[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51306-51317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17193]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0083; FRL-7962-2]
RIN 2060-AM76
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and
steel manufacturing. The proposed amendments would add a new compliance
option, revise emission limitations, reduce the frequency of repeat
performance tests for certain emissions units, add corrective action
requirements, and clarify certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 31,
2005.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by September 19, 2005, a public hearing will be held
approximately 30 days following publication of this action in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0083, 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], Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0083 and [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-1741 and (919) 541-5450.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2002-0083, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID Number OAR-2002-
0083, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. We request
that a separate copy of each public comment also be sent to the contact
person for the proposed action listed below see(FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0083.
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. (For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102).
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 material, such
as copyrighted material, 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 at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR-2002-0083, EPA West
Building, 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 EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Metals
Group (C439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5289, fax number (919) 541-5450, e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected
by the NESHAP include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAIC
Category code\1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................... 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies,
sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen process
furnace (BOPF) shops.
Federal government......................... .......... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.............. .......... Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
[[Page 51307]]
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7781
of subpart FFFFF (NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of
subpart A (General Provisions).
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed action will also be available on
the Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing
is to be held should contact Ms. Barbara Miles, Metals Group (C439-02),
Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone (919) 541-5648.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. Why are we proposing to revise the emission limitations?
B. Why are we proposing to amend monitoring requirements for
baghouses?
C. Why are we proposing to revise the requirements for repeat
performance tests?
D. Why are we proposing to revise the definition of ``ladle
metallurgy'' to exclude vacuum degassing?
IV. 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 Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. Background
On May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), we issued the NESHAP for integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFFF). The NESHAP implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
by requiring all major sources to meet emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) reflecting application of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT). The NESHAP establish emission limitations
for emission sources in each new or existing sinter plant, blast
furnace, and basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shop.
After promulgation of the NESHAP, five steel companies and one
trade association filed a petition for review challenging the final
standards (AK Steel Corporation et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, no. 03-1207, DC Cir.). The petitioners raised issues
concerning:
Failure to respond to substantive industry comments
questioning the definitions, subcategorization, control technologies
identified, emission standards, testing and monitoring, and other
aspects of the rule;
Failure to provide justification for setting standards for
ladle metallurgy operations, sinter plant discharge ends, and sinter
coolers;
Requiring bag leak detection systems to be used for
positive pressure baghouse systems that discharge without stacks or
from baghouse systems with continuous emission monitors;
Applying emission standards to control devices that do not
discharge to the ambient air;
Imposing stringent testing, monitoring, inspection, and
reporting requirements on insignificant sources;
Providing for the establishment of source-specific opacity
limitations based on opacity observations made during required source
performance testing and by specifying use of infeasible technical
requirements for such observations; and
Failing adequately to consider health threshold levels and
to allow for alternative emission standards, performance testing
requirements or monitoring methods that are demonstrated to provide
comparable protection to public health and the environment.
EPA and petitioners anticipate that the amendments to the NESHAP
proposed in this notice will resolve these concerns, and EPA and
industry petitioners have entered into a settlement agreement whereby
EPA agreed to sign a notice proposing these amendments by September 23,
2005. See 70 FR 36383, June 23, 2005 (public notice of settlement
agreement pursuant to section 113 of the CAA; EPA received no adverse
comment on this notice of settlement).
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments would revise the applicability of the
emission limits for sinter cooler stacks at new and existing sinter
plants. The revised limits would apply to each sinter cooler instead of
to each sinter cooler stack. We are also proposing a 10 percent opacity
limit for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant instead of the
current particulate matter (PM) emission limit of 0.03 grains per dry
standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). The proposed amendments would also
clarify (in a new footnote to Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF)
that PM limits do not apply to discharges inside a building or
structure housing a discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a
casthouse at an existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop
that is subject to a roof monitor opacity limit. We are proposing to
change the frequency for conducting subsequent performance tests from
twice each permit term to once each permit term for emission units
equipped with a baghouse. Repeat performance tests would still be
required at least twice each permit term for a sinter cooler at an
existing sinter plant, for each unit equipped with a control device
other than a baghouse, and for each affected source without a title V
operating permit.
The proposed amendments would revise the operating limit in 40 CFR
63.7790(b)(3) for an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that controls
emissions from a BOPF to require that the hourly average opacity of
emissions from the control device be maintained at or below 10 percent.
Section 63.7830(b) of the NESHAP requires a bag leak detection
system for each baghouse used to meet a PM limit. The proposed
amendments would add an alternative allowing plants to use a continuous
opacity monitoring system (COMS) to monitor the opacity of emissions
exiting each control device stack. A bag leak detection system or
[[Page 51308]]
COMS would not be required for a positive-pressure baghouse not
equipped with exhaust gas stacks that was installed before August 30,
2005.
We are proposing to revise the requirements for operation and
maintenance (O&M) plans. The proposed amendments would expand the
corrective action procedures in 40 CFR 63.7800(b)(4) to apply to
baghouses equipped with COMS in addition to those with bag leak
detection systems. Plants would be required to initiate corrective
action if a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered or if
emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an hourly average
opacity of 5 percent.
We are also proposing to add corrective action procedures for other
types of control devices. If a venturi scrubber equipped with
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) or an ESP equipped with
a COMS exceeds the opacity operating limit, plants would be required to
take corrective action consistent with their site-specific monitoring
plan. New provisions in 40 CFR 63.7833 would require plants to initiate
corrective action to determine the cause of the exceedance within 1
hour and to measure operating parameter value(s) for the emission unit
within 24 hours of the exceedance. If the measured value(s) meet the
applicable operating limit, the corrective action is successful and the
emission unit would be in compliance with the applicable operating
limit. If the initial corrective action is not successful, additional
corrective action would be required within the next 24 hours. Plants
would re-measure the operating parameter(s) and if the corrective
action is successful, the emission unit would be in compliance with the
applicable operating limit. If the second attempt at corrective action
is not successful, the plant would report the exceedance as a deviation
in the next semiannual compliance report.
In other amendments, we are proposing to clarify the requirements
for establishing venturi scrubber parametric operating limits in 40 CFR
63.7824(b) by stating that plants may establish the limit during the
initial performance test or during any other performance test that
meets the emission limit. We are also proposing to revise the
definition of ``ladle metallurgy'' by stating that vacuum degassing is
not included in the definition. We are also proposing changes to Table
4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which would clarify the
applicability of certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) to the rule and correct errors in certain entries.
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Emission Limitations?
Sinter Coolers
The petitioners objected to the PM emission limit for sinter cooler
stacks (0.03 gr/dscf) for a variety of reasons, including the lack of
HAP data to support a standard, the de minimus nature of the emissions,
and the high costs for testing and monitoring. In addition, several
plants have coolers without stacks that cannot be tested by EPA Method
5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Petitioners contend that an opacity
limit would be technically feasible and consistent with State rules.
We agree with the commenters' concerns that the sinter cooler
standard should accommodate coolers without stacks. For a sinter cooler
at a new affected source, we are proposing to revise the current limit
to apply to emissions from each sinter cooler rather than each sinter
cooler stack. For sinter coolers at an existing affected source, we are
proposing to revise the MACT floor based on State rules and new opacity
data. As discussed below, the data clearly show that a 10 percent limit
(6-minute average) provides a reasonably accurate picture of the
performance achieved by the best-performing sources and can be achieved
on a continuing basis.
Our review of sinter coolers indicate that some coolers do not have
stacks, and their design and operation make it impractical to install a
stack. As promulgated, the final rule does not apply an emission limit
to coolers without stacks. We reviewed existing State regulations for
sinter coolers and found that some States have opacity limits which
provide a practical means for limiting emissions from coolers with and
without stacks. The MACT floor based on current opacity limits is
determined by the 10 percent (6-minute average) limit that applies to
three sinter plants with five sinter coolers in Lake County, Indiana.
See Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(7)(A)-(B).
We attempted to obtain opacity data for these sources, but the coolers
are seldom inspected by the State agency because they are such a low-
emitting emission source. We also attempted to obtain self-monitoring
data performed by the plants. Data were available for only one of the
sinter plant coolers. The plant provided data for 366 observations
covering 13 months. The 99th percentile of the observations was 8
percent opacity, and only two observations exceeded 10 percent. These
data indicate that a MACT floor of 10 percent opacity based on current
State regulations is a reasonable representation of the opacity that
can be achieved on a continuing basis by sinter coolers. The proposed
opacity limit would apply to the sinter cooler and any discharge of
emissions from the cooler; it would not apply to the material transfer
point where the sinter is removed from the cooler.
Discharges Inside Buildings
The petitioners explained that at some facilities, control devices
discharge to the interior of buildings and not to the ambient air.
Other facilities are able to meet opacity limits by using flame
suppression and do not have a control device. Facilities with capture
systems leading to a control device that then discharge within the
building are in effect no different than those systems used to suppress
emissions to meet the opacity limit for a building.
The petitioners are correct that the language of the emission
limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF (``emissions
discharged to the atmosphere''), could be construed to include
emissions discharged inside buildings. This is not our intent. In
response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing amendments to
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, that would add a footnote to
each PM limit for a control device at an existing source stating that
the limit does not apply to discharges inside a blast furnace
casthouse, BOPF shop, or building housing the discharge end at a sinter
plant. The applicable emission limit for these emissions and other
fugitive emissions that are discharged through the roof monitor is the
opacity limit for the building cited in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF.
Parametric Operating Limit for Electrostatic Precipitators
The NESHAP establish an operating limit for ESP that control
emissions from a BOPF. Plant operators are to set the site-specific
limit based on COMS measurements made during the performance test. The
commenters contend that variations in BOPF operations make it
impractical to set a parametric limit based on a short-term performance
test. In addition, the presence of water vapor or steam, which is
necessary for optimizing ESP performance, raises issues of
interferences in COM readings. The commenters support a 20 percent
opacity limit (6-minute average), consistent with State regulations,
permit
[[Page 51309]]
requirements, and the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (69 FR 55218, September 13,
2004). The petitioners also stated that exceedance of the parametric
limit should result in triggering corrective action rather than a
violation.
We agree with the petitioners' arguments and are proposing to
change the ESP operating limit to a fixed opacity level of 10 percent.
This proposed operating limit would be an hourly average to be
consistent with other parametric operating limits for control devices.
We are also proposing that plant operators take corrective action if
the operating limit for an ESP or venturi scrubber is exceeded. The
proposed amendments would require plant operators to initiate
corrective action within 1 hour. If the limit is still exceeded after
24 hours (i.e., the corrective action was unsuccessful), plant
operators would need to take additional corrective action. If the
operating limit is exceeded after 24 more hours, we are proposing that
the exceedance would be reported as a deviation in the semiannual
compliance report. These provisions would not apply in the event of a
malfunction, which would be handled according to the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan.
B. Why Are We Proposing To Amend Monitoring Requirements for Baghouses?
Baghouses Without Exhaust Stacks
The NESHAP require a bag leak detection system for each baghouse
used to meet the PM limits. The petitioners point out that EPA's
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015,
September 1997) states that only fabric filters with exhaust stacks are
covered by this guidance. Some of the emissions sources covered by the
NESHAP use positive pressure baghouses which do not use an exhaust
stack. EPA has recognized this problem in other rules.
We agree with the commenters that bag leak detection systems should
not be required for fabric filters without exhaust stacks. In response
to the commenters' concerns, we are proposing to revise the rule to
clarify that bag leak detection systems are required only for negative
pressure baghouses and positive pressure baghouses with a stack.
COMS as an Alternative to Bag Leak Detection Systems
The petitioners also point out that some companies already have
COMS in place, may be required to install COMS due to State, local, or
permit requirements, or may opt for COMS instead of bag leak detection
systems if given the choice. These companies should not be required to
operate duplicative baghouse monitoring systems.
We agree that COMS, which provide a direct measure of opacity, are
certainly a suitable alternative to bag leak detection systems. In
response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing to increase the
flexibility of the NESHAP by adding COMS as a monitoring alternative.
This approach is consistent with several other MACT standards, as well
as the recent amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS)
for electric arc furnaces (70 FR 8523, February 22, 2005). The proposed
amendments would require that the COMS for baghouses meet the same
requirements as COMS for ESP. The same corrective action requirements
for baghouses also would apply. If a bag leak detection system alarm is
triggered or emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an
hourly average opacity of 5 percent, the proposed amendments would
require plants to initiate corrective action within specified time
limits. We are proposing the 5 percent trigger because it is consistent
with other MACT standards as well as with the amendments to the NSPS
for electric arc furnaces cited above.
C. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Requirements for Repeat
Performance Tests?
The petitioners asked EPA to amend the rule to reduce the costs
associated with demonstrating continuous compliance, particularly for
well-controlled emissions sources. We are proposing to reduce the
frequency of repeat PM and opacity performance tests from twice each
permit term to once per term for emission units equipped with a
baghouse. The reduced frequency would apply to minor emission units
equipped with baghouses because performance would be continuously
monitored by a bag leak detection system or COMS.
D. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Definition of ``Ladle
Metallurgy'' To Exclude Vacuum Degassing?
Vacuum degassing is an advanced steel refining process to remove
oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen in a vacuum to produce ultra-low carbon
steel for certain applications. As such, this process could fall within
the definition of ``ladle metallurgy.'' The petitioners argue that EPA
did not acknowledge the fundamental control technology differences for
vacuum degassing operations compared to ladle metallurgy operations
which are typically controlled by baghouses. They explain that many
BOPF shops have vacuum degassing facilities and all use steam ejector/
condenser systems; baghouses are not suitable control systems because
of the inherent moisture in the gas downstream of the steam ejectors.
Although PM emissions are low, these facilities would not be able to
achieve the limit for new or existing ladle metallurgy operations.
We agree with the petitioners that the definition of ``ladle
metallurgy'' (a secondary steelmaking process that is performed in a
ladle after initial refining in a BOPF to adjust the chemical and/or
mechanical properties of steel) could be interpreted to include vacuum
degassing. In response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing
to revise the definition of ``ladle metallurgy'' to specifically
exclude vacuum degassing.
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments would not affect the level of emissions
control required by the existing NESHAP or the nonair, health,
environmental, and energy impacts. However, the costs of implementing
the existing rule would be reduced in future years. For example, the
proposed reduction in subsequent performance tests for an emissions
source equipped with a baghouse would reduce the nationwide cost of PM
testing over the next 5 years from $270,000/year to $180,000/year, a
savings of $90,000/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), 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;
[[Page 51310]]
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that these proposed amendments are not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The proposed amendments provide additional flexibility through revised
requirements for monitoring operational parameters which would not
increase the existing information collection burden. Other proposed
amendments, such as the reduction in subsequent PM performance tests
for certain emissions sources, is expected to decrease the information
collection burden in future years. However, OMB has previously approved
the information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0517, EPA Information Collection Request (ICR)
number 2003.02. A copy of the OMB approved ICR may be obtained from
Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or
by calling (202) 566-1672.
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.
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
would 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 as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations
at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed amendments would not impose any requirements on
small entities. There are no small entities in the regulated industry.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
rule 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, 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 to 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 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 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 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.
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. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, EPA has determined that the proposed amendments contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, because they contain no requirements that apply to
such governments or impose obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are 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.''
[[Page 51311]]
The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They
would 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. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (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.'' The proposed amendments do
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
They would 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, as specified in Executive Order
13175. No tribal governments own plants subject to the MACT standards
for integrated iron and steel manufacturing. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to today's proposed amendments. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
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, 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 EPA.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed amendments are
not subject to the Executive Order because they are based on control
technology and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable
VCS.
The proposed amendments do not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 23, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
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 FFFFF--[AMENDED]
2. Section 63.7790 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7790 What emission limitations must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
BOPF, you must maintain the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting
the control device at or below 10 percent.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.7800 is amended by:
a. Revising the second sentence in the introductory text of
paragraph (b);
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(4);
c. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi);
d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(7); and
e. Adding new paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * * Each plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Corrective action procedures for baghouses equipped with bag
leak detection systems or continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS).
In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered or
emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an hourly average
opacity of 5 percent, you must initiate corrective action to determine
the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective
action to correct the cause of the problem within 24 hours of the
alarm, and complete the corrective action as soon as practicable.
Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(5) Corrective action procedures for venturi scrubbers equipped
with continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS). In the event a
venturi scrubber exceeds the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2),
you must take corrective actions consistent with your site-specific
monitoring plan in accordance with Sec. 63.7831(a).
(6) Corrective action procedures for electrostatic precipitators
equipped with COMS. In the event an electrostatic precipitator exceeds
the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must take corrective
actions consistent with your site-specific monitoring plan in
accordance with Sec. 63.7831(a).
* * * * *
4. Section 63.7821 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 51312]]
(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM and opacity limits in Table 1 to this
subpart at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of
this section.
(b) For each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant and each
emissions unit equipped with a control device other than a baghouse,
you must conduct subsequent performance tests no less frequently than
twice (at mid-term and renewal) during each term of your title V
operating permit.
(c) For each emissions unit equipped with a baghouse, you must
conduct subsequent performance tests no less frequently than once
during each term of your title V operating permit.
(d) For sources without a title V operating permit, you must
conduct subsequent performance tests every 2.5 years.
5. Section 63.7823 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
* * * * *
(c) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in
Table 1 to this subpart for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter
plant, a sinter plant discharge end, or a blast furnace casthouse:
* * * * *
6. Section 63.7824 is amended by:
a. Adding a second sentence to the introductory text of paragraph
(b);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
c. Removing paragraph (c);
d. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (c)
through (f);
e. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (c)
and newly designated paragraph (c)(3);
f. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph
(d); and
g. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (e)
and newly designated paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7824 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with operating limits?
* * * * *
(b) * * * You may establish the parametric monitoring limit during
the initial performance test or during any other performance test run
that meets the emission limit.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(c), measure and record
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate during each run of the
particulate matter performance test.
* * * * *
(c) You may change the operating limits for a capture system or
venturi scrubber if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for a control
device or capture system.
(d) For each sinter plant subject to the operating limit for the
oil content of the sinter plant feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(d)(1), you
must demonstrate initial compliance according to the procedures in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) To demonstrate initial compliance with the alternative
operating limit for volatile organic compound emissions from the sinter
plant windbox exhaust stream in Sec. 63.7790(d)(2), follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
(4) Continue the sampling and analysis procedures in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (3) of this section for 30 consecutive days.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.7825 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
b. Removing paragraph (a)(4); and
c. Revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) * * *
(2) For each capture system subject to the operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(b)(1), you have established appropriate site-specific operating
limit(s) and have a record of the operating parameter data measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(a)(1); and
(3) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(b).
(b) For each existing or new sinter plant subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7790(d)(1), you have demonstrated initial compliance
if the 30-day rolling average of the oil content of the feedstock,
measured during the initial performance test in accordance with Sec.
63.7824(d) is no more than 0.02 percent. For each existing or new
sinter plant subject to the alternative operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(d)(2), you have demonstrated initial compliance if the 30-day
rolling average of the volatile organic compound emissions from the
sinter plant windbox exhaust stream, measured during the initial
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(e) is no more than
0.2 lb/ton of sinter produced.
* * * * *
8. Section 63.7826 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Prepared the control device operation and maintenance plan
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7800(b), including a
preventative maintenance schedule and, as applicable, detailed
descriptions of the corrective action procedures for baghouses and
other control devices;
* * * * *
9. Section 63.7830 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d),
(e)(1), and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, you
must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section
for each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission limit in
Table 1 of this subpart. You must conduct inspections of each baghouse
according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system
according to Sec. 63.7831(f) and monitor the relative change in
particulate matter loadings according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7832; or
(2) If you do not install and operate a bag leak detection system,
you must install, operate, and maintain a COMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7831(h) and monitor the hourly average opacity
of emissions exiting each control device stack according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7832.
(3) A bag leak detection system and COMS are not required for a
baghouse that meets the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii)
of this section.
[[Page 51313]]
(i) The baghouse is a positive pressure baghouse and is not
equipped with exhaust gas stacks; and
(ii) The baghouse was installed before August 30, 2005.
(4) You must conduct inspections of each baghouse at the specified
frequencies according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)
through (viii) of this section.
(i) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the manual.
(ii) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(iii) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
(iv) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
(v) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
(vi) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
(vii) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
(viii) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion
through quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or
equivalent means.
* * * * *
(d) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must install, operate, and
maintain a COMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(h) and
monitor the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting each control
device stack according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7832.
(e) * * *
(1) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the oil
content of the feedstock for each operating day using the procedures in
Sec. 63.7824(d); or
(2) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the volatile
organic compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) for each operating day
using the procedures in Sec. 63.7824(e).
10. Section 63.7831 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a), revising
paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6), and adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and
(a)(8);
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (f); and
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (h) and revising
paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7831 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
(a) For each CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830, you must develop and
make available for inspection upon request by the permitting authority
a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d);
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), paragraph (e)(1), and
paragraph (e)(2)(i);
(7) Corrective action procedures you will follow in the event a
venturi scrubber exceeds the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2);
and
(8) Corrective action procedures you will follow in the event an
electrostatic precipitator exceeds the operating limit in Sec.
63.7790(b)(3).
* * * * *
(f) For each baghouse equipped with a bag leak detection system
according to Sec. 63.7830(b)(1), you must install, operate, and
maintain the bag leak detection system according to the requirements in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
(h) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3) and each baghouse equipped with
a COMS according to Sec. 63.7830(b)(2), you must install, operate, and
maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) COMS data must be reduced to 6-minute averages as specified in
Sec. 63.8(g)(2) and to hourly averages where required by this subpart
FFFFF.
11. Section 63.7833 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c);
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d) and adding new
paragraph (d)(4);
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e), revising
paragraph (e)(1), and adding new paragraph (e)(3);
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i); and
e. Adding new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
* * * * *
(c) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) as
applicable, and paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section:
(1) For a baghouse equipped with a bag leak detection system,
operating and maintaining each bag leak detection system according to
Sec. 63.7831(f) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements. If you increase or decrease the
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system beyond the limits
specified in Sec. 63.7831(f)(6), you must include a copy of the
required written certification by a responsible official in the next
semiannual compliance report.
(2) For a baghouse equipped with a COMS, operating and maintaining
each COMS and reducing the COMS data according to Sec. 63.7831(h).
(3) Inspecting each baghouse according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7830(b)(4) and maintaining all records needed to document
conformance with these requirements.
(4) Maintaining records of the time you initiated corrective action
in the event of a bag leak detection system alarm or when the hourly
average opacity exceeded 5 percent, the corrective action(s) taken, and
the date on which corrective action was completed.
(d) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you
must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section:
* * * * *
(4) If the hourly average pressure drop or scrubber water flow rate
is below the operating limits, you must follow the corrective action
procedures in paragraph (g) of this section.
(e) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3)
of this section:
(1) Maintaining the hourly average opacity of emissions no higher
than 10 percent; and
* * * * *
(3) If the hourly average opacity of emissions exceeds 10 percent,
you must follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (g) of
this section.
[[Page 51314]]
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average of the
percent oil content for each operating day according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7824(d);
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average of the
volatile organic compound emissions for each operating day according to
the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7824(e);
* * * * *
(g) If the hourly average pressure drop or water flow rate for a
venturi scrubber or hourly average opacity for an electrostatic
precipitator exceeds the operating limit, you must follow the
procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of
the exceedance within 1 hour. During any period of corrective action,
you must continue to monitor and record all required operating
parameters for equipment that remains in operation. Within 24 hours of
the exceedance, you must measure and record the hourly average
operating parameter value for the emission unit on which corrective
action was taken. If the hourly average parameter value meets the
applicable operating limit, then the corrective action was successful,
and the emission unit is in compliance with the applicable operating
limit.
(2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (g)(1)
of this section was not successful, you must complete additional
corrective action within the next 24 hours (48 hours from the time of
the exceedance). During any period of corrective action, you must
continue to monitor and record all required operating parameters for
equipment that remains in operation. After this second 24 hour period,
you must again measure and record the hourly average operating
parameter value for the emission unit on which corrective action was
taken. If the hourly average parameter value meets the applicable
operating limit, then the corrective action was successful, and the
emission unit is in compliance with the applicable operating limit.
(3) For purposes of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section, in
the case of an exceedance of the hourly average opacity operating limit
for an electrostatic precipitator, measurements of the hourly average
opacity based on visible emission observations in accordance with
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) may be taken to evaluate the
effectiveness of corrective action.
(4) If the second attempt at corrective action required in
paragraph (g)(2) of this section was not successful, you must report
the exceedance as a deviation in your next semiannual compliance report
according to Sec. 63.7841(b).
12. Section 63.7834 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7834 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each capture system and control device subject to an
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.
63.7800(b) by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4)
of this section:
(1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems and initiating
corrective action according to Sec. 63.7800(b)(1) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements;
(2) Performing preventative maintenance according to Sec.
63.7800(b)(2) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements;
(3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a baghouse
equipped with a bag leak detection system or COMS according to Sec.
63.7800(b)(4) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements, including the time you initiated
corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on
which corrective action was completed.
(4) Initiating and completing corrective action for a venturi
scrubber equipped with a CPMS or an electrostatic precipitator equipped
with a COMS according to Sec. 63.7833(g) and recording all information
needed to document conformance with these requirements, including the
time you initiated corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken
within the first 24 hours according to Sec. 63.7833(g)(1) and whether
they were successful, the corrective action(s) taken within the second
24 hours according to Sec. 63.7833(g)(2) and whether they were
successful, and the date on which corrective action was completed.
* * * * *
13. Section 63.7835 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. Except as provided in Sec. 63.7833(g), you must
report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation
in Sec. 63.7790 that applies to you. * * *
* * * * *
14. Section 63.7851 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7851 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and paragraph (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90, except
for approval of an alternative method for the oil content of the sinter
plant feedstock or volatile organic compound measurements for the
sinter plant windbox exhaust stream stack as provided in Sec.
63.7824(f).
* * * * *
15. Section 63.7852 is amended by revising the definition of term
``Ladle metallurgy'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Ladle metallurgy means a secondary steelmaking process that is
performed typically in a ladle after initial refining in a basic oxygen
process furnace to adjust or amend the chemical and/or mechanical
properties of steel. This definition does not include vacuum degassing.
* * * * *
16. Table 1 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by revising
entries 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11; and by revising the footnotes to
read as follows:
[[Page 51315]]
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Emission and Opacity Limits
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must comply with each of the following . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
plant. that exit from one or more control devices that contain, on a
flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf
\1\ \2\ and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater
than 20 percent (6-minute average).
* * * * * * *
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
plant. emissions that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute
plant. average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plan.. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
furnace. that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter
in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf \2\; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any opening in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast furnace that exhibit opacity greater
than 20 percent (6-minute average).
* * * * * * *
9. Each BOPF at a or existing shop.......... a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with
a closed hood system at a new or existing BOPF shop that contain,
on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.03 gr/
dscf during the primary oxygen blow \2\ \3\; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with
an open hood system that contain, on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf during the steel
production cycle for an existing BOPF shop \2\ \3\ or 0.01 gr/
dscf during the steel production cycle for a new BOPF shop \3\;
and
c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
that exit from a control device used solely for the collection of
secondary emissions from the BOPF that contain particulate matter
in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.0052
gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
desulfurization operation at a new or that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter
existing BOPF shop. in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.003
gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
or existing BOPF shop. that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter
in excess of BOPF shop \2\ or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control device as the discharge end.
\2\ This concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not apply to discharges inside a building or
structure housing the discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an existing blast
furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop that is subject to a roof monitor opacity limit in Table 1 to this
subpart.
\3\ This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a single BOPF during the oxygen blow.
17. Table 2 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by revising
entries 5 and 6 as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter The opacity of emissions, determined according to the performance
plant. test procedures in Sec. 63.7823(c), did not exceed 10 percent
(6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plant. The average concentration of particulate matter, measured
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(b), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Table 3 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is revised to read as
follows:
[[Page 51316]]
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity
limits according to the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.4 lb/
existing sinter plant ton of product sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.3 lb/
sinter plant ton of product sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more
plant. control devices at or below 0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end at
or below 20 percent (6-minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
4. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant. a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more
control devices at or below 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end at
or below 10 percent (6-minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter a. Maintaining the opacity of emissions that exit any sinter
plant. cooler at or below 10 percent (6-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plant. a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.1 gr/
dscf; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control
furnace. device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or structure housing the casthouse at or
below 20 percent (6-minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace.... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the casthouse or structure housing the casthouse at or
below 15 percent (6-minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing BOPF shop. a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary
control system for a BOPF with a closed hood system at or below
0.03 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary
control system for a BOPF with an open hood system at or below
0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop; and
c. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control
device applied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF at or
below 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf
for a new BOPF shop; and
d. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, and a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control
desulfurization operation at a new or device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/
existing BOPF shop dscf for a new BOPF; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control
or existing BOPF shop device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF shop or 0.004
gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
12. Each roof monitor at an existing BOPF a. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any
shop. opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing the BOPF shop
or shop operation at or below 20 percent (3-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
13. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop.... a. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or
other building housing a bottom-blown BOPF or shop operation at
or below 10 percent, except that one 6-minute period greater than
10 percent but no more than 20 percent may occur once per steel
production cycle; and
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 3-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or
other building housing a top-blown BOPF or shop operation at or
below 10 percent, except that one 3-minute period greater than 10
percent but less than 20 percent may occur once per steel
production cycle; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies
specified in Sec. 63.7821.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Table 4 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by revising
entry Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i) and entries Sec. Sec. 63.8 through 63.10 as
follows:
* * * * *
[[Page 51317]]
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject FFFFF Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i) Determining Compliance No................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
with Opacity and VE methods and procedures
Standards. for determining
compliance with opacity
emission and operating
limits.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring Requirements... Yes.................. CMS requirements in Sec.
(3), (c)(4)(i)-(ii), (c)(5)-(6), Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-
(c)(7)-(8), (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)- (ii), (c)(5)-(6), (d),
(4). and (e) apply only to
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. Additional Monitoring No................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements for Control require flares.
Devices in Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. Continuous Monitoring No................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
System Requirements. requirements for
operation of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. RATA Alternative.......... No...................
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................. Data Reduction............ No................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9....................... Notification Requirements. Yes.................. Additional notifications
for CMS in Sec.
63.9(g) apply only to
COMS.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)- Recordkeeping and Yes.................. Additional records for
(xii), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), Reporting Requirements. CMS in Sec.
(c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(15), (d), 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(e)(1)-(2), (e)(4), (f) (15), and reports in
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)
apply only to COMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (xiii)......... CMS Records for RATA No...................
Alternative.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............ Records of Excess No................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Emissions and Parameter record requirements.
Monitoring Exceedances
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................ Excess Emission Reports... No................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
reporting requirements.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-17193 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U