[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36836-36868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16289]



[[Page 36835]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated 
Iron and Steel Manufacturing; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 36836]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6768-3]
RIN 2060-AE48


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
facilities. The EPA has identified integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing facilities as a major source of hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emissions. These proposed standards will implement section 112(d) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP 
emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT).
    The HAP emitted by facilities in the integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing source category include metals (primarily manganese and 
lead with small quantities of other metals) and trace amounts of 
organic HAP (such as polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and carbon 
disulfide). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause 
adverse health effects, including chronic and acute disorders of the 
blood, heart, kidneys, reproductive system, and central nervous system.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 11, 2001.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 3, 2001, a public hearing will be held on 
August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-2000-44, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, 
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-2000-
44, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The 
EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed 
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC 
beginning at 10 a.m.
    Docket. Docket No. A-2000-44 contains supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside 
Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Mulrine, Metals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-5289, electronic mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special 
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks 
in WordPerfect  version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number: A-2000-44. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales, 
U.S. EPA, OAQPS Document Control Officer, Attn: Phil Mulrine, 411 W. 
Chapel Hill Street, Room 740B, Durham, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose 
information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality 
accompanies a submission when it is received by the EPA, the 
information may be made available to the public without further notice 
to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mary 
Hinson, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5601, in advance of 
the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing 
must also call Mary Hinson to verify the time, date, and location of 
the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the 
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these 
proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of this proposed 
rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout 
the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow 
members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and 
locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the 
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the 
CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this 
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be 
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature, a copy of the rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                         SIC          NAICS         Example of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated iron and steel mills..............         3312        331111   Steel companies, sinter plants, blast
                                                                            furnaces, basic oxygen process
                                                                            furnace shops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 36837]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7781 of the 
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
    B. How do we develop NESHAP?
    C. What source category is affected by this proposed rule?
    D. What processes are used at integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing facilities?
    E. What HAP are emitted and how are they controlled?
    F. What are the health effects associated with emissions from 
integrated iron and steel manufacturing processes?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
    B. What are the emission limitations?
    C. What are the operation and maintenance requirements?
    D. What are the initial compliance requirements?
    E. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
    G. What are the compliance deadlines?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the affected sources?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. How did we determine the bases and levels of the proposed 
standards?
    D. How did we select the initial compliance requirements?
    E. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
    F. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air emission impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 
impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996(SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The category 
of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP, Integrated Iron 
and Steel Manufacturing, was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). 
Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater 
than 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAP.

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

    The NESHAP for new and existing sources developed under section 112 
must reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is 
achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental benefits, and 
energy requirements. Emission reductions may be accomplished through 
promulgation of emission standards under section 112(d). These may 
include, but are not limited to:
     Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions of HAP 
through process changes, substitution of materials, or other 
modifications;
     Enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
     Collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
     Design, equipment, work practice or operational standards 
or any combination thereof if it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce an emission standard (including requirements for operator 
training or certification); or
     A combination of the above.
    Section 112 requires us to establish standards that are no less 
stringent than a certain minimum baseline, we refer to this as the 
``MACT floor.'' For new sources, the standards for a source category or 
subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than the standards 
for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources (excluding certain sources) for categories and 
subcategories with 30 or more sources. For categories and subcategories 
with fewer than 30 sources, the standards cannot be less stringent than 
the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing five 
sources.
    We may take alternative approaches to establishing the MACT floor, 
depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available data. 
The three approaches most commonly used involve reliance on State 
regulations or permit limits, source test data that characterize actual 
emissions, and use of a technology floor with an accompanying 
demonstrated achievable emission level that accounts for process and/or 
air pollution control device variability.
    Section 112(d) allows us to distinguish among classes, types, and 
sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. For example, we can 
establish classes of sources within a category or subcategory based on 
size and establish a different emission standard for each class, 
provided both standards are at least as stringent as the MACT floor for 
that class of sources.
    We evaluate several alternatives (which may be different levels of 
emission control or different levels of applicability or both) to 
select the one that best reflects the appropriate MACT level. The 
selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the 
control level selected must be technically achievable. In selecting an 
alternative, we consider the achievable HAP emission reduction (and 
possibly other pollutants that are co-controlled), cost and economic 
impacts, energy impacts, and other environmental impacts. The objective 
is to achieve the maximum degree of emission reduction without 
unreasonable economic or other impacts. The regulatory alternatives 
selected for new and existing sources may be different because of 
different MACT floors, and separate regulatory decisions may be made 
for new and existing sources.
    We then translate the selected regulatory alternative into a 
proposed rule. The public is invited to comment on the proposal during 
the public comment period. Based on an evaluation of these comments, we 
reach a final decision and promulgate the standards.

C. What Source Category Is Affected by This Proposed Rule?

    Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us to list all categories of 
major and area

[[Page 36838]]

sources of HAP for which we will develop national emission standards. 
We published the initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 
FR 31576). ``Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing'' is one the 
source categories on the initial list. The listing was based on our 
determination that integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities 
may reasonably be anticipated to emit a variety of HAP listed in 
section 112(b) in quantities sufficient to be major sources.
    An integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility produces steel 
from iron ore. The integrated iron and steel manufacturing source 
category includes sinter production, iron production, and steel 
production.

D. What Processes Are Used at Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
Facilities?

    The primary processes of interest because of their potential to 
generate HAP emissions include sinter plants, blast furnaces that 
produce iron, and basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPF) that produce 
steel. There are also several ancillary processes, including hot metal 
transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy. Iron 
and steel are produced at 20 plant sites in the United States (U.S.) 
that have a total of 39 blast furnaces, 50 BOPF, and 9 sinter plants. 
Integrated iron and steel plants are located in ten States; however, 
the majority of the iron and steel is produced in Indiana, Ohio, and 
Illinois.
    The sintering process converts fine-sized raw materials, including 
iron ore, coke breeze, limestone, mill scale, and flue dust, into an 
agglomerated product (sinter) of suitable size for charging into the 
blast furnace. The raw materials are mixed with water to provide a 
cohesive matrix and then placed on a continuous traveling grate called 
the sinter strand. A burner hood at the beginning of the sinter strand 
ignites the coke in the mixture, after which the combustion is self 
supporting and provides sufficient heat (2,400 to 2,700 degrees 
Fahrenheit) to cause surface melting and agglomeration of the mix. On 
the underside of the sinter strand are a series of windboxes that draw 
combusted air down through the material bed into a common duct leading 
to a gas cleaning device (either a venturi scrubber or a baghouse).
    The fused sinter is discharged at the end of the sinter strand 
where it is crushed and screened. Undersize sinter is recycled to the 
mixing mill and back to the strand. The remaining sinter product is 
cooled in open air or in a circular cooler with mechanical fans. The 
cooled sinter is crushed and screened for a final time, then the fines 
are recycled and the product is sent to be charged to the blast 
furnace. Generally, 2.5 tons of raw materials, including water and 
fuel, are required to produce 1 ton of product sinter.
    Iron is produced in blast furnaces by the reduction of iron bearing 
materials with a hot gas. The large, refractory lined furnace is 
charged through its top with iron ore, iron ore pellets, sinter, flux 
(limestone and dolomite), and coke, which provides fuel and forms a 
reducing atmosphere in the furnace. Many modern blast furnaces also 
inject pulverized coal to reduce the quantity of coke required. Iron 
oxides, coke, coal, and fluxes react with the heated blast air injected 
into the bottom of the furnace to form molten reduced iron, carbon 
monoxide (CO), and slag. The molten iron and slag collect in the hearth 
at the base of the furnace. The by-product gas is collected through 
offtakes located at the top of the furnace and is recovered for use as 
fuel.
    The molten iron and slag are removed, or cast, from the furnace 
periodically. The casting process begins with drilling a hole, called 
the taphole, into the clay-filled iron notch at the base of the hearth. 
During casting, molten iron flows into runners that lead to transport 
ladles. Slag also flows from the furnace and is directed through 
separate runners to a slag pit adjacent to the casthouse, or into slag 
pots for transport to a remote slag pit. At the conclusion of the cast, 
the taphole is replugged with clay. The area around the base of the 
furnace, including all iron and slag runners, is enclosed by a 
casthouse.
    The blast furnace by-product gas, which is collected from the 
furnace top, contains CO and particulate matter (PM). As a fuel, the 
blast furnace gas has a low heating value, about 75 to 90 British 
thermal units per cubic foot (Btu/ft3). Before it can be 
efficiently burned, the PM must be removed from the gas. Initially, the 
gases pass through a settling chamber or dry cyclone to remove about 60 
percent of the particulate. Next, the gases undergo a one or two stage 
cleaning operation. The primary cleaner is normally a wet scrubber, 
which removes about 90 percent of the remaining particulate. The 
secondary cleaner is a high-energy wet scrubber (usually a venturi) 
which removes up to 90 percent of the particulate that eludes the 
primary cleaner. Together, these control devices provide a clean fuel 
with less than 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) of PM. 
A portion of this gas is fired in the blast furnace stoves to preheat 
the blast air, and the rest is used in other plant operations.
    After the molten iron (called ``hot metal'') is produced in the 
blast furnace, it is transferred to the BOPF shop. Brick-lined torpedo 
cars are used because their insulating properties lower heat loss from 
the iron. Hot metal transfer occurs when the molten iron is transferred 
(``reladled'') from the torpedo car to the BOPF shop ladle.
    Hot metal is desulfurized by adding various reagents such as soda 
ash, lime, and magnesium. The reagents are usually injected 
pneumatically with either dry air or nitrogen. Following 
desulfurization, any slag formed is skimmed from the ladle and the hot 
metal is transferred to a BOPF.
    In the BOPF, molten iron from a blast furnace and iron scrap are 
refined by lancing (or injecting) high-purity oxygen. The input 
material is typically 70 percent hot metal and 30 percent scrap metal. 
The oxygen reacts with carbon and other impurities to remove them from 
the metal. Because the reactions are exothermic, no external heat 
source is necessary to melt the scrap and to raise the temperature of 
the metal to the desired range for tapping. For a BOPF, tapping begins 
when the furnace is tilted to remove steel and slag and ends when the 
furnace returns to an upright position. The large quantities of CO 
produced by the reactions in the BOPF can be controlled by combustion 
at the mouth of the furnace and then vented to gas cleaning devices, as 
with open hoods, or combustion can be suppressed at the furnace mouth, 
as with closed hoods.
    The BOPF is a large (up to 400-ton capacity) refractory lined pear-
shaped furnace. There are two major variations of the process. 
Conventional BOPF have oxygen blown into the top of the furnace through 
a water-cooled lance (top-blown). In the newer Quelle Basic Oxygen 
process (Q-BOP), oxygen is injected through tuyeres located in the 
bottom of the furnace (bottom-blown). A typical BOPF cycle consists of 
the scrap charge, hot metal charge, oxygen blow (refining) period, 
testing for temperature and chemical composition of the steel, alloy 
additions and reblows (if necessary), tapping, and slagging. The full 
furnace cycle typically ranges from 25 to 45 minutes.
    Ladle metallurgy is a secondary step of the steelmaking process 
performed in a ladle after the initial refining process in the BOPF is 
completed. The purpose of ladle metallurgy (also referred to as 
secondary steelmaking) is to produce steel that satisfies the many 
stringent requirements associated with surface and internal quality as 
well as

[[Page 36839]]

mechanical properties. Nearly all of the integrated iron and steel 
facilities perform some type of ladle metallurgy, such as vacuum 
degassing, ladle refining, reheating, alloy addition, argon/oxygen 
decarburization, argon stirring, and lance powder injection.
    After the steel has been refined in the BOPF and ladle metallurgy 
operations, the molten metal is transferred to a continuous casting 
operation where it is cast and subsequently rolled into a semi-finished 
product, such as a bloom, billet, or slab.

E. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are They Controlled?

1. Sinter Plants
    The primary source of HAP emissions from sinter plants (over 40 
percent) is the windbox exhaust. The windbox exhaust is a high volume 
stream of hot gases on the order of 300,000 to 600,000 dscfm. Control 
devices applied include baghouses and venturi scrubbers. The HAP 
emissions include HAP metal compounds, primarily lead and manganese, 
which comprise about 3 percent of the total PM. Organic HAP compounds, 
including both volatile and semivolatile HAP such as polycyclic organic 
matter, are also emitted. The organic compounds are formed from oily 
materials, mostly rolling mill scale, that are used in the sinter feed. 
Most plants minimize emissions of organic compounds by carefully 
monitoring and limiting the quantity of oil introduced with the sinter 
feed.
    The discharge end emission points include the crusher, hot screen 
and various transfer points as the hot sinter is conveyed to the 
cooler. The sinter cooler stack is also an emission point. These 
operations are a source of PM emissions from the dusty sinter product 
and account for only 7 percent of the HAP emissions from the sinter 
plant. The most significant HAP found in emissions from the discharge 
and sinter cooler is manganese, which comprises only about 0.75 percent 
of the PM.
2. Blast Furnace Casthouse
    The primary source of blast furnace emissions is the casting 
operation. Particulate emissions are generated when the molten iron and 
slag contact air above their surface. Casting emissions are also 
generated by drilling and plugging the taphole. The occasional use of 
an oxygen lance to open a clogged taphole can increase emissions. 
During the casting operation, iron oxides, magnesium oxide and 
carbonaceous compounds are generated as PM. The only significant HAP 
found in the PM is manganese, which comprises about 0.6 percent of the 
PM.
    Casting emissions are controlled by evacuation through capture 
hoods to a baghouse or by suppression techniques. The basic concept of 
suppression techniques that use steam or inert gas is to prevent the 
formation of pollutants by preventing ambient air from contacting the 
molten surfaces. Newer furnaces have been constructed with evacuated 
covered runners and local hooding ducted to a baghouse.
3. Hot Metal Transfer, Desulfurization, and Slag Skimming
    Hot metal transfer from the torpedo car into the BOPF shop ladle is 
accompanied by the emissions of kish, a mixture of fine iron oxide 
particles together with larger graphite particles. The reladling 
generally takes place under a hood to capture these emissions. 
Emissions during desulfurization are created by both the reaction of 
the reagents injected into the metal and the turbulence during 
injection. The pollutants emitted are mostly iron oxides, calcium 
oxides, and oxides of the compound injected. The sulfur reacts with the 
reagents and is skimmed off as slag.
    The emissions generated from desulfurization and slag skimming are 
usually collected by a hood positioned over the ladle and vented to a 
baghouse. Many plants perform hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and 
slag skimming at the same station to take advantage of a single capture 
and control system. Manganese is the predominant HAP in the PM 
emissions. The level of manganese is expected to be comparable to that 
of PM from the casthouse (on the order of 0.6 percent).
4. Basic Oxygen Process Furnace
    Emissions from the BOPF occur during charging, the oxygen blow and 
tapping. Fugitive emissions escape through the BOPF shop roof monitor, 
and stack emissions are released through primary and secondary control 
systems. The predominant compounds emitted are iron oxides, and the 
most significant HAP is manganese. Manganese comprises about 1 percent 
of the particulate, which is more than all of the other HAP metals 
combined.
    Emissions during oxygen blow periods are controlled using a primary 
hood capture system located directly over the open mouth of the 
furnaces. Two types of capture systems are used to collect exhaust gas 
as it leaves the furnace mouth: a closed hood design that suppresses 
combustion, and an open hood design that promotes combustion. A closed 
hood fits snugly against the furnace mouth, ducting all PM and CO to a 
venturi scrubber. The CO is flared at the scrubber outlet stack. The 
open hood design allows combustion air to be drawn into the hood, thus 
burning the CO. Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and venturi scrubbers 
are used as the primary controls for open hood BOPF.
    Charging and tapping emissions are controlled by a variety of 
evacuation systems and operating practices. Charging hoods, tapside 
enclosures, and full furnace enclosures are used to capture these 
emissions and send them either to the primary control device or to a 
secondary device, usually a baghouse. Almost all closed hood BOPF have 
a secondary capture and control system, whereas many open hood BOPF 
rely on the primary system for capture and control of fugitive 
emissions.
5. Ladle Metallurgy
    Most BOPF shops have a ladle metallurgy station where various 
adjustments are made to the steel's physical and chemical properties. 
Almost all ladle metallurgy stations are enclosed or hooded, and any 
fume from the vessel is ducted to a baghouse. There are few data on the 
HAP composition of ladle metallurgy emissions; however, the composition 
should be similar to that of emissions from the BOPF (primarily 
manganese).

F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Processes?

    There are a variety of metal HAP contained in the PM emitted from 
iron and steel manufacturing processes. These include primarily 
manganese and lead, with much smaller quantities of antimony, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, and selenium. 
Organic HAP compounds are released in trace amounts from the sinter 
plant windbox exhaust and include polycyclic organic matter (such as 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and chlorinated dibenzodioxins and 
furans), and volatile organics such as benzene, carbon disulfide, 
toluene, and xylene. These HAP are associated with a variety of adverse 
health effects including chronic and acute disorders of the blood, 
heart, kidneys, reproductive system, and central nervous system.
    Manganese and lead comprise the majority of the metal HAP 
emissions. Health effects in humans have been associated with both 
deficiencies and excess intakes of manganese. Chronic exposure to low 
levels of manganese in the diet is considered to be nutritionally 
essential in humans, with a

[[Page 36840]]

recommended daily allowance of 2 to 5 milligrams per day. Chronic 
exposure to high levels of manganese by inhalation in humans results 
primarily in central nervous system (CNS) effects. Visual reaction 
time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination were affected in 
chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by feelings of 
weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask-like face, and psychological 
disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher levels. 
Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male workers afflicted 
with manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. We have classified 
manganese in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.
    Lead is a very toxic element, causing a variety of effects at low 
dose levels. Brain damage, kidney damage, and gastrointestinal distress 
may occur from acute exposure to high levels of lead in humans. Chronic 
exposure to lead in humans results in effects on the blood, CNS, blood 
pressure, and kidneys. Children are particularly sensitive to the 
chronic effects of lead, with slowed cognitive development, reduced 
growth and other effects reported. Reproductive effects, such as 
decreased sperm count in men and spontaneous abortions in women, have 
been associated with lead exposure. The developing fetus is at 
particular risk from maternal lead exposure, with low birth weight and 
slowed postnatal neurobehavioral development noted. Human studies are 
inconclusive regarding lead exposure and cancer, while animal studies 
have reported an increase in kidney cancer from lead exposure by the 
oral route. We have classified lead as a Group B2, probable human 
carcinogen.
    Trace quantities of organic HAP, such as chlorinated dibenzodioxins 
and furans (CDD/F) and benzene, have been detected in the windbox 
exhaust at sinter plants. One CDD/F compound, 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD, commonly called ``dioxin'') 
is listed singly as a HAP. Other CDD/F compounds, many of which cause 
adverse health effects in the same way as dioxin, are HAP under the 
definition of polycyclic organic matter. Exposure to CDD/F mixtures 
causes chloracne, a severe acne-like condition, and has been shown to 
be extremely toxic in animal studies. Dioxin itself is known to be a 
developmental toxicant in animals, causing skeletal deformities, kidney 
defects, and weakened immune responses in the offspring of animals 
exposed during pregnancy. Human studies have shown an association 
between dioxin and soft-tissue sarcomas, lymphomas, and stomach 
carcinomas. We have classified dioxin as a probable human carcinogen 
(Group B2).
    Acute inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause 
drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory 
tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic 
inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, 
including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in 
occupational settings. Reproductive effects have been reported for 
women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the 
developing fetus have been observed in animal tests. Increased 
incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood 
cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene. 
We have classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen.
    In addition to HAP, the proposed rule also would reduce PM 
emissions, which are controlled under national ambient air quality 
standards. Briefly, emissions of PM have been associated with 
aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and 
increased risk of premature death.
    We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health 
experienced by exposed individuals can range from mild to severe. The 
extent and degree to which the health effects may be experienced 
depends on:
     Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
     The ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as 
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
     The frequency and duration of exposures; and
     Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, 
age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary 
significantly with the population.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

    The affected sources are each new and existing sinter plant, blast 
furnace, and BOPF shop at an integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
facility that is a major source. A new affected source is one 
constructed or reconstructed after July 13, 2001. An existing affected 
source is one constructed or reconstructed on or before July 13, 2001. 
The proposed rule covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox 
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse; 
and the BOPF, BOPF shop roof monitor, and BOPF ancillary operations 
(hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag skimming, and 
ladle metallurgy).

B. What Are the Emission Limitations?

    The proposed rule includes PM emission limits and opacity limits as 
well as operating limits for capture systems and control devices. 
Particulate matter and opacity serve as a surrogate measures of HAP 
emissions.
1. Sinter Plants
    The proposed PM emission limit for the windbox exhaust stream, 0.3 
pounds per ton (lb/ton) of product sinter, is the same for existing and 
new sinter plants. The proposed rule limits PM emissions from a 
discharge end to 0.02 gr/dscf for an existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf at 
a new plant. The discharge end PM limit is a flow-weighted average for 
one or more control devices that operate in parallel. A 20 percent 
opacity limit is proposed for secondary emissions from a discharge end 
at an existing sinter plant; a 10 percent opacity limit is proposed for 
a new sinter plant. The proposed PM emission limits for sinter cooler 
stacks are 0.03 gr/dscf for an existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf for a 
new plant.
2. Blast Furnaces
    The proposed PM emission limit for a control device applied to 
emissions from a casthouse is 0.009 gr/dscf for the casthouse at a new 
or existing blast furnace. The proposed opacity limits are 20 percent 
for a casthouse at an existing blast furnace and 15 percent for a 
casthouse at a new blast furnace (both 6-minute averages).
3. Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces
    For primary emissions from BOPF, we are proposing different PM 
emission limits based on hood system (closed or open). For BOPF with 
closed hood systems, we are proposing a PM emission limit of 0.024 gr/
dscf which would apply only during periods of primary oxygen blow. For 
BOPF with open hood systems, we are proposing a PM emission limit of 
0.019 gr/dscf which would apply during all periods of the steel 
production cycle. The primary oxygen blow is the period in which oxygen 
is initially blown into the furnace and does not include any subsequent 
reblows. The steel production cycle begins when the furnace is first 
charged with either scrap or hot metal and ends 3 minutes after slag is 
removed. The PM emission limits are the same for BOPF at new and

[[Page 36841]]

existing BOPF shops. The proposed PM emission limits for a control 
device applied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF are 0.01 gr/
dscf for an existing BOPF shop and 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop. 
Secondary emissions are those not controlled by the primary emission 
control system, including emissions that escape from open and closed 
hoods and openings in the ductwork to the primary control system.
    For the BOPF shop, a PM emission limit of 0.007 gr/dscf is proposed 
for a control device applied to emissions from ancillary operations 
(hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or ladle metallurgy) at 
a new or existing BOPF shop. For the BOPF roof monitor, a 20 percent 
opacity limit is proposed for secondary emissions from the BOPF or BOPF 
shop operations in an existing BOPF shop. This opacity limit is based 
on 3-minute averages. For a new BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown 
furnace, a 10 percent opacity limit is proposed (6-minute average) 
except that one 6-minute period not to exceed 20 percent may occur once 
during each steel production cycle. For a new BOPF shop housing a top-
blown furnace, a 10 percent opacity limit is proposed (3-minute 
average) except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but 
less than 20 percent may occur once during each steel production cycle.
    For capture systems applied to emissions from a sinter plant 
discharge end or blast furnace casthouse, the proposed rule provides 
two options: maintain the hourly average volumetric flow rate through 
each separately ducted hood at or above the level established during 
the performance test, or maintain the total hourly average volumetric 
flow rate at the control device inlet at or above the level established 
during the performance test with all capture system dampers in the same 
positions as during the performance test.
    The same options are available in the operating limits proposed for 
capture systems applied to secondary emissions from a BOPF. However, 
the averaging period is the steel production cycle rather than each 1-
hour period.
    The proposed operating limit for baghouses requires that the bag 
leak detection system alarm not sound for more than 5 percent of the 
total operating time in a semiannual reporting period. For a venturi 
scrubber, the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate 
must remain at or above the level established during the initial 
performance test. For an ESP, the hourly average opacity must remain at 
or below the level established during the initial performance test. The 
proposed rule requires plants to submit information on monitoring 
parameters if another type of control device is used.
    The proposed rule also requires sinter plants to maintain the oil 
content of the feedstock at or below 0.025 percent. This limit is based 
on a 30-day rolling average.

C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

    All plants subject to the proposed rule would be required to 
prepare and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6(e) of the NESHAP General 
Provisions. A written operation and maintenance plan is also required 
for capture systems and control devices subject to an operating limit. 
This plan must describe procedures for monthly inspections of capture 
systems, preventative maintenance requirements for control devices, and 
corrective action requirements for baghouses. In the event of a bag 
leak detection system alarm, the plan must include specific 
requirements for initiating corrective action to determine the cause of 
the problem within 1 hour, initiating corrective action to fix the 
problem within 24 hours, and completing all corrective actions needed 
to fix the problem as soon as practicable.

D. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    The proposed rule requires performance tests to demonstrate that 
each affected source meets all applicable emission and opacity limits. 
The PM concentration would be measured using EPA Method 5, 5D, or 17 in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The proposed rule also allows plants to use 
a method developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM), Standard Test Method for High-Volume Sampling for Solid 
Particulate Matter and Determination of Particulate Emissions (ASTM 
D4536-96). Plants may use this method instead of the sampling equipment 
and procedures required by EPA Method 5 or 17 when testing a positive 
pressure baghouse, but must use the sample traverse location and number 
of sampling locations required by EPA Method 5D. The EPA Method 9 in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, is proposed for determining the opacity of 
emissions, with special instructions for computing 3-minute averages. 
The proposed testing requirements also include procedures for 
establishing site-specific operating limits for capture systems and 
control devices and for revising the limits, if needed, after the 
performance test.
    The proposed rule also requires a performance test to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the operating limit for the oil content of the 
sinter plant feedstock. This test would require measurements of the oil 
content using EPA Method 9071B (Revision 2, April 1998) for 30 
consecutive days and computing the 30-day rolling average. To 
demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed operation and 
maintenance requirements, plants would certify in their notification of 
compliance status that they have prepared the written plans and will 
operate capture systems and control devices according to the procedures 
in the plan.

E. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The proposed rule would require plants to conduct performance tests 
at least twice during each title V operating permit term (at midterm 
and renewal) to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and 
opacity limits. Plants also would be required to monitor operating 
parameters for capture systems and control devices subject to operating 
limits and carry out the procedures in their operation and maintenance 
plan.
    For capture systems, a continuous parameter monitoring system 
(CPMS) is required to measure and record the volumetric flow rate 
through each separately ducted hood or the total volumetric flow rate 
at the control device inlet. Plants electing to monitor the total 
volumetric flow rate also must check the capture system dampers at 
least once a day (every 24 hours) to verify that all dampers are in the 
same position as during the initial performance test. To demonstrate 
continuous compliance, plants must keep records documenting compliance 
with the rule requirements for monitoring, the operation and 
maintenance plan, and installation, operation, and maintenance of CPMS.
    For baghouses, plants would be required to monitor the relative 
change in PM loading using a bag leak detection system and make 
inspections at specified intervals. The bag leak detection system must 
be installed and operated according to the EPA guidance document 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/R-98-015, 
September 1997. The document is available on the TTN at 
http:www.epa.gov/ ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf. If the system does not work 
based on the triboelectric effect, it must be installed and operated 
consistent

[[Page 36842]]

with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. The 
basic inspection requirements include daily, weekly, monthly, or 
quarterly inspections of specified parameters or mechanisms with 
monitoring of bag cleaning cycles by an appropriate method.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance, the proposed rule requires 
records of bag leak detection system alarms and records documenting 
conformance with the operation and maintenance plan, as well as the 
inspection and maintenance procedures.
    For venturi scrubbers, plants would be required to use CPMS to 
measure and record the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate. To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants would keep 
records documenting conformance with the monitoring requirements and 
the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for CPMS.
    For ESP, plants would be required to use a continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS) to measure and record the average hourly 
opacity of emissions exiting each stack of the control device. Plants 
must operate and maintain the COMS according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8 of the NESHAP General Provisions and Performance 
Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. These requirements 
include a quality control program including a daily calibration drift 
assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit for 
the sinter plant feedstock, plants would be required to determine the 
oil content every 24 hours (from the composite of three samples taken 
at 8-hour intervals) and compute and record the 30-day rolling average 
oil content for each operating day.

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

    The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. Table 4 to proposed subpart FFFFF lists each of the 
requirements in the General Provisions (Secs. 63.2 through 63.15) with 
an indication of whether they do or do not apply.
    The plant owner or operator would be required to submit each 
initial notification required in the NESHAP General Provisions that 
applies to their facility. These include an initial notification of 
applicability with general information about the facility and 
notifications of performance tests and compliance status.
    Plants would be required to maintain the records required by the 
NESHAP General Provisions that are needed to document compliance, such 
as performance test results; copies of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plans and associated corrective action records; monitoring 
data; and inspection records. Except for the operation and maintenance 
plan for capture systems and control devices, all records must be kept 
for a total of 5 years, with the records from the most recent 2 years 
kept onsite. The proposed rule requires that the operation and 
maintenance plan for capture systems and control devices subject to an 
operating limit be kept onsite and available for inspection upon 
request for the life of the affected source or until the affected 
source is no longer subject to the rule requirements.
    Semiannual reports are required for any deviation from an emission 
limitation, including an operating limit. Each report would be due no 
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period. If no 
deviation occurred, only a summary report would be required. If a 
deviation did occur, more detailed information would be required.
    An immediate report would be required if there were actions taken 
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that were not consistent 
with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations 
if the owner or operator demonstrates to the authority with delegation 
for enforcement that the source was operating in accordance with the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

G. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

    The owner or operator of an existing affected source would have to 
comply within [24 MONTHS OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register]. New or reconstructed sources that startup on or 
before the effective date of the final rule must comply by the 
effective date of the final rule. New or reconstructed sources that 
startup after the effective date of the final rule must comply upon 
initial startup.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in 
the source category or subcategory to which the emission limitations, 
work practice standards, and other regulatory requirements apply. The 
affected source may be the same collection of equipment and processes 
as the source category or it may be a subset of the source category. 
For each rule, we must decide which individual pieces of equipment and 
processes warrant separate standards in the context of the CAA section 
112 requirements and the industry operating practices.
    We considered three different approaches for designating the 
affected source: the entire integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
facility, groups of emission points, and individual emission points. In 
selecting the affected sources for regulation, we identified the HAP-
emitting operations, the HAP emitted, and the quantity of HAP emissions 
from the individual or groups of emissions points. We concluded that 
designating the group of emission points associated with each of the 
major processes as the affected source is the most appropriate 
approach. The major processes include sinter production in a sinter 
plant, iron production in a blast furnace, and steel production in a 
BOPF shop. Consequently, we selected the sinter plant, blast furnace, 
and BOPF shop as the affected sources. The proposed rule includes 
requirements for the control of emissions from the windbox exhaust, 
discharge end, and cooler at sinter plants; the blast furnace 
casthouse; the BOPF shop including both primary and secondary emissions 
from the furnace; and the ancillary operations in the BOPF shop (hot 
metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy).

B. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

    For the proposed rule, we decided that it is not practical to 
establish individual standards for each specific type of metallic HAP 
that could be present in the various processes (e.g., separate 
standards for manganese emissions, separate standards for lead 
emissions, and so forth for each of the metals listed as HAP and 
potentially could be present). When released, each of the metallic HAP 
compounds behave as PM. As a result, strong correlations exist between 
air emissions of PM and emissions of the individual metallic HAP 
compounds. The control technologies used for the control of PM 
emissions achieve comparable levels of performance on metallic HAP 
emissions. Therefore, standards requiring good control of PM will also 
achieve good control of metallic HAP emissions. Therefore, we decided 
to establish standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the 
individual

[[Page 36843]]

types of metallic HAP. In addition, establishing separate standards for 
each individual type of metallic HAP would impose costly and 
significantly more complex compliance and monitoring requirements and 
achieve little, if any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be 
achieved using the surrogate pollutant approach based on total PM.
    For stack discharges, we have traditionally relied on setting 
numerical emission limits, sometimes coupled with limits on opacity. In 
the case of fugitive emissions, we have traditionally relied on setting 
visible emission standards, typically expressed as opacity limits.

C. How did we determine the bases and levels of the proposed standards?

 Sinter plant windbox exhaust

    There are nine sinter plants in the U.S.; however, only seven are 
currently operating. The windbox exhaust is controlled by a baghouse at 
four plants and by a venturi scrubber at five plants. Useful test data 
on actual emissions are available for six of the nine plants, two 
equipped with baghouses and four equipped with venturi scrubbers. In 
each case, the data reflect the results of performance tests comprised 
of the average of three test runs, expressed in terms of total PM.
    An initial characterization of achievable performance based on 
concentration (gr/dscf) suggested that baghouses perform substantially 
better than do scrubbers. Concentration values recorded for the two 
baghouses are two to nearly four times lower than those recorded for 
the four scrubbers. Upon closer scrutiny, we determined that much of 
the difference in perceived performance is due to the fact that 
baghouses require the addition of relatively large quantities of 
ambient air to cool the hot windbox exhaust gases prior to control, 
whereas scrubbers do not. To correct for this difference, we 
transformed the test results into a pounds of PM emissions per ton of 
sinter format. The test results expressed in terms of the hourly mass 
rate were converted to annual emissions assuming 8,760 hours per 
operating year. The resultant annual emissions were then divided by a 
best estimate of annual sinter production for each plant (average for 
the 5-year period from 1995 through 1999). The results range from 0.26 
to 0.33 lb PM/ton of sinter. Averaging the results for the top five 
performers produces a MACT floor value of 0.29 lb PM/ton of sinter. 
Relying on the median value produces a MACT floor value of 0.30 lb/ton. 
Included among the top five performers are two baghouses and three 
venturi scrubbers, which indicates that both control devices are 
capable of achieving the MACT floor level of control as expressed in 
the lb/ton format.
    The windbox exhaust gas can contain appreciable quantities of 
organic HAP, including both volatile and semivolatile compounds. There 
is strong evidence that demonstrates that the quantity of organic HAP 
emitted is directly related to the quantity and oil content of the mill 
scale component of the sinter feed. United States sinter plants limit 
organic emissions by carefully monitoring and limiting the oil content 
of the sinter feed. This pollution prevention control measure is an 
effective method for preventing, and thus reducing, emissions of 
organic HAP. Two plants in Indiana have performed testing to relate oil 
content with emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The test 
results show a strong correlation between oil content and potential VOC 
emissions.
    One of the organic pollutants of concern that has been related to 
oil content is a family of compounds called polychlorinated 
dibenzodioxins and furans (D/F). A 1994 paper \1\ identified sinter 
plants in Germany as one of the most important industrial sources of 
D/F. Tests showed an average concentration in the windbox exhaust of 47 
nanograms (ng) expressed in toxic equivalency (TEQ)/per cubic meter 
(m\3\) and annual emissions of 122 grams (g) TEQ. The D/F emissions 
were attributed to high levels of oils and chlorinated organics in the 
waste materials recycled to the sinter plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Lahl, Uwe. Sintering Plants of Steel Industry--PCDD/F 
Emission Status and Perspective. In Chemosphere, vol. 29, nos. 9-11, 
pages 1939-1945. 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We decided to perform testing at two representative facilities to 
characterize D/F emissions from U.S. sinter plants, one that uses a 
venturi scrubber as the windbox control device and one that uses a 
baghouse. The tests were performed in 1997 on the venturi scrubber in 
East Chicago, IN and on the baghouse in Youngstown, OH. These plants 
routinely monitor the oil content of their sinter feed, which averages 
0.014 percent oil at the East Chicago, IN facility and 0.025 percent 
oil at the Youngstown, OH facility. The average D/F concentration from 
three 4-hour runs at each plant ranged from 0.2 ng TEQ/m\3\ at the East 
Chicago, IN facility to 0.8 ng TEQ/m\3\ at the Youngstown, OH facility, 
both far below the levels reported for the German sinter plant. 
Assuming typical operation of each plant (310 days/yr), annual 
emissions would range from 0.7 to 2.8 g TEQ/yr, well below the levels 
indicated by the German data. Based upon emission factors derived from 
these test results, we estimate nationwide emissions from all U.S. 
sinter plants to be 26 g TEQ/yr, which corresponds to less than 1 
percent of current estimates of the national inventory from all 
sources.
    We surveyed the operators of all seven active sinter plants, as 
well as the two inactive plants, to obtain information on the oil 
content of their sinter feed. Four of the active plants provided data 
that ranged in magnitude from 976 samples collected over 1 year 
(sampling about three times per day) to 14 samples collected over 14 
months (monthly sampling). All four plants carefully monitor their 
sinter feed for oil to minimize emissions of VOC. In addition, plants 
with baghouses are motivated to limit oil content due to concerns over 
blinding of bags and possible fire hazards. The other three active 
plants and the two inactive plants provided little data since none 
routinely monitor oil content. The four plants providing data reported 
long-term averages of 0.014, 0.02, 0.02, and 0.025 percent, 
respectively. We conclude that limiting substantially the oil content 
in the sinter feed represents the MACT floor for organic HAP in the 
windbox exhaust.
    We know of no control devices besides venturi scrubbers and 
baghouses that can achieve better emissions reductions than that 
indicated by the level of performance selected as the MACT floor. As a 
result, we are selecting 0.3 lb/ton as the standard. We selected 0.3 
lb/ton as opposed to either 0.29 or 0.30 lb/ton to provide a modest but 
warranted margin of safety given the relatively limited data available 
for this standard setting and the inherent uncertainty associated with 
the needed transformations of the test data from mass rate to mass per 
ton.
    For the PM limit, we also considered setting alternative 
concentration limits that would be tailored to each type of control 
device--baghouses and venturi scrubbers. Concentration limits (e.g., 
gr/dscf) have several advantages over a 
lb/ton format when determining compliance. A lb/ton format requires 
that three measurements be made very accurately: The concentration of 
PM in the exhaust gas, the volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, and the 
sinter production rate. Concentration is directly measured by EPA 
reference methods (such as Method 5), and there is no uncertainty 
introduced by additional measurements or calculations. The 
concentration limit is a direct and accurate measure of how

[[Page 36844]]

well the emission control device is performing.
    The two plants with baghouses averaged 0.007 and 0.009 gr/dscf when 
meeting the 0.3 lb/ton MACT floor level of control. Individual runs 
ranged from 0.004 to 0.01 gr/dscf. Considering the run-to-run 
variability, we conclude that an appropriate alternative concentration 
limit for baghouses used for the control of windbox exhaust gases would 
be on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf. As noted previously, plants with 
baghouses introduce large volumes of tempering air to cool the windbox 
exhaust gas prior to entering the baghouse, whereas plants with venturi 
scrubbers do not. Consequently, a concentration limit for scrubbers, 
reflecting an equivalent level of control as baghouses, would of 
necessity be higher than one for baghouses. The four plants equipped 
with scrubbers recorded average concentration values of 0.017, 0.017, 
0.025, and 0.026 gr/dscf when meeting the 0.3 lb/ton MACT floor level 
of control. Individual runs ranged from 0.014 to 0.029 gr/dscf. Since 
all four of these scrubbers represent MACT, an alternative 
concentration limit for scrubbers would be on the order of 0.03 gr/dscf 
considering run-to-run variability. We request comments on both the 
appropriateness of setting concentration limits in addition or instead 
of a lb/ton limit and on the suggested values for these limits.
    Relative to sinter feed oil content, we know of no control measures 
beyond this pollution prevention measure which would be more effective 
in limiting HAP organic emissions from sinter plant windboxes. Based on 
our review of the data obtained through our survey on oil content, we 
select a limit of 0.025 percent oil in sinter feed as representative of 
the MACT floor. Although 0.025 percent is the highest average value 
reported by the four plants, all of the averages are low, all are 
indicative of careful control of oil content, and for all intents and 
purposes are indistinguishable.

 Sinter plant discharge end

    The sinter plant discharge end is comprised of sinter breakers 
(crushers), hot screens, conveyors, and transfer points that are 
designed to separate undersize sinter and to transfer the hot sinter to 
the cooler. In most cases, these discharge end operations are housed in 
a building. Emissions are usually controlled by local hooding and 
ventilation to one or more baghouses or wet scrubbers. Seven plants use 
baghouses and two plants use wet scrubbers.
    Existing State regulations include both building opacity standards 
to limit releases of fugitive emissions (those escaping capture) and PM 
emission standards assigned to control devices. Five of the seven 
operating sinter plants are subject to a building opacity limit. One 
plant is subject to a 10 percent limit (6-minute average), and four 
plants are subject to 20 percent limits (6-minute average). The PM 
limits for control devices vary substantially from plant to plant both 
in terms of format and numerical values. Four plants have concentration 
limits for total PM (0.01, 0.02, 0.02, and 0.03 gr/dscf), one has 
concentration limits for PM-10, and three have mass rate limits (42.9, 
50, and 50 lb/hr).
    We have credible source test data on actual emissions from only one 
plant--the refurbished sinter plant in Youngstown, OH. Captured 
emissions from the discharge end are ventilated to a relatively new 
baghouse (1991) for control. We have no data from any source on the 
opacity of fugitive emissions that escape capture from the discharge 
end.
    In selecting the MACT floor for the discharge end, we evaluated all 
of the available information on control measures, State regulations, 
and actual emissions. Due to the limited information on actual 
emissions available, we concluded that the available information on 
State regulations provided the best and most complete information for 
establishing floor conditions for both the discharge end building and 
control devices. We believe that these State limits are in fact a 
reasonable representation of what is actually achieved in practice and 
are, therefore, suitable proxies for establishing MACT floor 
conditions. The existing State emission limits reflect a level of 
performance which we would expect from the capture systems and control 
devices which are currently applied to the control of emissions from 
sinter plant discharge ends.
    As noted above, five plants are subject to State standards that 
limit the opacity of visible emissions released from the discharge end 
building. These range from 10 percent (one plant) to 20 percent (four 
plants). We chose the median value as the MACT floor, which is 20 
percent opacity based on a 6-minute average.
    For control devices, we examined the top five most stringent 
existing State permit limits for total PM emissions. These include the 
four concentration limits cited above and a fifth value derived from 
the lowest mass rate limit to which a plant is subject (42.9 lb/hr), 
which is equivalent to 0.02 gr/dscf. The resulting five most stringent 
limits are 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.02 and 0.03 gr/dscf. Averaging these 
five values produces a MACT floor limit of 0.02 gr/dscf.
    We examined options to go beyond the floor level of control. One 
option is a concentration limit lower than the floor level of 0.02 gr/
dscf. For example, the installation of a new pulse jet baghouse could 
conceivably achieve a concentration limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. We estimate 
the capital cost of a new pulse jet baghouse designed for a flow rate 
of 120,000 dscfm (typical for discharge ends) to be $3.5 million and 
the total annual cost to be $840,000 per year. We estimate the 
corresponding reduction in HAP metals achieved by reducing the PM 
concentration from 0.02 to 0.01 gr/dscf (for 120,000 dscfm and 0.75 
percent metal HAP in the PM) to be 0.34 tons per year. The cost per ton 
of HAP is $2.5 million. We believe that the high cost, coupled with the 
small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond the 
floor alternative. We could not identify any other beyond the floor 
alternatives. Consequently, we chose the floor level of control (0.02 
gr/dscf) as MACT.
    For new source MACT, we chose an opacity limit of 10 percent (6-
minute average) based on the most stringent emission limit currently in 
place (Sparrows Point, MD). For control devices used on the discharge 
end, we relied on test data for the baghouse at the Youngstown, OH 
sinter plant. We believe this baghouse represents the best controlled 
similar source among the seven operating plants. It is a relatively 
recent installation (1991) and is a state-of-the-art pulse jet unit. 
The discharge end at this facility is comprised of a sinter breaker, 
single deck hot screen, four-stack sinter cooler, and a double deck 
cold screen. Capture systems are used for the breaker, hot screen, cold 
screen, and about 40 transfer points. The capture system is ventilated 
to a four compartment pulse jet baghouse with polyester bags at a rate 
of 140,000 dscfm.
    Three test runs were conducted in 1991. The runs range from 0.005 
to 0.006 gr/dscf and average 0.006 gr/dscf. Rounding the results of 
this single performance test (average of three runs) would support a 
new source MACT concentration limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. We believe that 
rounding from 0.006 to 0.01 is justified given the data are limited to 
the one performance test conducted in 1991.
    The numerical limit selected for the standard is the same as that 
established for MACT: (1) An opacity limit of 20 percent (6-minute 
average) for the building and a concentration limit of

[[Page 36845]]

0.02 gr/dscf for control devices for existing sinter plants, and (2) an 
opacity limit of 10 percent (6-minute average) and a concentration 
limit of 0.01 gr/dscf for new sinter plants.
    For compliance demonstration purposes, we are proposing a flow-
weighted average for emission control devices on the discharge end. 
Some plants employ multiple control devices applied to the several 
emission points that comprise the discharge end (crushers, screens, 
conveyor transfer points). For example, one plant routes emissions from 
the crusher to one baghouse, and emissions from screens and conveyors 
are sent to a second baghouse. Averaging emissions across multiple 
control devices provides flexibility and enhances achievability. With 
this approach, some air pollution control devices may under perform and 
others may over perform provided that the average concentration 
weighted by volumetric flow rate meets the concentration limit for the 
discharge end.

 Sinter plant cooler

    Sinter plant coolers are large diameter circular tables through 
which ambient air is drawn to cool the hot sinter after screening. 
Seven plants operate sinter coolers to cool the sinter product prior to 
storage. Two plants that are not currently operating have no cooler and 
stockpile hot sinter directly. Of the seven plants with coolers, three 
vent directly to the atmosphere, one vents to a cyclone, two vent to a 
baghouse, and one vents half of the cooler exhaust to a baghouse with 
the remainder vented directly to the atmosphere. Five plants are 
currently subject to State emission limits expressed as concentration 
or mass rate while two plants are not subject to State emission limits. 
Information on actual releases is limited to one source test of 
controlled emissions from the cooler located at the Youngstown, OH 
plant that is equipped with a baghouse.
    We examined all of the available information on controls, State 
limits, and actual emissions. We decided that existing State permit 
limits provide the best information for establishing the floor. 
Emission source test data on actual emissions are limited to one 
source. We believe that a technology approach would provide a limit 
that is less representative of actual performance because it would 
result in a floor based on cyclone control or a 50/50 no control/
baghouse control split (technology for which we have no emission test 
data from within this source category).
    Three plants are subject to State permit limits on emission 
concentrations (0.01, 0.03, and 0.03 gr/dscf), and two plants are 
subject to State mass rate permit limits. We converted the mass rates 
in lb/hr to equivalent concentration limits in gr/dscf based on the 
volumetric flow rate through the subject coolers. The two mass rate 
limits resulted in equivalent concentration values of 0.03 and 0.05 gr/
dscf. Averaging the five concentration limits produces a floor value 
for existing sources of 0.03 gr/dscf.
    We considered a level of control beyond the floor. A new pulse jet 
baghouse installed on the sinter cooler could reduce emissions to 0.01 
gr/dscf. We estimated the capital cost of a new baghouse designed for a 
flow rate of 200,000 dscfm as $5.5 million with a total annual cost of 
$1.3 million per year. The reduction in HAP emissions associated with 
reducing the PM concentration from 0.03 to 0.01 gr/dscf (at 0.75 
percent HAP in the PM) is from 1.7 to 0.6 tons per year. The cost per 
ton of HAP is $1.2 million. We believe that the high cost, coupled with 
the small emission reduction, does not justify this beyond the floor 
alternative. We could not identify any other beyond the floor 
alternatives. Consequently, we selected the floor (0.03 gr/dscf) as 
MACT for existing sources.
    We evaluated the source test data for the baghouse located at 
Youngstown, OH and the most stringent existing limit to develop MACT 
for new sources. The baghouse is a modern pulse jet unit that averaged 
0.009 gr/dscf during the test. Individual runs were 0.005, 0.005, and 
0.018. Coincidentally, the most stringent existing State permit limit 
for sinter coolers, which is applied at a different plant, is 0.01 gr/
dscf. Given that the baghouse source test result and the most stringent 
emission limit are ostensibly the same, we selected 0.01 gr/dscf as the 
proposed standard for sinter coolers at new sinter plants.

 Blast furnace casthouse

    The casthouse is a building or structure that encloses the section 
of the blast furnace where hot metal and slag are tapped from the 
furnace. The emissions from the blast furnace casthouse are fugitive 
emissions that escape through the roof monitor and other building 
openings during tapping. The emissions are primarily metal oxide fumes 
that are formed when air contacts the surface of the molten metal. 
Factors affecting these emissions include the duration of tapping, the 
exposed surface area of metal and slag, and the presence or absence of 
runner covers and flame suppression, which reduce contact with air.
    As described previously, these emissions are controlled in one of 
two fundamentally different ways, flame suppression or conventional 
ventilation practices and control. Flame suppression consists of 
blowing natural gas over the iron runners and torpedo cars. The 
combustion of the gas consumes oxygen, which retards (suppresses) the 
formation of emissions. Ventilation practices employed include the use 
of localized hooding and ventilation applied at the iron trough and 
iron and slag runners. Alternatively, the casthouse may be totally 
enclosed and evacuated. Eighteen of the 39 blast furnaces have capture 
and control systems, 16 are controlled by baghouses and two are 
controlled by one wet scrubber.
    As a means for limiting fugitive emissions of PM from the casthouse 
during hot metal tapping, most States have developed visible emission 
standards that limit the opacity of emissions discharged from the 
casthouse roof monitor or other openings. The most common limit is 20 
percent (6-minute average), which is applied to 24 of the 39 
casthouses. States also apply particulate limits on gases discharged 
from control devices used to capture tapping emissions. The most common 
form is a concentration limit, typically on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf.
    We evaluated the available information on actual emissions, State 
limits, and control measures in selecting the floor for opacity from 
existing casthouses. Attempts to locate actual opacity data proved 
unsuccessful. Since most of the States have developed opacity 
standards, we concluded that State regulations provided the best 
information for establishing floor conditions.
    The most stringent opacity limit is 15 percent (6-minute average) 
and is applied to two casthouses. The next most stringent limit is 20 
percent (6-minute average), which is applied to 24 casthouses. For 
existing sources, we selected the 20 percent opacity limit as the floor 
for the roof monitor, which is the median of the top five most 
stringent limits and by far the most representative.
    As with existing sources, MACT for new sources is also based on 
existing State limits since we were unable to locate and obtain data on 
actual emissions. As noted above, the most stringent State limit is 15 
percent opacity (6-minute average). This limit applies to the 
casthouses for the Number 7 blast furnace at East Chicago,

[[Page 36846]]

IN and the Number 3 blast furnace at Lorain, OH. Therefore, we have 
selected 15 percent opacity (6-minute average) as the floor for new 
sources.
    We also examined available information on actual emissions, State 
limits, and control measures to develop the floor for control devices 
applied to casthouse emissions. There are 18 casthouses equipped with 
hooding and ventilation equipment to limit fugitive emissions. Sixteen 
use a baghouse for the control of captured emissions. Industry survey 
information on the baghouses indicate they are similar in design and 
performance. Most are pulse jet baghouses with air-to-cloth ratios of 
around 4 feet per minute (fpm). We selected baghouses with these 
minimum design features as the MACT floor technology for controlled 
emissions from blast furnace casthouses.
    To determine the level of control associated with the use of a 
baghouse, we obtained available performance test data that 
characterized baghouse performance for four of the 16 baghouses. The 
database includes a total of eight source tests; four tests at one 
facility, two tests at another facility, and single tests at the two 
other facilities. Each performance test is comprised of three 
individual test runs. The three-run averages for each of the eight 
tests range from 0.002 to 0.009 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs 
range from 0.001 to 0.009 gr/dscf.
    The highest emitting unit is the Granite City, IL facility for 
which we have information on four independent performance tests. The 
performance tests range from 0.006 to 0.009 gr/dscf with individual 
runs ranging from 0.003 to 0.009 gr/dscf. Three tests were conducted in 
1988 and one in 1985, and all tests met the facility's State limit of 
0.01 gr/dscf.
    Since each of the baghouses is considered a MACT floor unit, we 
must set the standard at a point that accommodates the performance 
indicated by the highest emitting unit which we believe reflects a 
reasonable worst-case scenario. Consequently, the level of control 
associated with the MACT floor is 0.009 gr/dscf. We believe this 
emission limit represents a reasonable expectation of performance for 
an appropriately designed and well maintained and operated baghouse 
used to control blast furnace casthouse emissions. Therefore, we 
selected a concentration limit of 0.009 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for 
both new and existing blast furnace casthouses.
    For the casthouse opacity standard, we selected the same format and 
values as that established for the MACT floors. For existing 
casthouses, we selected an opacity limit for the roof monitor of 20 
percent using 6-minute averages. For new casthouses, we selected an 
opacity limit for the roof monitor of 15 percent using 6-minute 
averages.
    Relative to control devices, we examined options for better 
emissions reductions. However, we could find no control alternatives 
that would provide additional reductions in HAP emissions for blast 
furnace casthouses beyond that achieved by a well-designed and operated 
baghouse. Consequently, we have chosen the limit of 0.009 gr/dscf, the 
level achieved in practice with the use of a baghouse, as the standard 
for both new and existing sources.

 BOPF primary emission control systems

    Primary emissions from the BOPF refer to the particulate emissions 
generated during the steel production cycle which are captured and 
controlled by the primary emission control system. The majority of the 
emissions occur during the oxygen blow. The oxygen blow is the period 
in the steel production cycle when oxygen is lanced or injected into 
the vessel. Some shops operate open hood furnaces and others use closed 
hood systems. Open and closed hood furnaces are very different in terms 
of design and operation, pollutant loading, and emissions. Open hood 
systems are characterized by very high primary exhaust air flow rates 
due to the large quantities of combustion air introduced at the furnace 
mouth to support CO combustion. In contrast, closed hood systems, which 
include hoods that are tightly fitted to the vessel to suppress CO 
combustion, are characterized by much lower exhaust air flow rates. 
Typical flow rates for open hood systems are 200,000 to 500,000 acfm, 
while closed hood designs are usually less than 100,000 acfm.
    There are 50 BOPF located in 23 BOPF shops. The 50 BOPF include 34 
furnaces with open hood systems at 16 shops and 16 furnaces with closed 
hood systems at eight shops. All of the BOPF have capture and control 
systems for the primary emissions. For the open hood systems, eight 
shops are controlled by venturi scrubbers and eight shops are 
controlled by ESP. All eight of the closed hood shops are controlled by 
venturi scrubbers. Each shop is subject to existing State limits with a 
wide variety of formats, including concentration limits in gr/dscf and 
lb/1,000 lb gas for PM or PM10, mass emission rate limits in 
lb/hr, and process weighted limits in lb/ton of steel. In addition, the 
emission test period required for compliance with the existing State 
limits varies from testing over the steel production cycle, only during 
the oxygen blow, for 1-hour runs, and for 2-hour runs.
    We developed separate subcategories for open and closed hood 
furnaces due to the operational differences and volumetric air flow 
rates between the two designs. This subcategorization is consistent 
with the development of separate standards for open and closed hood 
BOPF for the new source performance standard (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart N.
    We examined the available test data for open hood BOPF, existing 
State limits, and control measures to evaluate options for selecting 
the MACT floor. We concluded that the source test data could not be 
used to rank the relative performance of all of the shops for two 
reasons. In several instances, the periods during which testing was 
conducted differed substantially from plant to plant. Some plants 
tested only during periods of oxygen blowing while others tested during 
the entire production cycle from charge to tap. The emissions generated 
and the control performance can be quite different depending on the 
part of the production cycle tested. For example, the largest amount of 
emissions is generated during the oxygen blow, and this period presents 
the greatest challenge to the control device. Another difficulty with 
some of the source test data is that measurements were made for PM-10 
rather than for total PM which is the basis for the proposed PM limit.
    As discussed earlier, there are two basic problems which prevent us 
from assessing the relative stringency of existing State limits and 
putting them on a common basis. The existing State limits are in 
different formats, and the required testing periods associated with the 
limits vary from plant to plant. Any attempt to convert them to a 
common basis requires assumptions on parameters such as typical 
volumetric flow rates and steel production rates, both of which have 
the potential to introduce significant errors in the conversion.
    Because the available data and State limits are not useful to 
identify the five best-performing sources, we opted for the technology 
floor approach. Control devices applied to primary emissions at open 
hood shops include both ESP and venturi scrubbers. We have source test 
data and design information for seven of the 16 open hood shops, five 
with ESP and two with venturi scrubbers. The test data indicate that 
the ESP perform better than the venturi scrubbers. All the test data 
(charge-to-tap measurements) for the ESP are less than 0.019 gr/dscf. 
All of the ESP are similar in design and

[[Page 36847]]

operation. All have three to five fields in series and operate at 
specific collection areas greater than 300 square feet per thousand 
cubic feet per minute. Data for the two plants with venturi scrubbers, 
operating at pressure drops of 25 to 35 inches of water, averaged 0.025 
and 0.035 gr/dscf, respectively. Based on these test data, we conclude 
the existing inventory of ESP constitutes the MACT floor technology for 
open hood BOPF.
    We examined the test data for the five ESP for which we have both 
design information and emission source test data. As noted previously, 
all are similar in design and operation. We have data from 13 different 
source tests; seven emission source tests at one facility, three tests 
at another facility, and single tests at three other facilities. Each 
of the performance tests is comprised of three individual test runs. 
Each run was conducted over an entire furnace cycle from charge to tap.
    The three-run averages for each of the 13 tests range from 0.004 to 
0.019 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs range from 0.003 to 0.025 
gr/dscf. Since each of the ESP is considered a MACT floor unit, we must 
set the MACT floor at a level that reflects a reasonable worst-case 
scenario and that accommodates the ordinary and unavoidable variability 
in the performance of the MACT technology. We selected the highest 
three-run average value of 0.019 gr/dscf for the MACT floor.
    We also believe that this emission limit represents the best 
performance that can reasonably be expected of an appropriately 
designed and well maintained and operated ESP applied to open hood BOPF 
emissions. Therefore, we selected 0.019 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for 
open hood BOPF at both new and existing BOPF shops.
    We examined the available test data for closed hood BOPF, existing 
State limits, and control measures to evaluate options for selecting 
the MACT floor. As was the case with open hood BOPF, we also had 
limited actual emission data and a mixture of different formats for 
State emission limits from closed hood BOPF. We looked at the 
technology used to control primary emissions from closed hood BOPF and 
found that all 16 of the furnaces at the eight closed hood shops use 
high-energy venturi scrubbers. Closed hood systems produce an exhaust 
gas high in CO which precludes the use of other types of control 
devices (such as baghouses or ESP) due to potential explosion or fire 
hazards.
    We collected information on the design and operation of these 
scrubbers through an industry survey. These scrubbers operate at a 
pressure drop of 50 inches of water or more, and most have liquid-to-
gas ratios greater than 10 gallons per thousand cubic feet of gas. We 
selected high-energy venturi scrubbers with a pressure drop of 50 
inches of water or more as the floor technology for closed hood BOPF.
    We have recent test data for only one of the eight closed hood 
shops. In addition, we have performance test data from five other 
furnaces that were collected and used to develop the NSPS. All tests 
include three test runs and all were performed only during the oxygen 
blow. Each of these plants use the MACT floor technology for closed 
hood shops, which is a high-energy venturi scrubber with a pressure 
drop of 50 inches of water or more. The three run averages for each of 
the six tests range from 0.015 to 0.024 gr/dscf. Results from 
individual runs range from 0.013 to 0.031 gr/dscf.
    Since each of the scrubbers is considered a MACT floor unit, we 
must set the MACT floor emission limit at a level that reflects a 
reasonable worst-case scenario and that accommodates the ordinary and 
unavoidable variability in the performance of the MACT technology. We 
selected the highest three run average value of 0.024 gr/dscf as the 
MACT floor. We also believe that this value represents the best 
performance that can reasonably be expected of an appropriately 
designed and well maintained and operated high-energy venturi scrubber 
applied to closed hood BOPF emissions. Therefore, we have selected 
0.024 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for closed hood BOPF at both new and 
existing BOPF shops.
    We examined options for better emissions reductions for open hood 
BOPF. However, we could not find any control alternatives that would 
provide reductions in HAP emissions beyond that demonstrated to be 
achievable by ESP. Consequently, the floor (0.019 gr/dscf) was chosen 
as the standard for both new and existing sources.
    We examined options for more effective control for closed hood 
BOPF. However, we could not find any alternative that would provide 
greater reductions in HAP emissions from closed hood BOPF than high 
energy venturi scrubbers. Consequently, the MACT floor (0.024 gr/dscf) 
was chosen as the standard for both new and existing sources.

 BOPF secondary emission control systems

    Secondary or fugitive emissions occur from the BOPF when the molten 
iron and scrap metal are charged to the furnace, and when the molten 
steel and slag are tapped from the furnace. The emissions generated are 
primarily metal oxides formed when oxygen in the air reacts with the 
molten iron or steel. Twelve of the 23 BOPF shops have a separate 
capture and control system for BOPF charging and tapping emissions. Ten 
of these shops use baghouses and the other two use scrubbers. Existing 
State limits for the control devices range from 0.0052 to 0.015 gr/dscf 
and the NSPS limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. The most common limit is 0.01 gr/
dscf. Available data on secondary BOPF emissions are limited to one 
test run at a facility using a baghouse, for which we have limited 
documentation. This one test run measured a concentration value of 
0.001 gr/dscf.
    In selecting the MACT floor for existing sources, we evaluated all 
of the available information on existing control measures, State 
regulations, and actual emissions. Due to the limited information on 
actual emissions available, we concluded that State regulations 
provided the best and most complete information for establishing floor 
limitations for secondary BOPF emission control systems. We believe 
that these State limits are in fact a reasonable representation of what 
is actually achieved in practice and are, therefore, suitable proxies 
for establishing MACT floor conditions. The existing State emission 
limits reflect a level of performance which, based on engineering 
judgement, we would expect from the capture systems and control devices 
which are currently applied to the control of emissions from secondary 
BOPF emission control systems.
    We examined the top five most stringent existing emission limits 
for total PM. The five plants with the most stringent secondary BOPF 
emission State limits are subject to concentration limits of 0.0052, 
0.006, 0.01, 0.01 and 0.012 gr/dscf. Each of these is associated with a 
facility with baghouse controls. The median of the five values produces 
a MACT floor limit of 0.01 gr/dscf.
    It is not likely that one test run will adequately reflect the full 
range of performance of a particular technology, and the results of the 
one available test run appear to represent, at most, what this type of 
control is able to achieve under very favorable circumstances. 
Therefore, we do not believe that it represents the actual level of 
performance that this technology is capable of consistently achieving.
    We believe that 0.01 gr/dscf reasonably represents the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources in the 
category.

[[Page 36848]]

Consequently, we chose 0.01 gr/dscf as the MACT floor for existing 
sources.
    As with existing sources, MACT for new sources is also based on 
existing State limits since we have no credible data on actual 
emissions beyond the single test run. As noted above, the most 
stringent State limit is 0.0052 gr/dscf. Consequently, we chose 0.0052 
gr/dscf as the MACT floor for new sources.
    Because of the limited amount of data available, we could not 
identify any basis for developing a limit more stringent than the floor 
for either new or existing BOPF shops. Consequently, we chose the MACT 
floor as the standard for new and existing BOPF shops, 0.01 gr/dscf for 
existing sources, and 0.0052 gr/dscf for new sources.

 Hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle 
metallurgy

    There are several different ancillary operations performed within 
the BOPF shop: (1) Operations associated with the molten iron before it 
is charged to the BOPF (hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and slag 
skimming), and (2) treatment of the molten steel after tapping (various 
ladle metallurgy operations). The emissions from these operations are 
primarily metal oxides formed when oxygen in the air reacts with the 
molten iron or steel.
    Molten iron is transported from the blast furnace casthouse to the 
BOPF shop in a torpedo car and transferred to a vessel at the reladling 
(or hot metal) station, where it is usually desulfurized and slag is 
skimmed from the surface. Emissions from these operations are captured 
by local hooding and controlled by a baghouse. Existing State emission 
limits for these operations range from 0.0052 to 0.04 gr/dscf, but most 
are on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf.
    The steel from the BOPF is usually transferred to a ladle where 
final adjustments in temperature and chemistry are made in an operation 
known as ladle metallurgy. Emissions from ladle metallurgy are captured 
by a close fitting hood and ducted to a baghouse. Existing State limits 
for ladle metallurgy are a mixture of mass emission rates in lb/hr and 
concentration limits in gr/dscf. The mass emission rate limits range 
from 0.42 to 7.5 lb/hr, and the concentration limits range from 0.0052 
to 0.02 gr/dscf.
    In selecting the MACT floor for existing sources, we evaluated all 
of the available information on control techniques, State regulations, 
and actual emissions. Relative to information on actual emissions, we 
have information on three tests of hot metal transfer and 
desulfurization and seven tests of ladle metallurgy. Since all of the 
facilities using controls use baghouses and have similar types of 
emissions, we selected baghouses as the MACT floor technology for hot 
metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy.
    To develop the MACT floor limitation, we examined source test data 
for three of the 23 baghouses that control emissions from hot metal 
transfer and desulfurization, and for seven of the 20 baghouses that 
control emissions from ladle metallurgy. Each performance test is 
comprised of three individual runs. The three-run averages for the ten 
tests range from 0.001 to 0.012 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs 
range from 0.001 to 0.021 gr/dscf.
    Since each of the baghouses is considered a MACT floor unit, we 
must set the MACT floor at a level that reflects a reasonable worst-
case situation and that accommodates the ordinary and unavoidable 
variation in the performance of the MACT technology. We looked at both 
the highest three-run averages and highest individual runs measured. In 
this case, both were obtained on the same baghouse, 0.012 and 0.021 gr/
dscf. An examination of the test results on all ten baghouses indicates 
that these results are 2 to 2.5 times higher than those obtained on the 
next highest emitting unit, suggesting that this baghouse is either an 
under performer or that the test results include an outlier. 
Eliminating the 0.021 gr/dscf value from the three-run average produces 
an average of 0.007 gr/dscf which is in line with the next highest 
emitting unit's three-run average of 0.006 gr/dscf and the highest 
individual run of 0.0085 gr/dscf. Consequently, we believe the 0.021 
gr/dscf value is an outlier and does not reflect the level of 
performance demonstrated to be achievable for a baghouse applied to 
emissions from hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and ladle 
metallurgy operations.
    We also believe that a concentration limit of 0.007 gr/dscf 
represents the best reasonable expectation of performance for a 
baghouse applied to these emission points. Therefore, we selected 0.007 
gr/dscf as the MACT floor limit for emissions from hot metal transfer, 
desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy operations at both new and 
existing BOPF shops.
    We know of no control alternatives that would provide additional 
reductions in HAP emissions for hot metal transfer, desulfurization, 
slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy beyond that achieved with 
baghouses. Consequently, the MACT floor (0.007 gr/dscf) was chosen as 
the standard for both new and existing sources.

 BOPF shop fugitive emissions

    The BOPF shop is a building or structure that houses several 
operations involved in steelmaking. These include hot metal transfer, 
desulfurization, slag skimming stations; one or more BOPF for refining 
iron into steel; and ladle metallurgy stations. Fugitive emissions from 
these operations in the BOPF shop exit through the roof monitor and 
other building openings.
    In selecting the MACT floor for existing sources, we evaluated all 
of the available information on existing control measures, State 
regulations, and actual emissions. We were unable to locate any opacity 
data to establish MACT floors for BOPF fugitive emissions based on 
actual opacity readings. However, most States have visible emission 
standards that limit opacity from BOPF shops during all periods of the 
production cycle. In addition, there are existing NSPS opacity limits 
applicable to fugitive emissions from BOPF shops. We believe that State 
regulations provide the best and most complete information for 
establishing floor limitations for fugitive emissions from BOPF shops. 
We believe that these State limits are in fact a reasonable 
representation of what is actually achieved in practice and are, 
therefore, suitable proxies for establishing MACT floor conditions. The 
existing State opacity limits reflect a level of performance which, 
based on engineering judgement, we would expect to be achievable for 
fugitive emissions from BOPF shops.
    We decided to look at top and bottom blown furnaces independently 
based on operational differences between the two designs. For top blown 
furnaces, the most stringent and also the most common State standard is 
a 20 percent limit (3-minute average) that is applied to 13 of the 20 
BOPF shops that operate top blown furnaces. For bottom blown furnaces, 
the BOPF shop with the most stringent standard is subject to a 10 
percent opacity limit (6-minute average, with one exception per cycle 
up to 20 percent). A second shop has three furnaces subject to a 20 
percent limit (3-minute average). A third shop has two furnaces subject 
to a 20 percent limit (6-minute average), and a third subject to a 10 
percent limit (3-minute average), with one 3-minute average greater 
than 10 percent but less than 20 percent applied only during hot metal 
transfer or skimming operations. Similar to the existing State 
standards, the NSPS for top blown furnaces applies during the entire 
production cycle. However, the NSPS for bottom blown furnaces applies 
only during periods of hot metal transfer

[[Page 36849]]

and slag skimming. Both standards limit opacity to less than 10 percent 
(3-minute average), except that one 3-minute average greater than 10 
percent but less than 20 percent can occur during each applicable 
performance period.
    We are selecting a 20 percent (3-minute average) opacity limit as 
the MACT floor for existing sources for both new and existing top blown 
and bottom blown BOPF shops. In both cases, this level of control 
corresponds to the median level of control achieved by the top five 
performing shops. For top blown BOPF shops, the MACT floor for new 
sources is an opacity limit of 10 percent (3-minute average), except 
for one 3-minute average greater than 10 percent but less than 20 
percent. This limit is based on the most stringent existing limit 
applicable to top blown BOPF shops (the existing NSPS). For bottom 
blown BOPF shops, we are selecting a MACT floor limit of 10 percent 
opacity (6-minute average with one exception per cycle up to 20 
percent) for new sources, based on the most stringent existing State 
limit. This limit is more stringent than the NSPS since it applies 
during all periods of the production cycle rather than only during hot 
metal transfer and skimming.
    Because of the limited amount of data available, we could not 
identify any basis for developing a limit more stringent than the floor 
for either new or existing BOPF shops. Consequently, we chose the MACT 
floor as the standard for both new and existing bottom and top blown 
BOPF shops. For both existing bottom blown and top blown BOPF shops, we 
selected an opacity limit for fugitive emissions of 20 percent using 3-
minute averages. For new bottom blown BOPF shops, we selected an 
opacity limit for fugitive emissions of 10 percent opacity limit (6-
minute average, with one exception per cycle up to 20 percent), which 
is based on the most stringent State limit. For new top blown BOPF 
shops, we are selecting an opacity limit of 10 percent (3-minute 
average), except that one 3-minute average greater than 10 percent but 
less than 20 percent can occur during each steel production cycle.

D. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    The proposed rule requires a performance test for each control 
device to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable PM limit, 
and the reference method for PM is EPA Method 5 or 5D in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A (or ASTM 4536-96). The proposed rule also requires that 
a certified observer conduct a performance test by EPA Method 9 in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine the opacity of fugitive 
emissions. Consistent with Method 9 and the requirements of the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), we are requiring that 
opacity observations be made for at least 3 hours. We are also 
requiring that compliance testing for PM and opacity be performed 
during the production period with the greatest emissions, which is 
during tapping for the blast furnace; during the steel production cycle 
for open hood BOPF; and during the oxygen blow for closed hood BOPF.
    For the measurement of oil content, we chose EPA Method 9071B, ``n-
Hexane Extractable Material for Sludge, Sediment, and Solid Samples.'' 
This method is used to quantify low concentrations of oil in solid 
materials by extracting the sample with hexane to dissolve the oil, 
evaporating the hexane, and weighing the residue (oil). This is 
consistent with the method specified in Indiana's regulation for the 
oil content of sinter feed. Three samples of the sinter feed must be 
taken at 8-hour intervals each day. The three samples are composited 
and analyzed for oil content to provide a measure of the percent oil in 
the sinter feed for that day. The daily results are averaged over a 30-
day period on a rolling basis to determine the 30-day rolling average. 
We chose a format of a 30-day rolling average for the standard because 
it is consistent with the data on which the limit is based, which were 
long term averages of historical measurements, and provides for 
dampening of possible short-term intermittent spikes in oil content.
    We also require that certain operating limits be determined during 
the initial compliance test to ensure that capture and control devices 
operate properly on a continuing basis. All operating limits must be 
established during a performance test that demonstrates compliance with 
the applicable emission limit. During performance tests for PM, 
operating limits must be established for pressure drop and scrubber 
water flow rate for venturi scrubbers, and opacity (using a COMS) for 
ESP. During opacity observations of roof monitors, operating limits 
must be established for capture systems used on the sinter plant 
discharge end, blast furnace casthouse, and BOPF secondary emissions. 
Two options are available for the operating limits for these capture 
systems: (1) Establish a minimum volumetric flow rate for each 
individual duct, or (2) establish a minimum volumetric flow rate for 
the total flow to the control device along with settings for damper 
positions.

E. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    For continuous compliance, we chose periodic performance testing 
for PM and opacity, which is consistent with current permit 
requirements. We consulted with several States on how they were 
implementing title V permitting requirements for performance tests. In 
general, performance tests are repeated every 2.5 to 5 years, depending 
on the magnitude of the source. Consequently, we decided that 
performance tests should be repeated no less frequently than twice per 
permit term of a source's title V operating permit (at mid-term and 
renewal).
    Continuous compliance provisions were also established for capture 
equipment used on the discharge end, blast furnace casthouse, and BOPF 
secondary emissions to ensure the emissions are captured. There are two 
options: (1) Monitor the volumetric flow rate in each individual duct, 
or (2) monitor the total volumetric flow rate to the control device in 
combination with damper positions. These parameters must be in the 
range established during the EPA Method 9 performance test. We believe 
this monitoring will be sufficient to assure that ventilation adequate 
for the capture of fugitive emissions consistent with that demonstrated 
during the initial performance test will be maintained.
    We also developed procedures to ensure that control equipment is 
operating properly on a continuous basis. When baghouses are used, the 
alarm for the bag leak detection system must not sound for more than 5 
percent of the time in any semiannual reporting period. Venturi 
scrubbers must be monitored for pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate, and they must not fall below the limits established during the 
performance test. Electrostatic precipitators must be monitored for 
opacity using COMS. The opacity must not exceed the operating limit 
established during the performance test. If a facility uses equipment 
other than a baghouse, venturi scrubber, or ESP to control emissions 
from an affected source, the owner or operator would be required to 
send us a monitoring plan containing information on the type of device, 
performance test results, appropriate operating parameters to be 
monitored, operating limits, and operation and maintenance.
    For demonstrating continuous compliance with the oil content 
standard on sinter plant feed, we chose daily sampling and analysis of 
sinter

[[Page 36850]]

plant feed with daily compliance determined against a 30-day rolling 
average.

F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A). One-time notifications are needed by EPA to 
know what facilities are subject to the standard, if a facility has 
complied with the rule requirements, and when certain events such as 
performance tests and performance evaluations are scheduled. Semiannual 
compliance reports containing information on any deviation from the 
rule requirements are also required. These reports would include 
information on any deviation that occurred during the reporting period; 
if no deviation occurred, only summary information would be required. 
Consistent with the General Provisions, we also require an immediate 
report of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction where the actions taken 
in response were not consistent with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. This information is needed to determine if changes to 
the plan need to be made. Records would be required of information 
needed to document compliance with the rule requirements. These 
notifications, reports, and records are the minimum needed to ensure 
initial and continuous compliance.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    Generally, we do not expect the impacts of the proposed rule to be 
very serious or significant. Most plants have and continue to operate 
air pollution control equipment sufficient to meet all or most of the 
emission limitations contained in the proposed rule. Our best 
projection is that four plants will have to upgrade or install new 
control equipment on one or more of the affected sources. One plant 
does not have controls for fugitive emissions from their blast furnace 
casthouse and may have to install a capture and control system. One 
plant is expected to install new venturi scrubbers for their primary 
emission control system in the BOPF shop, and another plant will need 
to upgrade their venturi scrubbers. One of these plants may also need 
to install a capture and control system for fugitive emissions from the 
BOPF because they operate a closed hood BOPF without a capture system. 
Two plants use venturi scrubbers as the control devices for fugitive 
emissions from the BOPF; these plants may need to replace the scrubbers 
with baghouses.

A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?

    The installation of new controls and upgrades discussed in the 
preceding paragraph will result in reductions in emissions of metal HAP 
and PM. We estimate that the new capture and control system for the 
blast furnace casthouse will reduce these emissions by 90 percent, a 
reduction of 2 tons per year (tpy) of HAP and 324 tpy of PM. The new 
BOPF scrubbers at one plant and upgrade at another will result in a 50 
percent reduction in emissions, 2.8 tpy of HAP and 315 tpy of PM. The 
new capture and control system for fugitive emissions from the BOPF 
would result in a 90 percent reduction in emissions, 6 tpy of HAP and 
600 tpy of PM. We expect that the upgrade or replacement of the two 
scrubbers used as controls for BOPF fugitive emissions would result in 
a 50 percent reduction in emissions, 2.7 tpy of HAP and 270 tpy of PM. 
Overall, the proposed standard is expected to reduce metal HAP 
emissions by 13 tpy and PM emissions by about 1,500 tpy.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The nationwide capital and annual costs of new and upgraded capture 
and control systems are estimated at $34 million and $5.9 million/yr, 
respectively. The total nationwide annual costs (including monitoring 
and recordkeeping) are about $6.2 million/yr. These costs are based on 
a new primary control system for one BOPF shop, upgraded controls at 
another, two new capture and control systems for secondary BOPF 
emissions, and one new capture and control system for a blast furnace 
casthouse. In addition, the estimate includes the cost of bag leak 
detection systems for baghouses.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to determine the 
impacts of the proposed rule on both the industry and the U.S. market 
for steel mill products. We estimate the economic impacts in both areas 
to be negligible. We project the price of steel mill products, in 
aggregate, to increase by less than 0.1 percent with domestic 
production from integrated mills declining by only 3,100 short tons. 
This slight decline in production at affected integrated mills is 
somewhat offset by increases at nonintegrated domestic steel producers 
(600 short tons) and foreign imports (600 short tons). In terms of 
industry impacts, the integrated steel producers are projected to 
experience a slight decrease in operating profits of $5.2 million 
annually, which reflects increased costs of compliance and associated 
reductions in revenues from producing final steel mill products. In 
addition, we don't foresee any individual integrated facility being in 
jeopardy of closure because of the proposed standards.
    Based on the market analysis, the annual costs to society of the 
proposed rule are projected to be $5.9 million. As a result of slightly 
higher prices for steel mill products, the final consumers of these 
products will incur an additional $1.7 million annually. Integrated 
steel mills are expected to decline $5.2 million annually in profits 
related to directly incurred control costs and reduced product 
revenues. Non-integrated steel mills that directly compete with 
integrated mills in these markets and are unaffected by today's 
proposed rule will experience a slight increase in profits of $0.6 
million. Similarly, foreign steel producers will also experience a 
slight increase in profits of $0.4 million due to the slightly higher 
prices and increases in imports to the U.S. market. For more 
information, consult the economic impact analysis supporting this 
proposed rule.

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

    Implementation of the rule as proposed would be expected to result 
in a small increase in solid waste: 3,200 tpy of sludge and 1,200 tpy 
of dust. The energy increase could be expected to be 24,000 megawatt-
hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new venturi 
scrubbers.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions 
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from all 
interested parties. You need to submit full supporting data and 
detailed analysis with your comments to allow use to make the best use 
of them. Be sure to direct your comments to the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-2000-44 (see ADDRESSEES).
    We are requesting comments on two specific issues. The first is 
whether the emission limit for the windbox exhaust at sinter plants 
should be expressed in terms of lb/ton of sinter (0.3 lb/ton), 
concentration (0.01 gr/dscf for baghouses and 0.03 gr/dscf for 
scrubbers), or a combination. The second issue is whether MACT 
standards are warranted for the discharge end and sinter cooler at 
sinter plants and for ladle metallurgy operations in the BOPF shop. The

[[Page 36851]]

discharge end contributes only 1 percent of the HAP emissions from 
sinter plants, and the cooler contributes less than 10 percent. Ladle 
metallurgy contributes less than 1 percent of the HAP emissions from 
BOPF shops.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this regulatory action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this 
action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review 
under Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. None of 
the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments, and 
the proposed rule would not preempt any State laws that are more 
stringent. Therefore, it will not have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In 
addition, the proposed rule is required by statute and, if implemented, 
will not impose any substantial direct compliance costs. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by 
Executive Order 13175. However, this proposed rule was developed during 
the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal 
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. Development 
of the final rule will address tribal considerations under Executive 
Order 13175. Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or 
uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, 
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA 
consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately 
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the 
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a 
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, 
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an effective process 
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or 
operate integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. The 
proposed rule is required by statute and will not impose any 
substantial direct compliance costs. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to

[[Page 36852]]

influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is technology based and not based on 
health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed 
because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater 
stringency at a reasonable cost. Further, this proposed rule has been 
determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost 
of this proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than 
$6 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this 
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations 
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. et seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business 
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for 
NAICS code 331111 (i.e., Iron and Steel Mills) of 1,000 or fewer 
employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    Based on the above definition of small entities, the Agency has 
determined that there are no small businesses within this source 
category that would be subject to this proposed rule. Therefore, 
because this proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2003.01), and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail 
at [email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy also may 
be downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The 
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The rule would require applicable one-time notifications required 
by the General Provisions for each affected source. As required by the 
NESHAP General Provisions, all plants would be required to prepare and 
operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants also would 
be required to prepare an operation and maintenance plan for capture 
systems and control devices subject to operating limits. Records would 
be required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the monitoring, 
operation, and maintenance requirements for capture systems, control 
devices, and monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are 
required. These reports would describe any deviation from the 
standards, any period a continuous monitoring system was ``out-of-
control,'' or any startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where actions 
taken to respond were inconsistent with startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. If no deviation or other event occurred, only a 
summary report would be required. Consistent with the General 
Provisions, if actions taken in response to a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction event are not consistent with the plan, an immediate report 
must be submitted within 2 days of the event with a letter report 7 
days later.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 5,512 labor

[[Page 36853]]

hours per year at a total annual cost of $352,302, including labor, 
capital, and operation and maintenance.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2136), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in 
any correspondence. Because OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 13, 2001, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it by August 13, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB 
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained 
in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications, 
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or 
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with 
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA proposes 
to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, and 17 in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A; Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B; and OSW 846 Method 9071B. Consistent with the 
NTTAA, we conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards 
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus 
standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, and OSW 846 
Method 9071B. The search and review results have been documented and 
placed in Docket A-2000-44.
    One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable to 
PS-1. The standard ASTM D6216 (1998), Standard Practice for Opacity 
Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and 
Performance Specifications, has been incorporated by reference into PS-
1 (65 FR 48920, August 10, 2000).
    Another voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D4536-96, Particulate 
(Matter) Modified High Volume, is being proposed as an alternative to 
the sampling equipment and procedures in Method 5 or 17 in conducting 
emissions testing of positive pressure baghouses. The ASTM D4536-96 
equipment and procedures would be used in conjunction with the sample 
traverse and calculations as described in Method 5D for the 
application. We invite comments on whether including this ASTM standard 
method is appropriate for this or other applications.
    In addition to the voluntary consensus standards we propose to use 
in this rule, our search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 
15 other voluntary consensus standards. We determined that 12 of these 
15 standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the 
purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, we do not propose to include 
these 12 voluntary consensus standards in this proposed rule. Our 
detailed review comments for these 12 standards are in Docket A-2000-
44.
    Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search were unavailable at the time the review was conducted for the 
purposes of this proposed rule because they are under development by 
the voluntary consensus body. Our review comments for these three 
standards are in Docket A-2000-44.
    The EPA invites comment on the compliance demonstration 
requirements proposed in this rule and specifically invites the public 
to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
Commentors should also explain why this regulation should adopt these 
voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's 
standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications 
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data the procedure used to 
validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    The EPA test methods and performance specifications that would be 
required for integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities are 
included in Secs. 63.7822, 63.7823, and 63.7831 of the proposed rule. 
Under Sec. 63.8 of the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Iron and steel, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 19, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(20) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (20) ASTM D4536-96, Standard Test Method for High-Volume Sampling 
for Solid Particulate Matter and Determination of Particulate 
Emissions,

[[Page 36854]]

IBR approved [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] for Sec. 63.7822.
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart FFFFF to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities

What This Subpart Covers

63.7780  What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7781  Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7782  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7783  When do I have to comply with this subpart?
63.7784-63.7789  [Reserved]

Emission Limitations

63.7790  What emission limitations must I meet?
63.7791-63.7799  [Reserved]

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.7800  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
63.7801-63.7809  [Reserved]

General Compliance Requirements

63.7810  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
63.7811-63.7819  [Reserved]

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.7820  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7821  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7822  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for 
particulate matter?
63.7823  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
63.7824  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating 
limits?
63.7825  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?
63.7826  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation 
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7827-63.7829  [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.7830  What are my monitoring requirements?
63.7831  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?
63.7832  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.7833  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?
63.7834  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7835  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?
63.7836-63.7839  [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.7840  What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7841  What reports must I submit and when?
63.7842  What records must I keep?
63.7843  In what form and how long must I keep my records?
63.7844-63.7849  [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

63.7850  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7851  Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7852  What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.7853-63.7879  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission and Opacity Limits
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart FFFFF

Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.7780  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate 
initial and continuous compliance with all applicable emission 
limitations and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart.


Sec. 63.7781  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an integrated 
iron and steel manufacturing facility that is (or is part of) a major 
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first 
compliance date that applies to you. Your integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing facility is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the 
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year 
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.


Sec. 63.7782  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source 
at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility.
    (b) The affected sources are each new or existing sinter plant, 
blast furnace, and basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shop at your 
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility.
    (c) This subpart covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox 
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse; 
and the BOPF shop including each individual BOPF and shop ancillary 
operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag 
skimming, and ladle metallurgy).
    (d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or BOPF shop at your integrated 
iron and steel manufacturing facility is existing if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source before July 13, 
2001.
    (e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or BOPF shop at your integrated 
iron and steel manufacturing facility is new if you commence 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after July 
23, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the 
definition of ``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2.


Sec. 63.7783  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
each emission limitation and operation and maintenance requirement in 
this subpart that applies to you no later than [2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], then you must comply with each emission limitation and 
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to 
you by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with each emission limitation and operation 
and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon 
initial startup.
    (d) If your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is an 
area source that becomes a major source of HAP, the following 
compliance dates apply to you:

[[Page 36855]]

    (1) Any portion of the existing integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing facility that is a new affected source or a new 
reconstructed source must be in compliance with this subpart upon 
startup.
    (2) All other parts of the integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
facility must be in compliance with this subpart no later than 2 years 
after it becomes a major source.
    (e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec. 63.7840. Several of these notifications must be submitted before 
the compliance date for your affected source.


Secs. 63.7784-63.7789  [Reserved]

Emission Limitations


Sec. 63.7790  What emission limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit and opacity limit in Table 1 
to this subpart that applies to you.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit for capture and control 
devices in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section that applies 
to you.
    (1) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter 
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse, you must:
    (i) Maintain the hourly average volumetric flow rate through each 
separately ducted hood in the capture system at or above the minimum 
level established during the initial performance test; or
    (ii) Maintain the total hourly average volumetric flow rate at the 
control device inlet at or above the minimum level established during 
the initial performance test and all capture system dampers in the same 
position as during the initial performance test.
    (2) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a 
BOPF, you must:
    (i) Maintain the average volumetric flow rate through each 
separately ducted hood in the capture system for each steel production 
cycle at or above the minimum level established during the initial 
performance test; or
    (ii) Maintain the total average volumetric flow rate at the control 
device inlet for each steel production cycle at or above the minimum 
level established during the initial performance test and all capture 
system dampers in the same position as during the initial performance 
test.
    (3) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission 
limit in Table 1, you must operate the baghouse such that the bag leak 
detection system does not alarm for more than 5 percent of the total 
operating time in any semiannual reporting period.
    (4) For each venturi scrubber applied to meet any particulate 
emission limit in Table 1, you must maintain the hourly average 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum 
levels established during the initial performance test.
    (5) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a 
BOPF, you must maintain the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting 
the control device stack at or below the level established during the 
initial performance test.
    (6) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device 
other than a baghouse, venturi scrubber, or electrostatic precipitator 
must submit a description of the device; test results collected in 
accordance with Sec. 63.7822 verifying the performance of the device 
for reducing emissions of particulate matter to the atmosphere to the 
levels required by this subpart; a copy of the operation and 
maintenance plan required in Sec. 63.7800(b); and appropriate operating 
parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance 
with the applicable emission limitation(s). The monitoring plan 
identifying the operating parameters to be monitored is subject to 
approval by the Administrator.
    (c) For each sinter plant, you must maintain the 30-day rolling 
average oil content of the sinter plant feedstock at or below 0.025 
percent.


Secs. 63.7791-63.7799  [Reserved]

Operation and Maintenance Requirements


Sec. 63.7800  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart.
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system and 
control device subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b). Each 
plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the 
performance of the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors, 
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include 
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g., 
presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by 
dents or accumulated dust in ductwork, and fan erosion). The operation 
and maintenance plan also must include requirements to repair any 
defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next scheduled 
inspection.
    (2) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a 
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (3) In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered, 
you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm 
within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the 
cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the 
corrective action as soon as practicable. Actions may include, but are 
not limited to:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repair the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.


Secs. 63.7801-63.7809  [Reserved]

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.7810  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and 
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times, 
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction as defined 
in Sec. 63.2.
    (b) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.7783 and the date upon which continuous 
monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any applicable 
operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the 
operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control 
equipment.
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).

[[Page 36856]]

Secs. 63.7811-63.7819  [Reserved]

Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.7820  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) As required in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance 
test within 180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified 
in Sec. 63.7783 for your affected source to demonstrate initial 
compliance with each emission and opacity limit in Table 1 to this 
subpart that applies to you, and the 30-day rolling average oil content 
limit for the sinter plant feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(c).
    (b) For each operation and maintenance requirement that applies to 
you where initial compliance is not demonstrated using a performance 
test or opacity observation, you must demonstrate initial compliance 
within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.7783.
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July 
13, 2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the 
proposed emission limit or the promulgated emission limit no later than 
[180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register] or no later than 180 days after startup of the 
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between [INSERT 
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE Federal Register] and 
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], and 
you chose to comply with the proposed emission limit when demonstrating 
initial compliance, you must conduct a second performance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the promulgated emission limit by [3 YEARS 
AND 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], or after startup of the source, whichever is later, 
according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).


Sec. 63.7821  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with all applicable emission and opacity limits in Table 1 
to this subpart no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and renewal) 
during each term of your title V operating permit.


Sec. 63.7822  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate 
matter?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and 
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for 
particulate matter in Table 1 to this subpart, follow the test methods 
and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to 
the following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter:
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of 
the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5, 5D, or 17, as applicable, to determine the 
concentration of particulate matter. You can also use ASTM D4536-96 
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) as an alternative to the 
sampling equipment and operating procedures in Method 5 or 17 when 
testing a positive pressure baghouse, but you must use the sample 
traverse location and number of sampling points described in Method 5D.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each particulate matter test run. Three valid test runs 
are needed to comprise a performance test.
    (c) For each sinter plant windbox exhaust stream, you must complete 
the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Include procedures in your source test plan for measuring and 
recording the sinter production rate for each test run in tons per 
hour; and
    (2) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep) for 
each test run using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP13JY01.000

Where:

Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions of particulate matter, 
lb/ton;
C = Concentration of particulate matter, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
P = Production rate of sinter during the test run, tons/hr; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.

    (d) If you apply two or more control devices in parallel to 
emissions from a sinter plant discharge end, compute the average flow-
weighted concentration for each test run using Equation 2 of this 
section as follows:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP13JY01.001

Where:

Cw = Flow-weighted concentration, gr/dscf;
Ci = Concentration of particulate matter from exhaust stream 
``i'', gr/dscf; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust 
stream ``i'', dscfm.

    (e) For a control device applied to emissions from a blast furnace 
casthouse, sample for an integral number of furnace tapping operations 
sufficient to obtain at least 1 hour of sampling for each test run.
    (f) For a primary emission control device applied to emissions from 
a BOPF with a closed hood system, sample only during the primary oxygen 
blow and do not sample during any subsequent reblows. Continue sampling 
for each run for an integral number of primary oxygen blows.
    (g) For a primary emission control system applied to emissions from 
a BOPF with an open hood system and for a control device applied solely 
to secondary emissions from a BOPF, you must complete the requirements 
of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Sample only during the steel production cycle. Discontinue 
sampling during periods of abnormal operation. Record the start and end 
time of each steel production cycle and each period of abnormal 
operation; and
    (2) Sample for an integral number of steel production cycles. The 
steel production cycle begins when the scrap or hot metal is charged to 
the furnace (whichever operation occurs first) and ends 3 minutes after 
the slag is emptied from the vessel into the slag pot. Consecutive 
cycles are not required for determining compliance.
    (h) For a control device applied to emissions from BOPF shop 
ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or 
ladle metallurgy), sample only when the operation(s) is being 
conducted.

[[Page 36857]]

Sec. 63.7823  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(h)(5) and 
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
    (b) You must conduct each visible emissions performance test such 
that the opacity observations overlap with the performance test for 
particulate matter.
    (c) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart for a sinter plant discharge end or a blast 
furnace casthouse:
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions 
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) Obtain a minimum of 30 6-minute averages. For a blast furnace 
casthouse, make observations during tapping of the furnace. Tapping 
begins when the furnace is opened, usually by creating a hole near the 
bottom of the furnace, and ends when the hole is plugged.
    (d) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart for BOPF shops:
    (1) For an existing BOPF shop:
    (i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions 
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter except 
as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
    (ii) Instead of procedures in section 2.4 of Method 9 in appendix A 
to part 60 of this chapter, record observations to the nearest 5 
percent at 15-second intervals for at least three steel production 
cycles.
    (iii) Instead of procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix 
A to part 60 of this chapter, determine the 3-minute average opacity 
from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second 
intervals.
    (2) For a new BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF:
    (i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions 
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (ii) Select the highest and second highest sets of 6-minute average 
opacities for each steel production cycle.
    (3) For a new BOPF shop housing a top-blown BOPF:
    (i) Determine the opacity of emissions according to the 
requirements for an existing BOPF shop in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (ii) Select the highest and second highest sets of 3-minute average 
opacities for each steel production cycle.
    (4) Opacity observations must cover the entire steel production 
cycle and must be made for at least three cycles. The steel production 
cycle begins when the scrap or hot metal is charged to the furnace 
(whichever operation occurs first) and ends 3 minutes after the slag is 
emptied from the vessel into the slag pot. Consecutive cycles are not 
required for determining compliance.
    (5) Determine and record the starting and stopping times of the 
steel production cycle.


Sec. 63.7824  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?

    (a) For a capture system applied to emissions from a sinter plant 
discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to an operating 
limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1) for flow rate, you must establish a site-
specific operating limit(s) according to the procedures in paragraph 
(a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for 
the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood:
    (i) Using the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 
required in Sec. 63.7830(a)(1), measure and record the actual 
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood in the capture 
system during each visible emissions performance test.
    (ii) Compute and record the hourly average volumetric flow rate for 
the performance test. Your operating limit is the lowest hourly flow 
rate value in a test that meets the opacity limit.
    (2) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii) for 
total flow rate and damper position:
    (i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(a)(2), measure and 
record the total volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet 
during each visible emissions performance test.
    (ii) Compute and record the hourly average flow rate for the 
performance test. Your operating limit is the lowest hourly flow rate 
value in a test that meets the opacity limit.
    (iii) Record the position of each damper for the capture system 
damper position during the visible emissions performance test. Your 
operating limit is the position of each damper.
    (b) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a 
BOPF and subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2) for flow 
rate, you must establish a site-specific operating limit(s) according 
to the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for 
the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood:
    (i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(b)(1), measure and 
record the actual volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted 
hood in the capture system for each steel production cycle during the 
visible emissions performance test.
    (ii) Compute and record the average volumetric flow rate for each 
steel production cycle during the performance test. Your operating 
limit is the lowest average flow rate value in a test that meets the 
opacity limit.
    (2) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii) for 
total flow rate and damper position:
    (i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(b)(2), measure and 
record the total volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet for 
each steel production cycle during the visible emissions performance 
test.
    (ii) Compute and record the average flow rate for the performance 
test. Your operating limit is the lowest average flow rate value in a 
test that meets the opacity limit.
    (iii) Record the position of each damper for the capture system 
damper position during the visible emissions performance test. Your 
operating limit is the position of each damper.
    (c) For a venturi scrubber subject to operating limits for pressure 
drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you must 
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7830(d), measure and record 
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate during each run of the 
particulate matter performance test.
    (2) Compute and record the hourly average pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating 
limits are the lowest average pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate value in any of the three runs that meet the applicable emission 
limit.
    (d) For an electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating 
limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5) for opacity, you must establish a site-
specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required 
in Sec. 63.7830(e), measure and record the opacity of emissions from 
each control device stack during each run of the particulate matter 
performance test.

[[Page 36858]]

    (2) Compute and record the hourly average opacity for each 
individual test run. Your operating limit is the highest hourly opacity 
in any of the three runs that meet the emission limit.
    (e) You may change the operating limits for a capture system, 
venturi scrubber, or electrostatic precipitator if you meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your 
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating 
limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (f) To determine compliance with the operating limit for the oil 
content of the sinter plant feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(c), follow the 
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Sample the feedstock three times a day (once every 8 hours), 
composite the three samples each day, and analyze the composited 
samples using Method 9071B ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 
Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846 (Revision 2, April 
1998) (Incorporated by reference).
    (2) Continue the sampling and analysis procedure for 30 consecutive 
days.
    (3) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average using that day's 
value and the 29 previous daily values.


Sec. 63.7825  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each affected source subject to an emission or opacity 
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you have demonstrated initial 
compliance if:
    (1) You meet the conditions in Table 2 to this subpart; and
    (2) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter 
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to the 
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1), you have established appropriate 
site-specific operating limit(s) and:
    (i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for 
flow rate, you have a record of the actual volumetric flow rate through 
each separately ducted hood measured during the performance test in 
accordance with Sec. 63.7824(a)(1); or
    (ii) If you elect the operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii) 
for total flow rate and damper position, you have a record of the total 
volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control device measured during 
the performance test and the position of each damper during the test in 
accordance with Sec. 63.7824(a)(2); and
    (3) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a 
BOPF and subject to the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you have 
established appropriate site-specific operating limit(s) and:
    (i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for 
flow rate, you have a record of the actual volumetric flow rate through 
each separately ducted hood measured during each steel production cycle 
in the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(b)(1); or
    (ii) If you elect the operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii) 
for total flow rate and damper position, you have a record of the total 
volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control device measured during 
each steel production cycle in the performance test and the position of 
each damper during the test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(b)(2); and
    (4) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you 
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(c); and
    (5) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you have established an 
appropriate site-specific operating limit and have a record of the 
opacity measurements made during the performance test in accordance 
with Sec. 63.7824(d).
    (b) For each existing or new sinter plant subject to the operating 
limit for the oil content of the feedstock in Sec. 63.7790(c), you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if the 30-day rolling average of the 
oil content of the feedstock, measured during the initial performance 
test in accordance with Sec. 63.7824(f), is no more than 0.025 percent.
    (c) For each emission limitation that applies to you, you must 
submit a notification of compliance status according to 
Sec. 63.7840(e).


Sec. 63.7826  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) You have demonstrated initial compliance if you certify in your 
notification of compliance status that:
    (1) You have prepared the operation and maintenance plan according 
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7800(b); and
    (2) You will operate each capture system and control device 
according to the procedures in the plan; and
    (3) You submit a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7840(e).
    (b) [Reserved]


Secs. 63.7827-63.7829  [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.7830  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter 
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to an 
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1), you must meet the requirements 
in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for 
flow rate, you must at all times monitor the hourly average actual 
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood using a CPMS 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a).
    (2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper 
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii), you must at all times monitor the 
average hourly total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control 
device using a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a) 
and make a visual check at least once every 24 hours to verify that 
each damper for the capture system is in the same position as during 
the initial performance test.
    (b) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a 
BOPF and subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you must 
meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for 
flow rate, you must at all times monitor the average actual volumetric 
flow rate through each separately ducted hood for each steel production 
cycle using a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a).
    (2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper 
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii), you must at all times monitor the 
average total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the control device 
for each steel production cycle using a CPMS according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7831(a) and make a visual check at least once 
every 24 hours to verify that each damper for the capture system is in 
the same position as during the initial performance test.
    (c) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in 
Sec. 63.7790(b)(3) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must at 
all times monitor the relative

[[Page 36859]]

change in particulate matter loadings using a bag leak detection system 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(b) and conduct 
inspections at their specified frequencies according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to 
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in 
the manual.
    (2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly 
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of 
removal mechanisms.
    (3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each 
day.
    (4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an 
appropriate methodology.
    (5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through 
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for 
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
    (7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through 
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
    (8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through 
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
    (d) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you 
must at all times monitor the hourly average pressure drop and water 
flow rate using a CPMS according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.7831(c).
    (e) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you must at all times monitor 
the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting each control device 
stack using a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.7831(f).


Sec. 63.7831  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?

    (a) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter 
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse that is subject to 
operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1) for flow rate and for each 
capture system applied to secondary emissions from a BOPF that is 
subject to operating limits in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2) for flow rate, you 
must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as 
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow 
and that reduces swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due 
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flow rate.
    (3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in 
Sec. 63.7790(b)(3) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must 
install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according 
to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) 
or less.
    (2) The system must provide output of relative changes in 
particulate matter loadings.
    (3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when 
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset 
level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the 
appropriate plant personnel.
    (4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must 
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997. You may obtain a copy of this guidance 
document by contacting the National Technical Information Service 
(NTIS) at 800-553-6847. You may install, operate, and maintain other 
types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with the 
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
    (5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the 
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging 
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the 
alarm delay time.
    (6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity 
or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time, 
except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not 
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the 
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a 
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been 
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    (7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (c) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec. 63.7790(b)(4) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you 
must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) For the pressure drop CPMS, you must:
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that 
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and 
external corrosion.
    (ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
    (iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (2) For the scrubber water flow rate CPMS, you must:
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling 
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 
disturbances.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flow rate.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually 
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS for a capture 
system applied to emissions from a sinter plant discharge end or blast 
furnace casthouse and each CPMS for a venturi scrubber according to the

[[Page 36860]]

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of three of 
the required four data points to constitute a valid hour of data.
    (2) Each CPMS must have valid hourly data for at least 95 percent 
of every averaging period.
    (3) Each CPMS must determine and record the hourly average of all 
recorded readings.
    (e) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS for a capture 
system applied to secondary emissions from a BOPF according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period during a steel production cycle.
    (2) Each CPMS must have valid data for at least 95 percent of every 
averaging period.
    (3) Each CPMS must determine and record the average of all recorded 
readings for a steel production cycle.
    (f) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you must install, operate, and 
maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must install each COMS and conduct a performance evaluation 
of each COMS according to Sec. 63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in 
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
    (2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for 
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec. 63.8. At a 
minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration 
drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero 
alignment of each COMS.
    (3) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to 
Sec. 63.8(e) and your quality control program. Identify periods the 
COMS is out of control, including any periods that the COMS fails to 
pass a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, 
or annual zero alignment audit.
    (4) You must determine and record the hourly average opacity using 
all the 6-minute averages collected for periods during which the COMS 
is not out of control.


Sec. 63.7832  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

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


Sec. 63.7833  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each affected source subject to an emission or opacity 
limit in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance 
according to the requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (b) For each capture system applied to emissions from a sinter 
plant discharge end or blast furnace casthouse and subject to an 
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 
of this section:
    (1) If you elect the operating limit for flow rate in 
Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(i):
    (i) Maintaining the hourly average volumetric flow rate through 
each separately ducted hood at or above the level established during 
the initial or subsequent performance test;
    (ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according 
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements; and
    (iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the actual 
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood according to 
Sec. 63.7831(d).
    (2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper 
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(1)(ii):
    (i) Maintaining the hourly average total volumetric flow rate at 
the control device inlet at or above the level established during the 
initial or subsequent performance test and all capture system damper 
positions in the same positions as during the initial or subsequent 
performance test;
    (ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according 
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements;
    (iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the total 
volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet according to 
Sec. 63.7831(d); and
    (iv) Checking all capture system dampers at least once each day (24 
hours) to verify each damper is in the same position as during the 
initial or subsequent performance test and recording all information 
needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (c) For each capture system applied to secondary emissions from a 
BOPF and subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) If you elect the operating limit for flow rate in 
Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(i):
    (i) Maintaining the average volumetric flow rate through each 
separately ducted hood for each steel production cycle at or above the 
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test;
    (ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according 
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements; and
    (iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the actual 
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood according to 
Sec. 63.7831(e).
    (2) If you elect the operating limits for flow rate and damper 
position in Sec. 63.7790(b)(2)(ii):
    (i) Maintaining the average total volumetric flow rate at the 
control device inlet for each steel production cycle at or above the 
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test and 
all capture system damper positions in the same positions as during the 
initial or subsequent performance test;
    (ii) Inspecting and maintaining each capture system CPMS according 
to Sec. 63.7831(a) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements;
    (iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for the total 
volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet according to 
Sec. 63.7831(e); and
    (iv) Checking all capture system dampers at least once each day (24 
hours) to verify each damper is in the

[[Page 36861]]

same position as during the initial or subsequent performance test and 
recording all information needed to document conformance with these 
requirements.
    (d) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit for the bag 
leak detection system alarm in Sec. 63.7790(b)(3), you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining each baghouse such that the bag leak detection 
system alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during any semiannual reporting period. To determine the percent 
of time the alarm sounded:
    (i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak 
detection system are not included in the calculation.
    (ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and all the actions you took 
during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the 
procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour.
    (iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm.
    (v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak 
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the 
total operating time multiplied by 100.
    (2) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system 
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated 
corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on 
which corrective action was completed.
    (3) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7830(c)(1) through (8) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If 
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection 
system beyond the limits specified in Sec. 63.7831(b)(6), you must 
include a copy of the required written certification by a responsible 
official in the next semiannual compliance report.
    (e) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.7790(b)(4), you 
must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements 
of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial 
or subsequent performance test;
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each venturi scrubber CPMS according 
to Sec. 63.7831(c) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec. 63.7831(d) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (f) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the site-
specific opacity operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b)(5), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining the hourly average opacity of emissions no higher 
than the site-specific limit established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test;
    (2) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data 
according to Sec. 63.7831(f).
    (g) For each new or existing sinter plant subject to the operating 
limit for the feedstock oil content in Sec. 63.7790(c), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Sampling and recording the oil content of the sinter plant 
feedstock every 24 hours according to the performance test procedures 
in Sec. 63.7824(f);
    (2) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average oil content 
for each operating day; and
    (3) Maintaining the oil content of the feedstock no higher than 
0.025 percent at all times.


Sec. 63.7834  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) For each capture system and control device subject to an 
operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in 
Sec. 63.7800(b) by completing the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (3) of this section:
    (1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems according to 
Sec. 63.7800(b)(1) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements;
    (2) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device 
according to Sec. 63.7800(b)(2) and recording all information needed to 
document conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak 
detection system alarm according to Sec. 63.7800(b)(3) and recording 
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and 
maintenance plan required in Sec. 63.7800(b) onsite and available for 
inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the life of the 
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the requirements of this subpart.


Sec. 63.7835  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not 
meet each emission limitation in Sec. 63.7790 that applies to you. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You also must 
report each instance in which you did not meet each operation and 
maintenance requirement in Sec. 63.7800 that applies to you. These 
instances are deviations from the emission limitations and operation 
and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be 
reported according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7841.
    (b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with 
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (1) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, 
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).


Secs. 63.7836-63.7839  [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.7840  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.6(h)(4) 
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b)

[[Page 36862]]

through (h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected 
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than [120 
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start your new affected 
source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must submit your initial notification no later 
than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, opacity 
observation, or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit 
a notification of compliance status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include 
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a 
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status, including the performance test results, before the close of 
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the 
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).


Sec. 63.7841  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance 
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.7783 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes 
first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in 
Sec. 63.7783.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your 
first compliance report is due.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes 
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(3)(iii)(A), you may 
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the 
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to 
the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include 
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and, 
as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance 
requirements in Secs. 63.7833 and 63.7834 that apply to you, a 
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations 
or operation and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring 
system (including a CPMS or COMS) was out-of-control as specified in 
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which 
the CPMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Sec. 63.7790 
that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a continuous 
monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with an emission 
limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the 
information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the 
corrective action taken.
    (8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system 
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in 
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) 
through (xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was out-of-control, including the information in 
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown, 
control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and 
other unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring 
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of 
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source 
operating time during the reporting period.
    (viii) A brief description of the process units.
    (ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.

[[Page 36863]]

    (c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had 
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction report according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V 
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 
71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the 
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an 
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required 
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation or 
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of 
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same 
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of 
a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may 
have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected 
source to your permitting authority.


Sec. 63.7842  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the following records:
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and 
opacity observations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as 
required in Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
    (3) Previous (that is, superceded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for 
visual observations.
    (d) You must keep the records required in Secs. 63.7833 and 63.7834 
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and 
operation and maintenance requirement that applies to you.


Sec. 63.7843  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.


Secs. 63.7844-63.7849  [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.7850  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 4 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec. 63.7851  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated 
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce 
this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 
out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal 
agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Table 1 to 
this subpart under Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.7852  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in 
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on tribroelectric, light scattering, 
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative 
particulate matter loadings.
    Basic oxygen process furnace means any refractory-lined vessel in 
which high-purity oxygen is blown under pressure through a bath of 
molten iron, scrap metal, and fluxes to produce steel. This definition 
includes both top and bottom blown furnaces, but does not include argon 
oxygen decarburization furnaces.
    Basic oxygen process furnace shop means the place where steelmaking 
operations that begin with the transfer of molten iron (hot metal) from 
the torpedo car and end prior to casting the molten steel, including 
hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, refining in a basic 
oxygen process furnace, and ladle metallurgy occur.
    Basic oxygen process furnace shop ancillary operations means the 
processes where hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag 
skimming, and ladle metallurgy occur.
    Blast furnace means a furnace used for the production of molten 
iron from iron ore and other iron bearing materials.
    Bottom-blown furnace means any basic oxygen process furnace in 
which oxygen and other combustion gases are introduced into the bath of 
molten iron through tuyeres in the bottom of the vessel or through 
tuyeres in the bottom and sides of the vessel.
    Casthouse means the building or structure that encloses the bottom 
portion of a blast furnace where the hot metal and slag are tapped from 
the furnace.

[[Page 36864]]

    Certified observer means a visible emission observer certified to 
perform EPA Method 9 opacity observations.
    Desulfurization means the process in which reagents such as 
magnesium, soda ash, and lime are injected into the hot metal, usually 
with dry air or nitrogen, to remove sulfur.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Discharge end means the place where those operations conducted 
within the sinter plant starting at the discharge of the sintering 
machine's traveling grate including (but not limited to) hot sinter 
crushing, screening, and transfer operations occur.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or 
operating limit.
    Hot metal transfer station means the location in a basic oxygen 
process furnace shop where molten iron (hot metal) is transferred from 
a torpedo car or hot metal car used to transport hot metal from the 
blast furnace casthouse to a holding vessel or ladle in the basic 
oxygen process furnace shop. This location also is known as the 
reladling station or ladle transfer station.
    Integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility means an 
establishment engaged in the production of steel from iron ore.
    Ladle metallurgy means a secondary steelmaking process that is 
performed typically in a ladle after initial refining in a basic oxygen 
process furnace to adjust or amend the chemical and/or mechanical 
properties of steel.
    Primary emission control system means the combination of equipment 
used for the capture and collection of primary emissions (e.g., an open 
hood capture system used in conjunction with an electrostatic 
precipitator or a closed hood system used in conjunction with a 
scrubber).
    Primary emissions means particulate matter emissions from the basic 
oxygen process furnace generated during the steel production cycle 
which are captured and treated in the furnace's primary emission 
control system.
    Primary oxygen blow means the period in the steel production cycle 
of a basic oxygen process furnace during which oxygen is blown through 
the molten iron bath by means of a lance inserted from the top of the 
vessel (top-blown) or through tuyeres in the bottom and/or sides of the 
vessel (bottom-blown).
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 
Sec. 63.2.
    Secondary emission control system means the combination of 
equipment used for the capture and collection of secondary emissions 
from a basic oxygen process furnace.
    Secondary emissions means particulate matter emissions that are not 
controlled by a primary emission control system, including emissions 
that escape from open and closed hoods, lance hole openings, and gaps 
or tears in ductwork to the primary emission control system.
    Sinter cooler means the apparatus used to cool the hot sinter 
product that is transferred from the discharge end through contact with 
large volumes of induced or forced draft air.
    Sinter plant means the machine used to produce a fused clinker-like 
aggregate or sinter of fine iron-bearing materials suited for use in a 
blast furnace. The machine is composed of a continuous traveling grate 
that conveys a bed of ore fines and other finely divided iron-bearing 
material and fuel (typically coke breeze), a burner at the feed end of 
the grate for ignition, and a series of downdraft windboxes along the 
length of the strand to support downdraft combustion and heat 
sufficient to produce a fused sinter product.
    Skimming station means the locations inside a basic oxygen process 
furnace shop where slag is removed from the top of the molten metal 
bath.
    Steel production cycle means the operations conducted within the 
basic oxygen process furnace shop that are required to produce each 
batch of steel. The following operations are included: scrap charging, 
preheating (when done), hot metal charging, primary oxygen blowing, 
sampling, (vessel turndown and turnup), additional oxygen blowing (when 
done), tapping, and deslagging. The steel production cycle begins when 
the scrap or hot metal is charged to the furnace (whichever operation 
occurs first) and ends after the slag is emptied from the vessel into 
the slag pot.
    Top-blown furnace means any basic oxygen process furnace in which 
oxygen is introduced into the bath of molten iron by means of an oxygen 
lance inserted from the top of the vessel.
    Windboxes means the compartments that provide for a controlled 
distribution of downdraft combustion air as it is drawn through the 
sinter bed of a sinter plant to make the fused sinter product.


Secs. 63.7853-63.7879  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 Emission and Opacity Limits

    As required in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must comply with each 
applicable emission and opacity limit in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      You must comply with each of the
             For . . .                         following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at   You must not cause to be discharged
 a new or existing sinter plant..    to the atmosphere any gases that
                                     contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.3 lb/ton of product
                                     sinter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Each discharge end at an         a. You must not cause to be
 existing sinter plant.              discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from one or more
                                     control devices that contain
                                     particulate matter in excess of
                                     0.02 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     20 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36865]]

 
3. Each discharge end at a new      a. You must not cause to be
 sinter plant.                       discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from one or more
                                     control devices that contain, on a
                                     flow weighted basis, particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
                                     and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     10 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Each sinter cooler stack at an   You must not cause to be discharged
 existing sinter plant.              to the atmosphere any gases that
                                     contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.03 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Each sinter cooler stack at a    You must not cause to be discharged
 new sinter plant.                   to the atmosphere any gases that
                                     contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Each casthouse at an existing    a. You must not cause to be
 blast furnace.                      discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.009 gr/dscf;
                                     and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the casthouse or
                                     structure housing the blast furnace
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     20 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Each casthouse at a new blast    a. You must not cause to be
 furnace.                            discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.009 gr/dscf;
                                     and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the casthouse or
                                     structure housing the blast furnace
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     15 percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Each basic oxygen process        a. You must not cause to be
 furnace (BOPF) at a new or          discharged to the atmosphere any
 existing BOPF shop.                 gases that exit from a primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     with a closed hood system that
                                     contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.024 gr/dscf during the
                                     primary oxygen blow; and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     with an open hood system that
                                     contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.019 gr/dscf during the
                                     steel production cycle; and
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device used solely for the
                                     collection of secondary emissions
                                     from the BOPF that contain
                                     particulate matter in excess of
                                     0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
                                     shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
                                     BOPF shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Each hot metal transfer,         You must not cause to be discharged
 skimming, desulfurizaiton, and      to the atmosphere any gases that
 ladle metallurgy operation at a     exist from a control device that
 new or existing BOPF shop.          contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.007 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Each roof monitor at an         You must not cause to be discharged
 existing BOPF shop.                 to the atmosphere any secondary
                                     emissions that exit any opening in
                                     the BOPF shop or any other building
                                     housing the BOPF or BOPF shop
                                     operation that exhibit opacity
                                     greater than 20 percent (3-minute
                                     average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Each roof monitor at a new      a. You must not cause to be
 BOPF shop.                          discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing a bottom-blown
                                     BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
                                     exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-
                                     minute averages) greater than 10
                                     percent, except that one 6-minute
                                     period not to exceed 20 percent may
                                     occur once per steel production
                                     cycle.
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing a top-blown BOPF
                                     or BOPF shop operations that
                                     exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-
                                     minute averages) greater than 10
                                     percent, except that one 3-minute
                                     period greater than 10 percent but
                                     less than 20 percent may occur once
                                     per steel production cycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 of Subpart FFFFF to Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission 
and Opacity Limits

    As required in Sec. 63.7825(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        You have demonstrated initial
             For . . .                       compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at   The process-weighted mass rate of
 an existing or new sinter plant.    particulate matter from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream at a new or existing
                                     sinter plant, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(c), did not exceed
                                     0.3 lb/ton of product sinter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Each discharge end at an         a. The flow-weighted average
 existing sinter plant.              concentration of particulate matter
                                     from one or more control devices
                                     applied to emissions from a
                                     discharge end, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.  63.7822(d), did not exceed
                                     0.02 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each discharge end,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                      63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
                                     percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36866]]

 
3. Each discharge end at a new      a. The flow-weighted average
 sinter plant.                       concentration of particulate matter
                                     from one or more control devices
                                     applied to emissions from a
                                     discharge end, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.  63.7822(d), did not exceed
                                     0.01 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each discharge end,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                      63.7823(c), did not exceed 10
                                     percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Each sinter cooler stack at an   The average concentration of
 existing sinter plant.              particulate matter from a sinter
                                     cooler stack, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(b), did not exceed
                                     0.03 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Each sinter cooler stack at a    The average concentration of
 new sinter plant.                   particulate matter from a sinter
                                     cooler stack, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(b), did not exceed
                                     0.01 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Each casthouse at an existing    a. The average concentration of
 blast furnace.                      particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied to emissions from a
                                     casthouse, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(e), did not exceed
                                     0.009 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each casthouse,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                      63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
                                     percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Each casthouse at a new blast    a. The average concentration of
 furnace.                            particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied to emissions from a
                                     casthouse, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(e), did not exceed
                                     0.009 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each casthouse,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                      63.7823(c), did not exceed 15
                                     percent (6-minute average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Each basic oxygen process        a. The average concentration of
 furnace (BOPF) at a new or          particulate matter from a primary
 existing BOPF shop.                 emission control system applied to
                                     emissions from a BOPF with a closed
                                     hood system, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(f), did not exceed
                                     0.024 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The average concentration of
                                     particulate matter from a primary
                                     emission control system applied to
                                     emissions from a BOPF with an open
                                     hood system, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(g), did not exceed
                                     0.019 gr/dscf; and
                                    c. The average concentration of
                                     particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied solely to secondary
                                     emissions from a BOPF, measured
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.  63.7822(g), did
                                     not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an
                                     existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/
                                     dscf for a new BOPF shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Each hot metal transfer,         The average concentration of
 skimming, desulfurization, or       particulate matter from a control
 ladle metallurgy operation at a     device applied to emissions from
 new or existing BOPF shop.          hot metal transfer, skimming,
                                     desulfurization, or ladle
                                     metallurgy, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.  63.7822(h), did not exceed
                                     0.007 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Each roof monitor at an         The opacity of secondary emissions
 existing BOPF shop.                 from each BOPF shop, determined
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.  63.7823(d), did
                                     not exceed 20 percent (3-minute
                                     average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Each roof monitor at a new      a. The opacity of the highest set of
 BOPF shop.                          6-minute averages from each BOPF
                                     shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                      63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
                                     percent and the second highest set
                                     of 6-minute averages did not exceed
                                     10 percent.
                                    b. The opacity of the highest set of
                                     3-minute averages from each BOPF
                                     shop housing a top-blown BOPF,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                      63.7823(d), was less than 20
                                     percent and the second highest set
                                     of 3-minute averages did not exceed
                                     10 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With 
Emission and Opacity Limits

    As required in Sec. 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       You must demonstrate continuous
             For . . .                       compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at   a. Maintaining emissions of
 an existing or new sinter plant.    particulate matter at or below 0.3
                                     lb/ton of product sinter, and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Each discharge end at an         a. Maintaining emissions of
 existing sinter plant.              particulate matter from one or more
                                     control devices at or below 0.02 gr/
                                     dscf, and
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     at or below 20 percent (6-minute
                                     average), and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 36867]]

 
3. Each discharge end at a new      a. Maintaining emissions of
 sinter plant.                       particulate matter from one or more
                                     control devices at or below 0.01 gr/
                                     dscf, and
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     at or below 10 percent (6-minute
                                     average), and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Each sinter cooler stack at an   a. Maintaining emissions of
 existing sinter plant.              particulate matter at or below 0.03
                                     gr/dscf, and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Each sinter cooler stack at a    a. Maintaining emissions of
 new sinter plant.                   particulate matter at or below 0.01
                                     gr/dscf, and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Each casthouse at an existing    a. Maintaining emissions of
 blast furnace.                      particulate matter from a control
                                     device at or below 0.009 gr/dscf,
                                     and
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the casthouse or
                                     structure housing the blast furnace
                                     at or below 20 percent (6-minute
                                     average), and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Each casthouse at a new blast    a. Maintaining emissions of
 furnace.                            particulate matter from a control
                                     device at or below 0.009 gr/dscf,
                                     and
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the casthouse or
                                     building housing the casthouse at
                                     or below 15 percent (6-minute
                                     average), and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Each basic oxygen process        a. Maintaining emissions of
 furnace (BOPF) at a new or          particulate matter from the primary
 existing BOPF shop.                 emission control system for a BOPF
                                     with a closed hood system at or
                                     below 0.024 gr/dscf, and
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of
                                     particulate matter from the primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     with an open hood system at or
                                     below 0.019 gr/dscf, and
                                    c. Maintaining emissions of
                                     particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied solely to secondary
                                     emissions from a BOPF at or below
                                     0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
                                     shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
                                     BOPF shop, and
                                    d. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Each hot metal transfer,         a. Maintaining emissions of
 skimming, desulfurization, and      particulate matter from a control
 ladle metallurgy operation at a     device at or below 0.007 gr/dscf.
 new or existing BOPF shop.          and
                                     b. Conducting subsequent
                                     performance tests at least twice
                                     during each term of your title V
                                     operating permit (at midterm and
                                     renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Each roof monitor at an         a. Maintaining the opacity of
 existing BOPF shop.                 secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing the BOPF or shop
                                     operation at or below 20 percent (3-
                                     minute average), and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Each roof monitor at a new      a. Maintaining the opacity (for any
 BOPF shop.                          set of 6-minute averages) of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building shop housing a bottom-
                                     blown BOPF or shop operation at or
                                     below 10 percent, except that one 6-
                                     minute period greater than 10
                                     percent but no more than 20 percent
                                     may occur once per steel production
                                     cycle,
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity (for any
                                     set of 3-minute averages) of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing a top-blown BOPF
                                     or shop operation at or below 10
                                     percent, except that one 3-minute
                                     period greater than 10 percent but
                                     less than 20 percent may occur once
                                     per steel production cycle, and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at least twice during each
                                     term of your title V operating
                                     permit (at midterm and renewal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart FFFFF

    As required in Sec. 63.7850, you must comply with the requirements 
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in 
the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Applies to  Subpart
               Citation                        Subject                   FFFFF                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1...........................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.  63.2...........................  Definitions............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.3...........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.  63.4...........................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.  63.5...........................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.

[[Page 36868]]

 
Sec.  63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), (e),     Compliance with          Yes....................
 (f), (g), (h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9).           Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.  63.6(h)(2)(i)..................  Determining Compliance   No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                        with Opacity and VE                               Method 9 in appendix A
                                        Standards.                                        to part 60 of this
                                                                                          chapter to comply with
                                                                                          roof monitor opacity
                                                                                          limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2).................  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                        Performance Test Dates.                           performance test
                                                                                          applicability and
                                                                                          dates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(a)(3), (b), (c)-(h).......  Performance Testing      Yes.
                                        Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)-  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  CMS requirements in
 (3), (c)(4)(i)-(e), (c)(7)-(8),                                                          Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(i)-(i
 (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4).                                                                  i), (c)(5) and (6),
                                                                                          (d), and (e) apply
                                                                                          only to COMS for
                                                                                          electrostatic
                                                                                          precipitators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart FFFFF does not
                                        Requirements for                                  require flares.
                                        Control Devices in
                                        Sec.  63.11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).....................  Continuous Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                        System Requirements.                              requirements for
                                                                                          operation of CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).....................  RATA Alternative.......  No.....................  Subpart FFFFF does not
                                                                                          require continuous
                                                                                          emission monitoring
                                                                                          systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9...........................  Notification             Yes....................  Additional
                                        Requirements.                                     notifications for CMS
                                                                                          in Sec.  63.9(g) apply
                                                                                          to COMS for
                                                                                          electrostatic
                                                                                          precipitator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(g)(5).....................  DATA Reduction.........  No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                                                                          data reduction
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(a), (b)(1)-(2)(xii),       Recordkeeping and        Yes....................  Additional records for
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6),       Reporting Requirements.                           CMS in Sec.
 (c)(9)-(15), (d), (e)(1)-(2),                                                            63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
 (e)(4), (f).                                                                             (15), and reports in
                                                                                          Sec.  63.10(d)(1)-(2)
                                                                                          apply only to COMS for
                                                                                          electrostatic
                                                                                          precipitators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..............  CMS Records for RATA     No.....................  Subpart FFFFF doesn't
                                        Alternative.                                      require continuous
                                                                                          emission monitoring
                                                                                          systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(c)(7)-(8)................  Records of Excess        No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                        Emissions and                                     record requirements.
                                        Parameter Monitoring
                                        Exceedances for CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.11..........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart FFFFF does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require flares.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.12..........................  State Authority and      Yes.
                                        Delegations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secs.  63.13-63.15...................  Addresses,               Yes.
                                        Incorporation by
                                        Reference,
                                        Availability of
                                        Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-16289 Filed 7-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P