
batteries and are equivalent to the limits that will become effective
on January 1, 2010, for LAER track batteries. We are not proposing to
amend the standards for new by-product batteries.
The monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements in the
existing MACT standards would continue to apply to existing by-product
coke oven batteries on the MACT track. These requirements include daily
performance tests to determine compliance with the visible emission
limits. Each performance test must be conducted by a visible emissions
observer certified according to the test method requirements. A daily
inspection of the collecting main for leaks is also required. Specific
work practice standards must also be implemented if required by the
provisions in 40 CFR 63.306(c). Under the existing standards, companies
must make semiannual compliance certifications; report any uncontrolled
venting episodes or startup, shutdown, or malfunction events; and keep
records of information needed to demonstrate compliance.
We are also proposing amendments for the improved control of
charging emissions from a new non-recovery battery (i.e., constructed
or reconstructed on or after August 9, 2004. Fugitive charging
emissions would be subject to an opacity limit of 20 percent. A weekly
performance test would be required to determine the average opacity of
five consecutive charges for each charging emissions capture system.
Emissions from a charging emissions control device would be limited to
0.0081 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of dry coal charged. A performance
test using EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) would be required
to demonstrate initial compliance with subsequent performance tests at
least once during each title V permit term. If any visible emissions
are observed from a charging emissions control device, the owner or
operator would be required to take corrective action and followup with
a visible emissions observation by EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) to ensure that the corrective action had been successful.
Any Method 9 observation greater than 10 percent opacity would be
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report. The
proposed amendments would also require the owner or operator to
implement a new work practice standard designed to ensure that the
draft on the oven is maximized during charging.
We are also proposing a work practice standard for the control of
door leaks from all non-recovery coke oven batteries on the MACT track.
The owner or operator would be required to observe each coke oven door
after each charge and record the oven number of any door from which
visible emissions occur. If a coke oven door leak is observed at any
time during the coking cycle, the owner or operator would be required
to take corrective action and stop the leak within 15 minutes from the
time the leak is first observed. No additional leaks would be allowed
from doors on that oven for the remainder of that oven's coking cycle.
However, we are also proposing to allow up to 45 minutes instead of 15
minutes to stop the leak for no more than two occurrences per battery
during each semiannual reporting period. The limit of two occurrences
per battery would not apply if a worker must enter a cokeside shed to
take corrective action to stop a door leak. In this case, 45 minutes
would be allowed to stop the leak, and the evacuation system and
control device for the cokeside shed must be operated at all times that
there is a leaking door under the cokeside shed. The owner or operator
would also be required to identify malfunctions that might cause a door
to leak, establish preventative measures, and specify types of
corrective actions for such events in its startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements necessary to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance are also proposed.
We are also proposing an amendment to clarify that the work
practice standard for charging in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(2) that applies to
existing non-recovery batteries also applies to new non-recovery
batteries. These work
[[Page 48343]]
practices are described in 40 CFR 63.306(b)(6).
As specified in the CAA section 112(f)(4)(A), the owner or operator
of an existing by-product coke oven battery on the MACT track would
have to comply with the proposed amendments within 90 days of the
effective date of the final rule amendments. We are also proposing that
non-recovery coke oven batteries on the MACT track comply within 90
days (or upon startup for a new non-recovery battery which comes into
existence after August 9, 2004).
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. How Did We Estimate Risks?
Cancer and noncancer health impacts caused by environmental
exposures generally cannot be isolated and measured directly. Even if
it were possible to do so, we would not be able to use measurements to
assess the impacts of future or alternative regulatory control
strategies. As a result, modeling-based risk assessment is used as a
tool to estimate health risks for many EPA programs. In risk
assessments, there are many possible levels of analysis from the most
basic screening approach to the more refined, detailed assessment.
Our ``Residual Risk Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-99-011)
provides the general framework for conducting risk assessments to
support decisions made under the residual risk program. The 1999 Report
to Congress acknowledged that each risk assessment design would have
some common elements. In general, each assessment would contain a
problem formulation phase where the content and scope of each
assessment would be specified, an analysis phase where the exposure and
effects relationship would be evaluated, and the risk characterization
phase where the risks would be calculated and interpreted. While the
final risk assessment used to support the decisions in these proposed
amendments used advanced modeling of site-specific data for many
modeling parameters and population characteristics derived from census
data, we also used default assumptions for exposure parameters--some of
which are assumed to be health protective (e.g., exposure frequency and
exposure duration, 70-year constant emission rates).\6,\ \7\ However,
in keeping with the tiered approach laid out in the Report to Congress,
we decided that a quantitative description of uncertainty in the final
risk characterization was not necessary for this assessment because it
likely would not have altered the decision to propose further
standards. The approach used to assess the risks associated with our
coke oven standards is consistent with the technical approach and
policies described in the Report to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Additional details are provided in Table 2-10 of the risk
assessment document in the rulemaking docket.
\7\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, pp. B-18 and B-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Did We Analyze in the Risk Assessment?
We performed a detailed risk assessment for the four by-product
coke facilities (five MACT track batteries). Given the small number of
facilities, we chose to analyze each of these facilities in a site-
specific manner. As described earlier, there are multiple source
categories associated with coke ovens, each with its own standards.
There are two MACT standards that affect this industry (i.e., the 1993
national emission standards for charging, topside leaks, and door leaks
and the 2003 NESHAP for pushing, quenching, and battery stacks), as
well as the 1989 NESHAP for coke by-product recovery plants and the
1990 NESHAP for benzene waste operations. Using an iterative assessment
approach, we assessed emissions and estimated risks from all emission
points at each coke facility. The initial screening-level analysis
considered all emission points to determine if a more refined analysis
was necessary and to determine the focus of such an analysis. A more
refined analysis was then performed to determine the maximum individual
risk and the risk distribution around the facilities. Results from the
refined analysis are presented in this preamble.
Emission points associated with the coking process include
charging, door leaks, topside leaks, pushing, quenching, battery
stacks, and the by-product recovery plant. To estimate baseline risks
(both baseline facility-wide emissions and baseline of 1993 MACT
emission points), we assumed that each battery was in compliance with
its required performance level and that emission rates were equivalent
to those allowed by the national emission standards. We modeled
emissions at the rate allowed by the national emission standards
because it represents the source's potential emissions and risks, and
is, therefore, consistent with the language in section 112(f)(2), which
states that ``if standards promulgated pursuant to subsection (d) * * *
do not reduce lifetime risk * * * to less than one in a million, the
Administrator shall promulgate standards under this subsection * * *''
We specifically request comments on this interpretation of section
112(f)(2).
Emission estimates for individual batteries were based on battery-
specific data such as coking time; the number of doors, lids, and
offtakes on each battery; and the number of charges per year, as well
as the performance standards for those emission points (5 percent
leaking doors, 0.6 percent leaking lids, 3 percent leaking offtakes,
and 12 seconds of visible emissions per charge). For the facility with
two operating coke batteries, emission estimates for both batteries
were combined to yield a risk estimate from the facility. The battery
characteristics were obtained from a survey of the industry and from an
EPA report that assessed control performance for these emission points
at a coke facility that is similar to those included in this
assessment. Information on the tons of coke produced and the tons of
coal charged were also obtained from the industry survey. Emission
estimates were based on emission factors for each emissions point and
the applicable regulatory emissions limit. Our uncertainty analysis
shows that the use of site-specific data and emission factors results
in an uncertainty range for the emission estimates for leaks from
doors, lids, and offtakes that may be a factor of 2 lower or a factor
of 3 higher for these combined emission points. The uncertainty is
dominated by the emissions from leaking doors, which comprise
approximately 90 percent of the total emissions. We did not evaluate
the uncertainty in estimates of charging emissions, which contribute
less than 7 percent of the total emissions. Additional information on
the uncertainty analysis is included in the risk assessment document.
Emissions from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks were derived
from two EPA tests, one at a battery producing foundry coke and one at
a battery producing furnace coke. Pushing emission estimates included
fugitive emissions and emissions from control devices. Because
emissions vary depending on the type of push experienced (e.g.,
``green'' pushes result when coal is not fully coked), emission factors
were used for the range of pushes experienced. Supporting data for
estimating the number and frequency of green pushes were obtained from
visible emission observations at several facilities. We then calculated
an overall pushing emissions rate based on the frequency of green
pushes and emission factors for each type of push. Emissions farom
quenching and battery stacks were based on emissions tests.
Emissions from the by-product recovery plant were estimated from
[[Page 48344]]
information on the type of processes at each facility, emission factors
for each process, and the facility capacity. Emissions from equipment
leaks were based on the number of equipment components at each
facility, the composition of process liquids, and emission factors for
each component. Emissions from benzene waste operations were estimated
from site-specific data on the quantity of benzene in wastewater. In
assessing risk from all of the emission points mentioned above, we used
a combination of site-specific data and estimation techniques as inputs
to the models used to evaluate risk and hazard.
Our analysis of non-recovery batteries on the MACT track indicates
that emissions from charging and door leaks are relatively low. There
are no emissions from lids and offtakes because existing non-recovery
batteries in the U.S. do not have these emission points. There are no
emissions from door leaks during most normal operations because the
ovens usually operate under negative pressure. Our modeling approach
based on allowable emissions under MACT (zero percent leaking doors for
non-recovery batteries) would estimate no door leak emissions at all.
However, we recently obtained information that indicates certain
equipment failures or operating problems can temporarily create a
positive pressure in an oven and cause a door to leak. These events are
considered to be short in duration and the problem can be quickly
remedied (typically within 5 to 15 minutes). In order to ensure that
door leak emissions are minimized, we have addressed these equipment
failures and operating problems in our proposed amendments to the 1993
national emission standards. The proposed revisions would require that
corrective actions be implemented promptly if such events occur.
With respect to emissions from charging, non-recovery ovens are
operated under maximum draft during charging, and the organic compounds
that may be generated during the process are mostly contained within
the oven and combustion system. A small amount of charging emissions
may escape from an oven through the opening used for charging. However,
all non-recovery batteries have a capture hood and baghouse to control
these emissions.
Consequently, we would not anticipate any adverse public health or
environmental impacts due to emissions from charging and coke oven
doors at non-recovery batteries.
C. How Were Cancer and Noncancer Risks Estimated?
The primary HAP emitted by this category are coke oven emissions
which include POM, PAH, benzene, and other air toxics known or
suspected to cause cancer and other health problems. For estimating
cancer health risk due to inhalation exposure, emissions were based on
the benzene soluble organics (BSO) fraction that was used as the
surrogate for coke oven emissions in the epidemiology study which
established coke oven emissions as a human carcinogen. In the
assessment of noninhalation risk, coke oven emissions were
characterized and speciated (i.e., individual constituents were
identified). A set of 13 constituents \8\ was selected based on an
analysis of their persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity (PBT).
Emission estimates were determined for all constituents identified
based on measurements of the chemical composition of the emissions from
various emission sources. For this risk assessment, emission estimates
for coke oven emissions (as BSO) were determined for charging, door
leaks, topside leaks, fugitive pushing, and quenching emission points
for by-product batteries. Emission rates for individual constituents
were estimated for the pushing control device and battery stack
emission points. Emission rates also were estimated for the HAP
compounds known to be emitted from the by-product recovery plant
(benzene, xylene, and toluene).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Constituents of coke oven emissions selected for this
assessment include: acenaphthene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, cadmium,
chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, lead, and
pyrene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the risk from exposure to these HAP, toxicity
information was integrated with results from the exposure assessment.
For this assessment, we modeled exposures to the total population
living within 50 kilometers (km) of each of these facilities and
estimated the exposure concentrations where people live and the cancer
risks associated with lifetime exposures to coke oven emissions and to
the individual constituents for which we have cancer unit risk factors.
Where reference values for noncancer effects were available, we also
evaluated the potential hazard associated with those effects. The
selection and use of cancer unit risk factors and reference dose or
concentration values for this assessment follows the approach outlined
in the 1999 ``Residual Risk Report to Congress.'' The approach used to
assess the risks associated with our coke oven standards is likewise
consistent with the technical approach and policies described in the
report. Our assessment has also been peer-reviewed to ensure that its
methodology rests on sound scientific principles, and we have revised
the assessment document to reflect comments made as part of the peer-
review process. The assessment document, comments made during the peer
review, and a summary of our responses to those comments are included
in the docket for the proposed amendments.
D. How Did We Estimate the Atmospheric Dispersion of Emitted
Pollutants?
As described in our Report to Congress, risk assessments may use a
variety of models to describe the fate and transport of HAP released to
the atmosphere. The models chosen must be appropriate for the intended
application. In the fairly unique case of coke ovens, the collective
heat rising from various emission points can significantly enhance the
rise of the emissions plume, functioning like a ``representative''
stack. In order to include this aspect in the modeling, we used the
Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) dispersion model. The BLP model,
however, was not designed to consider the effects of the surrounding
terrain on dispersion nor to model deposition of HAP as the plume
disperses. To allow consideration of these parameters, we coupled the
BLP model with the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) model.
In this application, we used the BLP model to estimate the plume height
and then used that value as an input to the ISCST3 model. The ISCST3
model was used to simulate the subsequent dispersion and transport of
the emissions. Site-specific inputs to the BLP model such as facility
location, battery layout, dimensions, orientation, and operating
temperatures were provided by the industry.
Both the BLP and the ISCLT3 models have undergone standard
scientific peer reviews prior to this assessment. The concept of
coupling these two models together was peer-reviewed for the first time
as part of this assessment. The reviewers agreed with the modeling
concept and approach. Monitoring data may be useful for evaluating
modeling approaches used to estimate ambient concentrations (see the
risk assessment document for discussion of when this is appropriate).
For the sites and pollutants included in this risk assessment, no
ambient monitoring data were available. Therefore, it was not possible
to evaluate the modeling
[[Page 48345]]
approach beyond what was done in the peer review. Moreover, even if
comprehensive and high quality monitoring data were available, they
would not be adequate by themselves for evaluating the impacts of
alternative control strategies.
E. What Factors Are Considered in the Risk Assessment?
The risk assessment was designed to generate a series of risk
metrics that would provide information for a regulatory decision. The
metrics consider both the maximum individual risk and the total
population risk, the latter providing perspective on the potential
public health impact by addressing each of the following questions:
How many people living around the four by-product
facilities have potential risk greater than 1 in a million?
How many people are there at various risk levels?
What are the impacts for different routes of exposure
(e.g., inhalation and ingestion)?
In addition, we are to determine if any adverse environmental
effects exist.
Consistent with standard atmospheric dispersion modeling practice,
we assessed inhalation risks within 50 km (about 30 miles) of each of
the four facilities. The annual average concentrations at the area-
weighted centers of census blocks or block groups were estimated using
the ISCST3 model for each emission point. Based on the number of people
residing in each block or block group along with the estimated
concentrations in each block or block group, we generated an estimate
of risk for all people living within 50 km (about 30 miles) of each
coke facility, including an identification of which census block group
had the estimated maximum air concentration. For this estimate, we
assumed that the individual is exposed to the maximum level of coke
oven emissions allowed by the 1993 national emission standards, and, as
prescribed in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, that they are exposed to these
emissions 24 hours a day for 70 years. Where risk estimates exceeded 1
in a million, we identified the number of people at the various risk
levels exceeding 1 in a million (i.e., the population risk
distribution). For this estimate, we also assumed exposure occurred 24
hours a day for 70 years because we wanted a conservative upper-bound
estimate of the population at risk.
Because of their chemical and physical properties, some HAP are
known to present potential health risks as a result of deposition,
persistence, and bioaccumulation in environmental media other than air.
As a result, exposure to these HAP may occur by ingestion as well as by
inhalation. Thirteen constituents of coke oven emissions were
identified as PBT chemicals (i.e., they are environmentally persistent,
they may bioaccumulate, and are toxic). Emissions of these pollutants
are transported from the emission site by atmospheric processes and
removed from the air by both wet and dry deposition. Upon deposition,
they may cycle through various environmental compartments, such as
soil, plants, animals, and surface water. The movement of these
constituents through these compartments can be modeled using a fate and
transport model in order to estimate human exposure through the
ingestion pathway.
We conducted multimedia, multipathway exposure modeling (using the
EPA's Indirect Exposure Model) to determine if emissions from coke
ovens present potential risks by routes of exposure other than
inhalation. Site-specific modeling was performed for all four
facilities using information collected on land use, population, soil
types, farming activity, and watershed/waterbody locations and areas.
The assessment was based on a subsistence farmer scenario located where
land-use data identified actual farming activity around each of the
four facilities (agricultural lands were identified at distances
ranging from 1.7 to 11 km from the four coke facilities). This scenario
reflects an adult living on a farm and consuming meat, dairy products,
and vegetables that the farm produces. The animals raised on the farm
subsist primarily on forage that is grown on the farm. We also assumed
that the farm family fishes in nearby waters at a recreational level,
and that they eat the fish they catch. These results allow for
comparison of risks by ingestion with those presented by inhalation.
F. How Did We Calculate Risks?
Cancer risks were characterized for the inhalation exposure pathway
using lifetime excess cancer risk estimates which are calculated as the
product of the unit risk estimate (URE) (the unit risk estimate is an
upper-bound estimate of the probability of developing cancer over a
lifetime) and the exposure concentration estimated for each HAP. The
cancer risk estimates for each HAP are summed across all carcinogenic
HAP. These estimates represent the probability of developing cancer
over a lifetime as a result of exposure to emissions from these coke
ovens.
Noncancer risks were characterized through the use of hazard
quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI). An HQ is calculated as the ratio
of the exposure concentration of a pollutant to its benchmark
concentration. An HI is the sum of HQ for HAP that target the same
organ or system.
The maximum individual risk was estimated deterministically. More
probabilistic presentations and analyses (ranging from simple risk
distributions to more quantitative Monte Carlo simulations) \9\ may be
done to better understand the assessment uncertainty and variability.
As our Residual Risk Report to Congress suggested, we would consider
doing a probabilistic analysis after considering the needs and scope of
the assessment. This is consistent with the policy of EPA as stated in
the 1997 ``Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk
Assessment,'' which states ``* * * it is not the intent of this policy
to recommend that probabilistic analysis be conducted for all risk
assessments supporting risk management decisions.'' \10\ The policy
also states ``* * * probabilistic methods should be used wherever the
circumstances justify these approaches.'' As discussed earlier in this
preamble, we determined that this level of refinement was not necessary
for this risk assessment because the results of a probabilistic
analysis are unlikely to affect the proposed risk management decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, pp. 94-128.
\10\ Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk
Assessment, EPA Science Policy Council. May 15, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. How Did We Assess Environmental Impacts?
In order to assess whether the continuing emissions from these four
coke oven facilities could contribute to adverse environmental effects,
we performed a screening-level ecological risk assessment. We
intentionally designed this assessment to be protective of the health
of ecological receptors. It was not intended to be used in predicting
specific types of effects to individuals, species, populations, or
communities or to the structure and function of the ecosystem. We used
the assessment to identify HAP or sources which may pose potential risk
or hazard to ecological receptors and, if so, would need to be
evaluated in a more refined level of risk assessment.
The screening endpoints were the structure and function of generic
aquatic and terrestrial populations and communities, including
threatened and endangered species, that might be
[[Page 48346]]
exposed to HAP emissions from these four facilities. The assessment
endpoints were relatively generic with respect to descriptions of the
environmental values that are to be protected and the characteristics
of the ecological entities and their attributes. We assumed in the
assessment that these ecological receptors were representative of
sensitive individuals, populations, and communities that may be present
near these facilities.
The HAP included in the ecological assessment were the metals
cadmium and lead and 11 PAH: Acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, fluorene, pyrene, and indeno-
123(cd)pyrene. We derived estimated media concentrations for each of
these HAP from the media concentrations estimated in the multipathway
exposures assessment. We chose exposure pathways to reflect the
potential routes of exposure through sediment, soil, water, and air. We
selected these environments because they are considered representative
of locations of generic populations and communities most likely to be
exposed to the HAP. Within these environments the receptors evaluated
consisted of two distinct groups: Terrestrial and aquatic (i.e.,
including aquatic, benthic, and soil organisms; terrestrial plants and
wildlife; and herbivorous, piscivorus, and carnivorous wildlife).
The chronic ecological toxicity screening values used in the
assessment were estimates of the maximum concentrations that should not
affect survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive species after
long-term (more than 30 days) exposure to HAP. We screened HAP,
pathways, and receptors using the ecological HQ method, which simply
calculates the ratio of the estimated environmental concentrations to
the selected ecological screening values.
H. What Are the Results of the Risk Assessment?
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the estimated maximum
individual risk using the modeled ambient air concentrations from the
refined air modeling assessment and risk distribution for the four
facilities at the baseline emissions level (i.e., risks based on MACT
allowable emission levels allowed by the three regulations for all
emission points assessed across the four coke facilities). Table 1 of
this preamble also shows the estimated risks attributable to emissions
from only charging, door, and topside leaks under the 1993 national
emission standards. These latter emissions contribute about 38 percent
of total facility HAP emissions.
Table 1.--Baseline Risk Estimates Due to HAP Exposure Based on 70-Year
Exposure Duration \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 national
Parameter Facility emission standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual risk from 500 in a million.. 200 in a million.
facility with highest risk.
Annual cancer incidence summed 0.1............... 0.04
for all four facilities (cases/
year).
Population at risk across all
four facilities (modeled to 50
km):
> 1 in a million............ 900,000........... 300,000
> 10 in a million........... 50,000............ 8,000
> 100 in a million.......... 300............... 8
Total modeled........... 4,000,000......... 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All risk, cancer incidence, and population estimates are rounded to
one significant figure.
The maximum individual facility-level risk (i.e., modeled risk
based on emission levels allowed by the three regulations for all
emission points assessed) is 500 in a million compared to 200 in a
million for emissions only from those processes associated with the
1993 national emission standards. This level of risk was seen at only
one of the four facilities assessed. The maximum individual facility-
level risk values for the other three facilities were 50, 100, and 100
in a million compared with risks of 20, 50, and 70 in a million,
respectively, for emissions associated with only the 1993 national
emission standards.
The annual cancer incidence (the number of cancer cases estimated
to occur) for all facilities combined is 0.1 and 0.04 cases per year
based on the facility level versus the emissions level from sources
subject to the 1993 national emission standards, respectively. Across
all four facilities, and assuming the entire population is exposed for
70 years, approximately 900,000 persons (approximately 20 percent of
total population) are estimated to be exposed to risks greater than 1
in a million for the total facility emissions compared to 300,000
persons (approximately 7 percent) for the emission points subject to
the 1993 national emission standards.
We also evaluated potential risks for adverse health effects other
than cancer. The estimated maximum inhalation HI for any noncancer
effect from an entire facility is 0.4 for hematologic (blood) effects
due to benzene. In addition, results from a multipathway risk
assessment presented in the risk assessment document shows that cancer
risks from inhalation exposures exceed cancer risks due to ingestion,
generally, by an order of magnitude. In this same assessment, the
noncancer ingestion HI was estimated to be 0.001. This level was seen
at two facilities assessed with high-end exposure factors.
The results of a screening-level ecological assessment show that
each of the coke plants had ecological HQ values less than 1 for all
pollutants assessed. Therefore, it is not likely that the HAP emitted
would pose an ecological risk to ecosystems near any of these
facilities. It is also not likely that any threatened and endangered
species, if they exist around these facilities, would be adversely
affected by these HAP emissions because they are not likely to be any
more sensitive to the effects of these HAP than the species evaluated.
The risk analysis assumed that all emission points from the
batteries are leaking or emitting at the maximum rate allowable under
the 1993 national emission standards for charging, doors, and topside
leaks, since it is theoretically possible that these amounts of
emissions could occur. However, this assumption (although theoretically
possible) overstates actual emission levels. We analyzed 1,000 to 2,600
daily compliance determinations for each battery to compare the actual
average emissions to the maximum rate allowed under the 1993 national
emission standards as modeled.\11\ The
[[Page 48347]]
results of this analysis indicate that average performance is better
than the current MACT limits and is closer to the more stringent 2010
LAER limits. The five MACT track batteries average 44 percent of the
MACT limit for doors leaks, 16 percent of the limit for lid leaks, 21
percent of the limit for offtake leaks, and 27 percent of the limit for
charging. An average performance that is better than the limit is to be
expected because if batteries were to operate on average at the level
of the 1993 national emission standards, they would likely exceed the
standards a high percent of the time. Consequently, facility owners and
operators consistently operate below the standards to avoid violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We updated the database to include inspections in 2003.
There was only a small change from the previous database used in the
risk analysis for actual emissions, and the update did not have a
significant impact on the estimate of emissions and risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 of this preamble repeats (from Table 1) the estimated risks
attributable to charging, doors, lids, and offtakes at the baseline
level (i.e., the level of risk assuming emissions from the batteries
are at the maximum allowed by the 1993 national emission standards).
Table 2 of this preamble further projects risks at the 2010 LAER level.
Table 2.--Risk Estimates Due to HAP Exposure Based on 70-Year Exposure
Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 national
Parameter emission standards 2010 LAER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual risk at 200 in a million.. 180 in a
facility with highest risk. million.\1\
Annual cancer incidence summed 0.04.............. 0.03
for all four facilities (cases/
year).
Population at risk across all
four facilities (modeled to 50
km):
> 1 in a million............ 300,000........... 200,000
> 10 in a million........... 8,000............. 7,000
> 100 in a million.......... 8................. 6
Total modeled........... 4,000,000......... 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maximum individual risk estimate of 180 in a million is
presented with two significant figures in order to show the risk
reduction expected by the 10 percent decrease in emissions we
anticipate seeing between the 1993 and 2010 emission levels.
The maximum individual risk is 200 in a million for the baseline
and 180 in a million for the 2010 LAER limits. For the baseline, 93
percent of the total modeled population is exposed to risk levels less
than 1 in a million compared to 95 percent for the 2010 LAER limits
(based on 70-year exposure duration). However, because these facilities
are in fact performing better than the limits in the 1993 national
emission standards (i.e., they could already meet the 2010 LAER
limits), the difference in risk between the two scenarios may be
smaller than the table indicates (and could be as small as zero).
We acknowledge that there are uncertainties in various aspects of
risk assessment due to the use of some modeling and exposure
assumptions. In this risk assessment, the use of these assumptions is
likely to result in our overestimating the maximum individual risk and
the magnitude of risk experienced by individual members of the
population. For example, Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble present
estimates of the number of people whose individual risk exceeds various
levels (e.g., 1 in a million, 10 in a million, 100 in a million) under
different scenarios (e.g., 1993 national emission standards, 2010
LAER). We based these estimates on an assumption that everyone in the
modeled population (4 million people) is exposed to the maximum level
of coke oven emissions allowed by the MACT standard rather than the
actual emissions known to occur now, and that they were exposed to
these emissions in one place of residence for 70 years. Such a scenario
is very unlikely because individuals typically do not occupy the same
residence for such a long period of time (e.g., the median residential
occupancy period is approximately 9 years, and less than 0.1 percent of
the population is estimated to occupy the same residence for greater
than 70 years). Because EPA typically assumes that an individual's
excess lifetime risk of cancer is directly proportional to their
duration of exposure to the carcinogen(s) in question, reducing the
duration of exposure for individuals in the modeled population would
reduce the estimates of their risk. To illustrate this, we performed an
additional analysis that showed that the average excess lifetime cancer
risks for individuals in the modeled population are likely to be about
six times less than we predicted. These results are based on using the
national average residency time of 12 years as the exposure duration
rather than 70 years. We then used these results to develop a rough
lower-bound estimate of the distribution of population risks, which
suggests that the numbers of people exposed to risk levels greater than
100, 10, and 1 in a million could be as low as 0, 200, and 70,000,
respectively. These are likely to be under-estimates because we assumed
people would move entirely out of the area after their current stay. We
are working on a better way to more accurately estimate population
risks for future residual risk assessments.
We must temper these data with the understanding that when
individuals move to another location, they are replaced by new
residents which would increase the total number of people exposed
beyond the 4 million assumed in this assessment. Also, because of the
assumed proportionality described above, if a more detailed exposure
duration treatment were used, the predicted cancer incidence in the
total modeled population would not change, but the expected
distribution of risk in that population would have fewer individuals in
the upper risk ranges. In addition, the risks may not change
appreciably for individuals moving elsewhere in the same community. As
a result, the total number of exposed individuals likely would be
greater than we predicted in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble (the
number of exposed individuals is a function of the length of time that
the emissions, as modeled, continue).
I. What Is Our Decision on Acceptable Risk and Ample Margin of Safety?
Section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA states that if the MACT standards
for a source emitting a:
* * * known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not
reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed
to emissions from a source in the category * * * to less than one in
one million, the Administrator shall promulgate [residual risk]
standards * * * for such source category.
The risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from coke
ovens is 1 in a million or greater. Coke oven batteries subject to the
proposed amendments emit known, probable, and possible human
carcinogens, and, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble, we
estimate that the
[[Page 48348]]
maximum individual risk (discussed below) associated with the limits in
the 1993 national emission standards is 200 in a million. Even if we
were to consider the uncertainty and variability in the exposure and
modeling assumptions used to derive our estimate of maximum individual
risk, such an analysis is unlikely to change any decisions that would
be made based on that level of risk.
In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, the first step of the ample margin of
safety framework is the determination of acceptability (i.e., are the
estimated risks due to emissions from these facilities ``acceptable'').
This determination is based on health considerations only. The
determination of what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a
judgment of ``what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live''
(54 FR 38045, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165)
recognizing that our world is not risk-free.
In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, we determined that a maximum individual
risk of approximately 100 in a million should ordinarily be the upper
end of the range of acceptable risks associated with an individual
source of pollution. We defined the maximum individual risk as ``the
estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or
she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70
years.'' We explained that this measure of risk ``is an estimate of the
upperbound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as
continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.'' We acknowledge
that maximum individual risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true
risk, but displays a conservative risk level which is an upper bound
that is unlikely to be exceeded.''
Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using
maximum individual risk as a metric for determining acceptability, the
Agency acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that ``consideration of
maximum individual risk * * * must take into account the strengths and
weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Consequently, the presumptive
risk level of 100 in a million provides a benchmark for judging the
acceptability of maximum individual risk, but does not constitute a
rigid line for making that determination. In establishing a presumption
for the acceptability of maximum individual risk, rather than a rigid
line for acceptability, we explained in the Benzene NESHAP that risk
levels should also be weighed with a series of other health measures
and factors, including:
The numbers of persons exposed within each individual
lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km
(about 30 miles) exposure radius around facilities;
The science policy assumptions and estimation
uncertainties associated with the risk measures;
Weight of the scientific evidence for human health
effects;
Other quantified or unquantified health effects;
Effects due to co-location of facilities and co-emission
of pollutants; and
The overall incidence of cancer or other serious health
effects within the exposed population.
In some cases, these health measures and factors may provide a more
realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the exposed
population than that provided by ``maximum individual risk.''
We consider the level of risk resulting from the limits in the 1993
national emission standards to be acceptable for this source category.
Although the calculated level of maximum individual risk (200 in a
million) is greater than the presumptively acceptable level of maximum
individual risk under the Benzene NESHAP formulation (100 in a
million), we also considered other factors in making our determination
of acceptability, as directed by the Benzene NESHAP. The principal
factors that influenced our decision are the following: more than 93
percent of the exposed population has risks less than 1 in a million;
fewer than 8 people in the exposed population have risks exceeding 100
in a million; the annual incidence of cancer resulting from the limits
in the 1993 national emission standards is estimated as 0.04 cases, or
1 case per 25 years; and, in practice facilities are achieving
emissions levels less than the limits in the 1993 national emission
standards, such that the actual risks from those sources are less than
those presented for the modeled population in Tables 1 and 2 of this
preamble. The levels of these measures of risk, when considered in
combination, are acceptable. In addition, no significant noncancer
health effects or adverse ecological impacts would be anticipated at
this level of emissions. Therefore, the risks associated with the
limits in the 1993 national emission standards are acceptable after
considering maximum individual risk, the population exposed at
different risk levels, the projected absence of noncancer effects and
adverse ecological effects, estimation uncertainty, and the other
factors described earlier.
In the second step of the ample margin of safety framework, we
considered setting standards at a level which may be equal to or lower
than the acceptable risk level and which protect public health with an
ample margin of safety. In making this determination, we considered the
estimate of health risk and other health information along with
additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control,
including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological
feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors.
We considered options that might provide a level of control more
stringent than the acceptable risk level for this source category (1993
national emission standards). One obvious option is to evaluate the
2010 LAER limits, since these limits are already specified in the
statute as benchmarks. Our review of the data shows that these limits
can be achieved by the MACT track batteries and will result in improved
emission control. Three of the batteries have never exceeded the 2010
LAER limits for all four emission points. The historical data show that
the remaining two batteries have exceeded the limit for doors in a few
instances. These same two batteries have never exceeded the 2010 LAER
limits for charging and offtakes. One of these two batteries has
occasionally exceeded the limit for lids. The control technology for
these emission points is a work practice program that includes
procedures to identify leaks and to seal them when they occur.
Increased diligence in controlling door and lid leaks would allow these
batteries to achieve compliance with the 2010 LAER limits. The
additional effort to control door and lid leaks would not require
additional personnel. The available information indicates that an
increase in maintenance labor and sealing materials would be the
primary components of any small increase in costs. The cost is
estimated at $4,500/yr based on the projected number of additional
leaks to be sealed and a conservative estimate of 30 minutes of labor
per leak.
We also considered the feasibility of emission limits more
stringent than the 2010 LAER limits. We analyzed emissions data from
the four by-product coke plants consisting of 3 to 7 years of daily
compliance demonstrations for each battery. The inspection data show
that the batteries have achieved the 2010 LAER limits a high percentage
of the time. However, the data also show that there is variability in
the level of control that is achieved over time, and emission limits
that are not-to-be exceeded must account for this variability.
Variability can be
[[Page 48349]]
introduced by a number of factors, such as the type of seals (metal,
luted, or water seals); coking conditions (cycle time, temperature,
coal mix, oven pressure, whether furnace or foundry coke is produced);
battery features (design, age, condition of brickwork and structural
steel); weather conditions; and different work crews, as well as the
variability inherent in Method 303 inspections.
For door leaks, recent Method 303 inspection data show that three
batteries have consistently achieved the 2010 LAER limits, but these
batteries have had compliance determinations that approached those
limits (e.g., 3.5 percent leaking doors compared to a limit of 4
percent). The other two batteries sometimes were higher than the
proposed limit of 4 percent leaking doors and reported maximum values
of 4.7 and 4.4 percent leaking. These two batteries averaged only one
door leak during inspections. Considering that leaks cannot be entirely
eliminated at all times, we are not certain that more stringent limits
that approach zero door leaks can be achieved consistently. The data
show that the 2010 LAER limits have been achieved a high percent of the
time; however, the data do not show that these batteries have achieved
more stringent levels on a not-to-be-exceeded basis.
The data show a similar situation for lid leaks and the proposed
limit of 0.4 percent leaking lids. All five batteries on average
perform below the limit. However, the batteries approach or exceed the
2010 limit on occasion due to inherent variability. One battery had
maximum values that exceeded the limit (up to 0.5 percent leaking
lids), one battery had maximum values equal to the limit (0.4 percent
leaking lids), and three batteries approached the limit at 0.3 percent
leaking lids. All of the batteries averaged less than one lid leak
during the inspections with averages of 0.1 to 0.3 lid leaks per
inspection.
For offtake leaks, two batteries approached the limit of 2.5
percent leaking with inspection results of 2.4 percent leaking. The
other three batteries had maximum values of 1.3 to 1.9 percent leaking.
The average number of leaking offtakes during the inspections ranged
from 0.1 to 0.9 leaks. Considering that these batteries approach or
exceed the 2010 limits for lids and offtakes on occasion while
averaging less than one leak per inspection, we cannot conclude that
limits more stringent than those proposed have been demonstrated as
achievable on a consistent basis.
For charging, all five batteries consistently met the proposed
limit of 12 seconds per charge with maximum values of 4 to 9 seconds
per charge. We evaluated the feasibility of a more stringent emission
limit for charging. The data indicate that a limit of 9 seconds per
charge has been achieved by the five batteries on a consistent basis.
However, charging emissions contribute only 8 percent of the total
emissions from the four emission points, and a 25 percent reduction in
the charging emission limit would result in only a 2 percent reduction
in overall emissions. A more stringent charging emission limit would
achieve only a negligible reduction in emissions and risk while
increasing the potential for non-compliance. Consequently, we
determined that a more stringent charging emission limit is not
warranted.
We considered one other option that would reduce risk beyond the
2010 LAER levels--requiring facilities to convert to the non-recovery
cokemaking technology. We considered this technology because of its
potential environmental benefits and because Congress required that we
evaluate this technology as a basis for emission standards for new coke
oven batteries.
Replacing existing batteries with non-recovery batteries would be
financially crippling to the industry. The construction of a non-
recovery battery requires a capital investment on the order of hundreds
of millions of dollars (about $300 per ton of coke capacity). For
example, the estimated capital cost to replace batteries on the MACT
track ranges from $50 to $290 million per plant based on the existing
coke capacity at these plants. The domestic coke industry is currently
economically depressed, and the lower cost of imported coke has
adversely affected domestic production. Based on recent trends that
show a continuing decline in domestic coke capacity due to shutdowns,
these coke facilities would be more likely to permanently close rather
than construct new non-recovery batteries. For example, 12 of the 30
coke plants operating in 1993 have permanently shut down, and five of
these plants were on the MACT track. Consequently, we determined that
requiring the replacement of existing batteries with non-recovery
batteries was not a reasonable or economically feasible option.
We examined more closely the current performance of the MACT track
batteries, emissions and risks based on current performance, and the
potential cost impacts of the 2010 LAER limits. As with many industrial
processes, performance of coke oven batteries is variable from day to
day. Recognizing this, the MACT and LAER standards are 30-day averages
of seconds of charging and percent of leaking doors, lids and offtakes.
A consequence of this is that longer-term averages (a year or longer)
necessarily will be lower than the highest 30-day average during the
same time period--40 to 73 percent lower for leaking doors, and lower
for the other parameters, based on the level of emissions control
achieved during recent visible emission inspections. This results in
actual emissions lower than would occur if all facilities emitted
consistently at the allowable 30-day average limits: 7.3 tons/yr of BSO
based on actual visible emission observations vs. 11.2 tons/yr based on
allowable visible emissions.
In Table 3 of this preamble, we provide risk estimates for these
current ``actual emissions''.
Table 3.--Risk Estimates Based on 70-Year Exposure Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 national 1993 national
emission standards emission standards
Parameter sources based on sources based on
the allowable current actual
emission limits emissions \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual risk at 200 in a million.. 140 in a million.
facility with highest risk.
Annual cancer incidence summed 0.04.............. 0.02
for all four facilities (cases/
year).
Population at risk across all
four facilities (modeled to 50
km):
> 1 in a million............ 300,000........... 200,000
> 10 in a million........... 8,000............. 6,000
> 100 in a million.......... 8................. 6
Total modeled........... 4,000,000......... 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on the level of emission control achieved during visible
emissions inspections conducted from 1995 through 2003 (nationwide
emissions estimated as 7.3 tons/yr).
[[Page 48350]]
When we examined compliance records for the four facilities, we
found that they all met all the 2003 MACT levels for charging and for
percent of leaking doors, lids and offtakes, except for one battery at
one facility for percent leaking doors, in the first years after the
MACT rule was published (but before the 2003 level took effect). After
that time, that facility stayed below the 2003 MACT level. That
facility's 30-day levels of percent leaking doors were above the 2010
LAER level several times into 1998, but then stayed below that level
since that time.
Two batteries at a second facility stayed consistently below the
2003 MACT level for percent leaking doors, but had a number of events
where the 30-day average exceeded the 2010 LAER level, as recently as
2001 and 2002. Similarly, one battery at that facility, while staying
below the 2003 MACT level for percent leaking lids, had a few episodes
when it exceeded the 2010 LAER level.
For the other facilities and for the other parameters, the
batteries showed consistent compliance not only with the 2003 MACT
levels, but with the 2010 LAER levels. In some cases, the maximum 30-
day averages in the compliance history would have been relatively close
to the 2010 LAER levels (3.0 percent maximum vs. 3.3 percent 2010 LAER
percent leaking doors level for one facility, for example) but most
would be less close.
Given this compliance history, only one facility would need to
alter its practices in any way to consistently meet the levels being
proposed today, equivalent to the 2010 LAER. The available information
indicates that an increase in maintenance labor and sealing materials
would be the primary components of any small increase in costs. The
cost is estimated at $4,500/yr based on the projected number of
additional leaks to be sealed and a conservative estimate of 30 minutes
of labor per leak. We estimate that this facility's annual emissions
would decrease by about 0.1 tons/yr. We anticipate no additional
actions or costs at the other three facilities, and consequently no
change in their emissions.
We estimate that there would be very small changes in the resulting
risks because the one facility that we expect to take action as a
result of the levels being proposed has only 8 percent of the total
modeled population, its estimated maximum risk level is 70 in a
million, and the total reduction in emissions is likely to be
relatively small (from 7.3 tons/yr to 7.2 tons/yr). The maximum
individual risk at the facility with the highest risk would not change,
nor would the number of people at a risk above 100 in a million for all
facilities (because we know from the data that all six of the
individuals estimated to be at this level of risk reside around one of
the three facilities currently meeting the 2010 LAER limits). We
anticipate very small decreases in the total annual cancer incidence
summed across all four facilities and in the estimated number of people
at a risk above 10 in a million and 1 in a million. These decreases are
well within the noise level of our ability to estimate such changes.
We determined that the 2010 LAER limits provide an opportunity for
additional control and are achievable and reasonable. We believe that
these coke oven batteries can achieve the 2010 LAER limits at a
reasonable cost. Establishing more stringent limits or requiring the
non-recovery technology is not technologically or economically
feasible. Therefore, our proposed determination is that control to the
2010 LAER levels would provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and the environment.
We expect that implementation of the proposed limits would reduce
the estimated risk that a person living near a facility would have if
he or she were exposed to that level for 70 years. Implementation of
the proposed limits would ensure that we provide the maximum feasible
protection against the estimated health risks by protecting the
greatest number of persons to an individual lifetime risk level of no
higher than 1 in a million. Specifically, under the proposed standard,
more than 95 percent of the persons living within 50 km of the coke
plants would be exposed at risk levels less than 1 in a million, as
compared with more than 93 percent under the current standard.
Additionally, the maximum estimated target organ specific HI for the
emissions of HAP that may cause effects other than cancer from all
emission points at the facility is 0.4. These emissions do not ``exceed
a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin
of safety.''\12\ Actual emissions would be reduced from 7.3 tons/yr to
7.2 tons/yr at a cost of $4,500/yr. No coke oven batteries are
projected to close because of the proposed amendments. We specifically
request comments on how measured data and modeled data are used to
support the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, this analysis relates only to emissions from a
single source category associated with coke oven batteries, not with
total facility risk. If we adopt the facilitywide approach when the
residual risk review for other source categories at coke plants is
conducted, we plan to evaluate the risk associated with emissions from
the other source categories. Moreover, we propose that an ample margin
of safety should be obtained for emissions from the entire facility. If
we adopt the facilitywide approach, delaying a determination of
facilitywide risk is, for practical purposes, a necessity. First, EPA
has only recently promulgated MACT standards for other emission points
at coke oven facilities (i.e., pushing, quenching, and battery stacks)
and lacks information on what actual emissions will be once those
standards take effect. Such information is directly relevant to
assessing ample margin of safety (from the standpoint of both risk,
technical feasibility, and cost). Second, at least one of the
facilities involved in the present proposal contains a LAER battery as
well as a MACT battery. Facilitywide determinations of risk for such
facilities necessarily must be delayed due to the statutory delay for
assessing residual risk from LAER batteries.
Finally, delaying facilitywide risk determinations appears to have
some support in the legislative history of CAA section 112(f). That
history suggests that although ``residual risk standards shall be
sufficient to protect the most exposed person with an ample margin of
safety from the combined hazardous emissions of an entire major
source,'' EPA need not do so in a single step.\13\ Rather, since the
statute establishes a staggered schedule for issuing standards:
\13\ Legislative History at 868 (Senate Debate on Conference
Report, emphasis added).
* * * the residual risk standards for such other categories do
not have to be set until the prescribed later dates, but the
standards for the categories in the first group must be sufficiently
stringent so that when all residual risk standards have been set,
the public will be protected with an ample margin of safety from the
combined emissions of all sources within a major source.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id.
Here, as shown in Table 1 of this preamble, EPA has considered
total baseline emissions and there is ``sufficient room so that the
combined risks from all parts of [coke oven batteries] do not exceed
the ample margin of safety level.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at 868-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. What Determination Is EPA Proposing Pursuant to CAA Section
112(d)(6)?
Section 112(d)(6) requires us to review and revise MACT standards
as
[[Page 48351]]
necessary every 8 years, taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that have occurred during that
time. If we find relevant changes, we may revise the MACT standards and
develop additional standards.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Technical review of LAER track standards occurs on a
different time frame than MACT track batteries. Section 112(i)(8)(C)
requires such review by January 2007. Thus, we are not considering
any changes to LAER track battery standards in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA does not read the provision as requiring another analysis
of MACT floors for existing and new sources. First, there is nothing in
the language of section 112(d)(6) that speaks clearly to the issue of
whether or not another floor analysis is required. Indeed, the
requirement that EPA consider ``practices, processes, and control
technologies'' suggests that no additional floor determination is
required, since it omits mention of ``emission limitation achieved,''
the critical language in section 112(d)(3) triggering the requirement
to determine floors for existing sources. Our position that floors are
not required to be redetermined is further demonstrated by the fact
that the provision for periodic review of the MACT standards was
included in the 1990 draft legislation (i.e., the House and Senate
Committee reported bills) before the floor provisions (which came from
later amendments to the Committee bills) were introduced.
The EPA also believes that interpreting section 112(d)(6) as
requiring additional floor determinations could effectively convert
existing source standards into new source standards. After 8 years, all
sources would be performing at least at the MACT levels of performance,
so that the average of the 12 percent of those best performers would be
performing at a lower level still, probably approaching that of new
sources. The EPA sees no indication that section 112(d)(6) was intended
to have this type of inexorable downward ratcheting effect. Rather, we
read the provision as essentially requiring EPA to consider
developments in pollution control at the sources (``taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies,'' in
the language of section 112(d)(6)), and assessing the costs, non-air
quality effects, and energy implications of potentially stricter
standards reflecting those developments.
EPA also solicits comment on the relationship between section
112(d)(6) and 112(f). If EPA were to determine that standards adopted
under section 112(f) (or section 112(d) standards evaluated pursuant to
section 112(f)) provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent adverse environmental effects, one can reasonably
question whether further reviews of technological capability are
``necessary'' (section 112(d)(6)).
Applying these principles here to by-product coke oven batteries,
although no new control technologies have been developed since the
original standards were promulgated, our review of emissions data
revealed that existing MACT track batteries can achieve a level of
control for door leaks and topside leaks more stringent than that
required by the 1993 national emission standards. The emissions data
for these batteries show that the more stringent limits for LAER track
batteries have been achieved in practice on a continuing basis through
diligent work practices to identify and stop leaks. However, as
discussed in detail in the consideration of more stringent limits in
this preamble, the data also show that the batteries are not
consistently ``over-achieving'' the proposed 2010 LAER limits.
Consequently, emission limits more stringent than those we are
proposing to establish under section 112(f) (i.e., the 2010 LAER
limits) are not warranted.
We also conducted a review of the MACT standards for new by-product
batteries. Our finding in this review was that there should be no
change in these standards because we have identified no new
technologies or control techniques that would support limits more
stringent than the current standards for new by-product batteries.
We also reviewed the MACT standards for new and existing non-
recovery batteries. There are no existing non-recovery batteries on the
MACT track subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.303(a).
Consequently, we are not revising those requirements.
Our review of the MACT requirements for new non-recovery batteries
indicated that additional requirements for new sources are warranted
based on the performance of the best-controlled existing sources. There
is one non-recovery plant on the MACT track, and it is subject to the
limits for new sources in the 1993 national emission standards. The new
source standard in 40 CFR 63.303(b)(2) requires that this plant install
a capture and control system for charging emissions. However, at the
time the national emission standards were developed, no information was
available that could be used to develop an emissions standard for
charging emissions. Charging emissions are controlled primarily by
using a high draft to contain emissions within the oven's combustion
system, and additional control is provided by capturing and controlling
any fugitive emissions that escape from the oven. A measure of the
effectiveness and performance of charging emission control is the
opacity of the fugitive emissions that escape the oven and its capture
system. In 1998 and 1999, opacity readings for charging emissions were
documented at this non-recovery plant. During startup in 1998, the
plant achieved 20 percent opacity (3-minute average) for 95 percent of
the charges that were observed. In 1999, the control performance
improved to 99 percent of the opacity observations less than 20
percent. When the opacity observations were averaged over five charges,
the variability was reduced, and a 20 percent opacity limit was
achieved over 99 percent of the time. The few exceedances of 20 percent
were caused by equipment malfunctions, changes in the coal grind, or
inexperienced operators. These data indicate that a limit of 20 percent
opacity (averaged over five charges) can be achieved, and that such a
limit ensures that charging emissions are consistently well controlled.
This limit reflects the performance of the best-controlled similar
source. Consequently, we are proposing to revise the standards to
incorporate a limit of 20 percent opacity for charging for new sources.
This non-recovery plant has a permit requirement that oven damper
adjustments be made to maximize oven draft during charging, which
ensures better containment of charging emissions within the combustion
system. This requirement represents an improvement in control
technology that should be applied to new sources. Consequently, we are
proposing a requirement for new non-recovery batteries that the draft
on the oven be maximized during charging. The proposed revisions would
also require that records be kept to demonstrate compliance with the
work practice standard, including procedures for monitoring damper
position during charging to ensure that the draft is maximized.
Our review also indicates that the batteries at this plant are
equipped with a baghouse to control charging emissions. An emission
limit (in the plant's operating permit) of 0.0081 pounds of PM per ton
of dry coal (lb/ton) has been achieved by these batteries.
Consequently, we are proposing an emission limit of 0.0081 lb/ton for
charging emission controls at new non-recovery batteries. We are also
[[Page 48352]]
proposing a daily observation for visible emissions from the charging
emissions control device to ensure it operates properly on a continuing
basis. If any visible emissions are observed, corrective action must be
taken to find and remedy the cause of the visible emissions. A visible
emissions observation must be made within 24 hours by EPA Method 9 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A), and the opacity must be less than 10 percent
to demonstrate that the corrective action was successful.
The EPA views all of these proposed changes for charging as
reflecting developments in practices and control technologies at
reasonable cost without appreciable non-air environmental impacts.
Consequently, these proposed requirements for new sources are
appropriate under section 112(d)(6).
We also reviewed the current MACT standards for door leaks in 40
CFR 63.303(b)(1), which require either zero percent leaking doors or
monitoring the pressure in each oven or common tunnel to ensure the
ovens are operated under negative pressure. Both of these options are
based on monitoring doors once each day of operation. The intent of
these requirements is to assure that no doors leak during normal
operation. However, as explained earlier in this preamble, following
these practices does not necessarily result in no leaks. We are
proposing to amend the MACT standards to clarify this fact, and to
assure that the extent and number of any such leaks are minimized. At
the same time, our review indicates that there have been no changes in
technology or emission control that would warrant more stringent
emission standards for these sources. Consequently, we are not
proposing more stringent requirements for coke oven doors under section
112(d)(6).
We specifically request your comments on our review of the 1993
national emission standards and our proposed determinations under CAA
section 112(d)(6).
K. Why Are We Amending the Requirements in the 1993 National Emission
Standards for Door Leaks on Non-Recovery Batteries?
We are proposing to amend the requirements in the 1993 national
emission standards for door leaks at non-recovery batteries on the MACT
track to ensure that the existing standards reflect MACT. The current
MACT standards for door leaks in 40 CFR 63.303(b)(1) require either
zero percent leaking doors or monitoring the pressure in each oven or
common tunnel to ensure the ovens are operated under negative pressure.
The intent of these requirements is to assure that no doors leak during
normal operation. We recently obtained information from the affected
facility that indicates certain equipment failures or operating
problems can temporarily create a positive pressure in a non-recovery
oven and cause a door to leak. The principal operating problems that
can cause a door to leak include plugging of an uptake damper
(resulting in a loss of oven draft) and fouling of the heat exchanger
used for heat recovery (resulting in a positive back pressure). These
events are very infrequent and short in duration because the problem is
quickly remedied (typically in 5 to 15 minutes).
Our review of the door leak standards indicates that the current
requirements in the 1993 national emission standards should be
strengthened to ensure that door leaks do not occur regularly and to
ensure that when leaks do occur, they are promptly stopped. The current
standard does not address the rare occurrences when the equipment that
controls the oven's draft may malfunction and cause minor leakage
around the door area. We are proposing to supplement the current
requirements with additional requirements to ensure that the minor
leaks are promptly corrected.
The non-recovery plant subject to the MACT standards has developed
procedures to assure that corrective actions are taken to stop leaks
within 15 minutes. Problems with uptake dampers and fouled heat
exchangers are quickly remedied, and the plant has instituted
preventative measures to minimize their occurrence. Based on the
plant's current practices, we have developed a proposed revision that
would require that any door leak be stopped within 15 minutes by taking
corrective actions. We are also proposing an exception that would allow
up to 45 minutes to stop the leak for no more than two occurrences per
battery during any semiannual reporting period. This exception is
designed to accommodate the situations where 15 minutes may not be
enough time to identify the cause of the leak and take corrective
actions to stop the leak. We are allowing up to 45 minutes to stop a
leak if a worker must enter a cokeside shed to take corrective action.
After a door leak has been stopped, no additional leaks would be
allowed from that oven during the remainder of its coking cycle. We are
proposing monitoring provisions to require that each door be observed
for visible emissions immediately after charging. We are also proposing
that the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan be expanded to
identify failures that create door leaks, develop corrective actions
for each potential failure, and establish preventative procedures to
minimize their occurrence. These requirements are designed to ensure
that even if an infrequent door leak occurs, the leak is stopped
promptly.
The primary impact of the proposed amendments on the affected non-
recovery plant would be additional labor to monitor for emissions and
to identify and correct any problems associated with emissions from
charging and doors. The revisions would not impose new substantive
additional controls and are designed to assure that the non-recovery
plant implements its current procedures on a continuing basis. The
plant is expected to incur a total annualized cost of about $28,000 per
year as a result of the proposed revisions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Additional details are provided in the supporting statement
for the Information Collection Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also clarifying that the work practice requirements for
charging for existing non-recovery plants also apply to new non-
recovery plants. This was the intent of the original rule; however, the
requirement is not stated clearly in the 1993 national emission
standards. This revision will not affect the non-recovery plant subject
to the new source standards in the 1993 national emission standards
because the work practice requirements have already been incorporated
into its operating permit. However, the proposed revision will clarify
that the work practice requirements apply to non-recovery plants that
might be constructed in the future.
L. What Are the Estimated Cost Impacts of the Proposed Amendments?
We evaluated the cost impacts of the proposed amendments for
existing by-product coke oven batteries and believe that the MACT track
batteries can achieve the 2010 LAER limits with only a minimal increase
in cost. Our conclusion is based on a review of inspection data that
show the level of control that these plants are currently achieving.
The results of several years of daily compliance determinations
show that all five MACT track batteries have met the 2010 LAER limits
for charging and offtakes 100 percent of the time. There should be no
incremental increase in costs for these emission points.
The review of the past 3 years of daily compliance determinations
for door leaks shows that three batteries met the 2010 LAER limits 100
percent of the
[[Page 48353]]
time; consequently, these batteries will incur very little costs beyond
those currently being incurred to control door leaks. One plant with
two batteries had a few excursions of the proposed limit. One of these
batteries met the limit 99 percent of the time, and the other met it 95
percent of the time. These two batteries have hand-luted doors, and
leaks are controlled by applying sealing material. These batteries may
incur minor increases in labor, supervision, and sealing materials to
achieve the small improvement in control that is needed.
Four of the batteries have achieved the 2010 LAER limit for lid
leaks 100 percent of the time and should incur little additional costs.
One battery achieved the limit 96 percent of the time and may incur
some additional cost. However, lid leaks are not difficult to control
because they only require the application of sealant to a flat
horizontal surface. Increased diligence in identifying and stopping lid
leaks may be required. We estimate the cost of additional control of
door leaks and lid leaks at one plant at $4,500/yr for additional labor
and materials to identify and seal leaks.
We also evaluated the cost impacts of the proposed amendments for
non-recovery batteries. There has been only one new non-recovery plant
constructed in the past 30 years, and we have no indication that a new
non-recovery battery will be constructed and operated in the next 5
years. Consequently, we expect no cost impacts in the near term from
our proposed requirements for charging for new non-recovery batteries.
Our proposed amendments for door leaks will affect one non-recovery
plant. However, this plant is already implementing most of the proposed
requirements as part of its routine operation. We expect that some
increased labor will be incurred to identify and correct the infrequent
occurrence of door leaks. In addition, there will be some burden
associated with reporting and recordkeeping for these events. We
estimate that the additional requirements proposed for door leaks will
result in an increase in total annualized cost of $28,000 per year.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Under the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined
that this regulatory action is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it raises novel legal or policy issues. As such, this action
was submitted to OMB for Executive Order 12866 review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the proposed amendments
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR No. 1362.05.
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 national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed amendments would establish work practice requirements
designed to improve control of door leaks applicable to all non-
recovery coke oven batteries. The owner or operator also would be
required to add certain information on malfunctions associated with
door leaks to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. New non-
recovery batteries also would be required to implement the same work
practice standards that already apply to existing non-recovery
batteries. Plant owners or operators would be required to submit an
initial notification of compliance status and semiannual compliance
reports. Records would be required to demonstrate compliance with
applicable emission limitations and work practice requirements.
Additional requirements would apply to a new non-recovery coke oven
battery, but none are expected during the 3-year period of this ICR.
This action would not impose any new or revised information collection
burden on by-product coke oven batteries subject to the proposed
amendments. These batteries are currently meeting the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the 1993 national emission
standards.
The increased annual average monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3
years of this ICR) is estimated to total 448 labor hours per year at a
cost of $28,338. This includes an increase of three responses per year
from one respondent for an average of about 148 hours per response. No
capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated
with the proposed monitoring requirements.
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 purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
[[Page 48354]]
automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket
for the proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number
OAR-2003-0056. Submit any comments related to the ICR for the proposed
rule to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Office for EPA. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after August 9, 2004, a comment to OMB
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by
September 8, 2004. The final rule amendments will respond to any OMB or
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in
the proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business having no more than 1,000 employees, as defined by the Small
Business Administration for NAICS codes 331111 and 324199; (2) a
government 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 that is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Of the five companies subject to the requirements of the
proposed amendments, one company (operating a total of three batteries)
is considered a small entity. However, the proposed amendments will not
impose any significant additional regulatory costs on that small entity
because it is already meeting the stricter emissions limitations for
by-product coke oven batteries included in the proposed rule
amendments, as well as the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
Although the proposed rule amendments will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we
nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments on
small entities. We held meetings with industry trade associations and
company representatives to discuss the proposed amendments and have
included provisions that address their concerns. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed amendments on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to
the private sector in any 1 year. No significant costs are attributable
to the proposed amendments. Thus, the proposed amendments are not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, the proposed amendments do not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because they contain no requirements that
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore,
the proposed amendments are not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected
plants are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on
[[Page 48355]]
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.''
The proposed amendments do not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
No tribal governments own plants subject to the MACT standards for coke
oven batteries. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the
proposed amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The proposed amendments are not subject to the Executive Order
because they are not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit or
identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the Agency may not be
aware, that assessed results of early life exposure to coke oven
emissions.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed amendments are not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because
they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we believe that the proposed
amendments are not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
These proposed amendments involve technical standards. The EPA
proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D (PM) and
9 (opacity) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
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, and 9. One voluntary consensus standard was
identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA test methods for the
purposes of the proposed amendments. The voluntary consensus standard
ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is
cited in the proposed amendments for its manual method for measuring
the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas.
This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10 is an acceptable alternative
to Method 3B.
Our search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 14
voluntary consensus standards applicable to the proposed amendments.
The EPA determined that 12 of these standards identified for measuring
PM were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods due to lack of
equivalency, detail, specific equipment requirements, or quality
assurance/quality control requirements. The two remaining voluntary
consensus standards identified in the search were not available at the
time the review was conducted because they are under development by a
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly Method 1) and ASME/
BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2. Therefore, EPA does not intend
to adopt these standards for this purpose. Detailed information on the
EPA's search and review results is included in the docket.
Section 63.309 of the proposed amendments lists the EPA test
methods that would be required. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR
63.8(f), a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA test
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 29, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
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 revising paragraph (i)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(3) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.685(b), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.4166(a)(3),
63.4965(a)(3), and 63.5160(d)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
Subpart L--[Amended]
3. Section 63.300 is amended by:
a. Redesignating existing paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) as
(a)(5) through (a)(7); and
b. Adding new paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.300 Applicability.
(a) * * *
(3) [date 90 days after publication of the final rule amendments in
the Federal Register], for existing by-product coke oven batteries
subject to emission limitations in Sec. 63.302(a)(3) and for non-
recovery coke oven batteries subject to the emission limitations and
requirements in Sec. 63.303(b)(3) or (c);
(4) Upon startup for a new non-recovery coke oven battery subject
to the
[[Page 48356]]
emission limitations and requirements in Sec. 63.303(b), (c), and (d).
A new non-recovery coke oven battery subject to the requirements in
Sec. 63.303(d) is one for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or after August 9, 2004;
* * * * *
4. Section 63.302 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.302 Standards for by-product coke oven batteries.
(a) * * *
(3) On and after [date 90 days after publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register];
(i) 4.0 percent leaking coke oven doors for each tall by-product
coke oven battery and for each by-product coke oven battery owned or
operated by a foundry coke producer, as determined by the procedures in
Sec. 63.309(d)(1);
(ii) 3.3 percent leaking coke oven doors for each by-product coke
oven battery not subject to the emission limitation in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section, as determined by the procedures in Sec.
63.309(d)(1);
(iii) 0.4 percent leaking topside port lids, as determined by the
procedures in Sec. 63.309(d)(1);
(iv) 2.5 percent leaking offtake system(s), as determined by the
procedures in Sec. 63.309(d)(1); and
(v) 12 seconds of visible emissions per charge, as determined by
the procedures in Sec. 63.309(d)(2).
* * * * *
5. Section 63.303 is amended by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) as (b)(4) and (b)(5)
and adding new paragraph (b)(3); and
b. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.303 Standards for non-recovery coke oven batteries.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For charging operations, the owner or operator shall implement,
for each day of operation, the work practices specified in Sec.
63.306(b)(6) and record the performance of the work practices as
required in Sec. 63.306(b)(7).
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in Sec. 63.304, the owner or operator of
any non-recovery coke oven battery shall meet the work practice
standards in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall observe each coke oven door after
charging and record the oven number of any door from which visible
emissions occur. Emissions from coal spilled during charging or from
material trapped within the seal area of the door are not considered to
be a door leak if the owner or operator demonstrates that the oven is
under negative pressure, and that no emissions are visible from the top
of the door or from dampers on the door.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section, if a coke oven door leak is observed at any time during the
coking cycle, the owner or operator shall take corrective action and
stop the leak within 15 minutes from the time the leak is first
observed. No additional leaks are allowed from doors on that oven for
the remainder of that oven's coking cycle.
(i) For no more than two times per battery in any semiannual
reporting period, the owner or operator may take corrective action and
stop the leak within 45 minutes (instead of 15 minutes) from the time
the leak is first observed.
(ii) The limit of two occurrences per battery specified in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section does not apply if a worker must
enter a cokeside shed to stop a leaking door under the cokeside shed.
The owner or operator shall take corrective action and stop the door
leak within 45 minutes (instead of 15 minutes) from the time the leak
is first observed. The evacuation system and control device for the
cokeside shed must be operated at all times there is a leaking door
under the cokeside shed.
(d) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery
shall meet the emission limitations and work practice standards in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere from charging operations any fugitive
emissions that exhibit an opacity greater than 20 percent, as
determined by the procedures in Sec. 63.309(j).
(2) The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any emissions of particulate matter (PM)
from a charging emissions control device that exceed 0.0081 pounds per
ton (lbs/ton) of dry coal charged, as determined by the procedures in
Sec. 63.309(k).
(3) The owner or operator shall observe the exhaust stack of each
charging emissions control device at least once during each day of
operation to determine if visible emissions are present and shall
record the results of each daily observation or the reason why
conditions did not permit a daily observation. If any visible emissions
are observed, the owner or operator must:
(i) Take corrective action to eliminate the presence of visible
emissions;
(ii) Record the cause of the problem creating the visible emissions
and the corrective action taken;
(iii) Conduct visible emission observations according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.309(m) within 24 hours after detecting the
visible emissions; and
(iv) Report any 6-minute average, as determined according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.309(m), that exceeds 10 percent opacity as a
deviation in the semiannual compliance report required by Sec.
63.311(d).
(4) The owner or operator shall develop and implement written
procedures for adjusting the oven uptake damper to maximize oven draft
during charging and for monitoring the oven damper setting during each
charge to ensure that the damper is fully open.
6. Section 63.309 is amended by adding new paragraphs (j) through
(m) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.309 Performance tests and procedures.
* * * * *
(j) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery
shall conduct a performance test once each week to demonstrate
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec. 63.303(d)(1). The owner or
operator shall conduct each performance test according to the
procedures and requirements in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Using a certified observer, determine the average opacity of
five consecutive charges per week for each charging emissions capture
system if charges can be observed according to the requirements of
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), except as specified in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Instead of the procedures in section 2.4 of Method 9 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A), record observations to the nearest 5 percent at
15-second intervals for at least five consecutive charges.
(ii) Instead of the procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A), determine and record the highest 3-minute block
average opacity for each charge from the consecutive observations
recorded at 15-second intervals.
(2) Opacity observations are to start when the door is removed for
charging and end when the door is replaced.
(3) Using the observations recorded from each performance test, the
certified observer shall compute and record the average of the five 3-
minute block averages.
(k) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery
shall
[[Page 48357]]
conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations for a charging emissions control device in Sec.
63.303(d)(2) within 180 days of the compliance date that is specified
for the affected source in Sec. 63.300(a)(4) and report the results in
the notification of compliance status. The owner or operator shall
prepare a site-specific test plan according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7(c) and shall conduct each performance test according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of PM according to the following
test methods in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
(i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of
traverse points. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of
the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the
manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide content of exhaust gas, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5 or 5D, as applicable, to determine the concentration
of front half PM in the stack gas.
(2) During each PM test run, sample only during periods of actual
charging when the capture system fan and control device are engaged.
Collect a minimum sample volume of 30 dry standard cubic feet (dscf)
during each test run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a
performance test. Each run must start at the beginning of a charge and
finish at the end of a charge (i.e., sample for an integral number of
charges).
(3) Determine and record the total combined weight of tons of dry
coal charged during the duration of each test run.
(4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep) for
each test run using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU04.000
Where:
Ep = Process weighted mass emissions of PM, lb/ton;
C = Concentration of PM, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
T = Total time during a run that a sample is withdrawn from the stack
during charging, hr;
P = Total amount of dry coal charged during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound (gr/lb).
(l) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery
shall conduct subsequent performance tests for each charging emissions
control device subject to the PM emissions limit in Sec. 63.303(d)(2)
at least once during each term of their title V operating permit.
(m) Visible emission observations of a charging emissions control
device required by Sec. 63.303(d)(3)(iii) must be performed by a
certified observer according to Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)
for one 6-minute period.
7. Section 63.310 is amended by adding new paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.310 Requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.
* * * * *
(j) The owner or operator of a non-recovery coke oven battery
subject to the work practice standards for door leaks in Sec.
63.303(c) shall include the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
and (2) of this section in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(1) Identification of potential malfunctions that will cause a door
to leak, preventative maintenance procedures to minimize their
occurrence, and corrective action procedures to stop the door leak.
(2) Identification of potential malfunctions that affect charging
emissions, preventative maintenance procedures to minimize their
occurrence, and corrective action procedures.
8. Section 63.311 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding new paragraphs (b)(3)
through (7);
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1) and adding new paragraph (c)(3);
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) and adding new paragraphs
(d)(4) through (9); and
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) and adding new paragraphs
(f)(1)(iv) through (ix).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.311 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Statement signed by the owner or operator, certifying that a
bypass/bleeder stack flare system or an approved alternative control
device or system has been installed as required in Sec. 63.307.
(2) * * *
(3) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that all
work practice standards for charging operations have been met as
required in Sec. 63.303(b)(3).
(4) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that all
work practice standards for door leaks have been met as required in
Sec. 63.303(c).
(5) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that the
information on potential malfunctions has been added to the startup,
shutdown and malfunction plan as required in Sec. 63.310(j).
(6) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, that all applicable
emission limitations in Sec. 63.303(d)(1) and (2) for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery have been met. The owner or operator shall
also include the results of the PM performance test required in Sec.
63.309(k).
(7) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that all
work practice standards in Sec. 63.303(d)(3) and (4) for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery have been met.
(c) * * *
(1) Intention to construct a new coke oven battery (including
reconstruction of an existing coke oven battery and construction of a
greenfield coke oven battery), a brownfield coke oven battery, or a
padup rebuild coke oven battery, including the anticipated date of
startup.
* * * * *
(3) Intention to conduct a PM performance test for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.303(d)(2). The owner or operator shall provide written notification
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(b).
(d) * * *
(1) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that no coke
oven gas was vented, except through the bypass/bleeder stack flare
system of a by-product coke oven battery during the reporting period or
that a venting report has been submitted according to the requirements
in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction event did not occur for a coke oven battery
during the reporting period or that a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction event did occur and a report was submitted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.310(e).
[[Page 48358]]
(3) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that work
practices were implemented if applicable under Sec. 63.306.
(4) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work
practices for non-recovery coke oven batteries were implemented as
required in Sec. 63.303(b)(3).
(5) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all coke
oven door leaks on a non-recovery battery were stopped according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.303(c)(2) and (3). If a coke oven door leak
was not stopped according to the requirements in Sec. 63.303(c)(2) and
(3), or if the door leak occurred again during the coking cycle, the
owner or operator must report the information in paragraphs (d)(5)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) The oven number of each coke oven door for which a leak was not
stopped according to the requirements in Sec. 63.303(c)(2) and (3) or
for a door leak that occurred again during the coking cycle.
(ii) The total duration of the leak from the time the leak was
first observed.
(iii) The cause of the leak (including unknown cause, if
applicable) and the corrective action taken to stop the leak.
(6) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that the
opacity of emissions from charging operations for a new non-recovery
coke oven battery did not exceed 20 percent. If the opacity limit in
Sec. 63.303(d)(1) was exceeded, the owner or operator must report the
number, duration, and cause of the deviation (including unknown cause,
if applicable), and the corrective action taken.
(7) Results of any PM performance test for a charging emissions
control device for a new non-recovery coke oven battery conducted
during the reporting period as required in Sec. 63.309(l).
(8) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work
practices for a charging emissions control device for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery were implemented as required in Sec.
63.303(d)(3). If a Method 9 visible emissions observation exceeds 10
percent, the owner or operator must report the duration and cause of
the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), and the
corrective action taken.
(9) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work
practices for oven dampers on a new non-recovery coke oven battery were
implemented as required in Sec. 63.303(d)(4).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Records of daily pressure monitoring, if applicable according
to Sec. 63.303(a)(1)(ii) or Sec. 63.303(b)(1)(ii).
(ii) Records demonstrating the performance of work practice
requirements according to Sec. 63.306(b)(7). This requirement applies
to non-recovery coke oven batteries subject to the work practice
requirements in Sec. 63.303(a)(2) or Sec. 63.303(b)(3).
* * * * *
(iv) Records to demonstrate compliance with the work practice
requirement for door leaks in Sec. 63.303(c). These records must
include the oven number of each leaking door, total duration of the
leak from the time the leak was first observed, the cause of the leak
(including unknown cause, if applicable), the corrective action taken,
and the amount of time taken to stop the leak from the time the leak
was first observed.
(v) Records to demonstrate compliance with the work practice
requirements for oven uptake damper monitoring and adjustments in Sec.
63.303(c)(1)(iv).
(vi) Records of weekly performance tests to demonstrate compliance
with the opacity limit for charging operations in Sec. 63.303(d)(1).
These records must include calculations of the highest 3-minute
averages for each charge, the average opacity of five charges, and, if
applicable, records demonstrating why five consecutive charges were not
observed (e.g., the battery was charged only at night).
(vii) Records of all PM performance tests for a charging emissions
control device to demonstrate compliance with the limit in Sec.
63.303(d)(2).
(viii) Records of all daily visible emission observations for a
charging emission control device to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements limit in Sec. 63.303(d)(3).
(ix) Records to demonstrate compliance with the work practice
requirements for oven uptake damper monitoring and adjustments in Sec.
63.303(d)(4).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-17787 Filed 8-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P