Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-13186

Rule2024-13186

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

July 5, 2024

Effective

July 5, 2024

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review conducted for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) source category and the periodic technology review for the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) source category NESHAP. The EPA is finalizing a determination that risks due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the PQBS source category are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 129 (Friday, July 5, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55684-55757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13186]

[[Page 55683]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 129

July 5, 2024

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries;
Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review;
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 55684]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051; FRL-8471-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV19

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
conducted for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks (PQBS) source category and the periodic technology review for
the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) source category NESHAP. The EPA is
finalizing a determination that risks due to emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from the PQBS source category are acceptable and that
the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2024, except for
amendatory instruction 3, which is effective July 15, 2024. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register beginning July
5, 2024. The IBR of certain other material listed in the rule was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0085 for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
(PQBS) source category and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 for the Coke Oven
Batteries (COB) source category. All documents in the docket are listed
on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday
through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (MD-243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5251; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583237363d2b763c37363639343d3d183d2839763f372e">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Michael Moeller, Health
and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2766;
email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fe2e0eae3e3eafda1e2e6ece7eeeae3cfeaffeea1e8e0f9">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the technology review for the PQBS
NESHAP, we are finalizing new maximum achievable control technology
standards for unregulated HAP or sources of HAP and a 20 percent
opacity limit for bypass/waste heat stacks at heat and/or nonrecovery
(HNR) facilities. Under the technology review for the COB NESHAP, we
are lowering the limits for leaking doors, lids, and offtakes at by-
product (ByP) facilities to reflect improvements in practices,
processes, or technology, a requirement for fenceline monitoring for
benzene (as a surrogate for coke oven emissions) with a requirement to
conduct a root cause analysis and corrective action upon exceeding an
action level of benzene; a revised equation to estimate emissions from
leaks of ByP oven doors; a requirement of zero leaking oven doors at
HNR facilities and pressure monitoring in either oven or common
tunnels. We are finalizing the removal of exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction consistent with a 2008 court
decision, clarifying that the standards apply at all times; and the
addition of electronic reporting for performance test results and
compliance reports.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

1-BP 1-bromopropane
ACI activated carbon injection
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APCD air pollution control device
B/W bypass/waste heat
BDL below detection limit
BTF beyond-the-floor
ByP coke production process with by-product chemical recovery
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CBRP coke by-product chemical recovery plant
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COB coke oven batteries
CE Cost Effectiveness
COE coke oven emissions
CRA Congressional Review Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
D/F dioxin and furans
EAV equivalent annualized value
EDL estimated level of detection
EDT Eastern Daylight Time
EIA economic impact analysis
EMPC estimated maximum potential concentration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HCN hydrogen cyanide
HEM human exposure model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HNR heat and nonrecovery (i.e., no chemical recovery), or
nonrecovery with no heat recovery
HQ hazard quotient
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
LDAR leak detection and repair
LEAN Louisiana Environmental Action Network
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NA not applicable
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
ND number of doors
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O2 oxygen dioxide
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget

[[Page 55685]]

OP Office of Policy
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PDF portable document format
PLD percent leaking doors
PLD<INF>bench</INF> percent leaking doors from the bench
PLD<INF>bench-only</INF> percent leaking doors from the bench only
PLD<INF>yard</INF> percent leaking doors from the yard
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppbw parts per billion by weight
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PQBS pushing, quenching, and battery stacks
RCACA root cause analysis and corrective action
REL reference exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR risk and technology review
SO<INF>2</INF> sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SSMP site-specific monitoring plans
TBD to be determined
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
URE unit risk estimate
U.S. United States
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
VOC volatile organic compound
VOHAP volatile organic HAP
WAS wet alkaline scrubber

Background information. On August 16, 2023, the EPA proposed
revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS)
based on our risk and technology review (RTR), and for the Coke Oven
Batteries (COB) NESHAP based on our technology review. In this action,
we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rules. We summarize
some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in the document, Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic
Technology Review,\1\ hereafter referred to as the ``Response to
Comment'' document, which is available in the dockets for this final
action (Docket ID No's. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
A ``track changes'' or ``redline strikeout'' version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in
the dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are coke ovens, what are the NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven
Batteries source categories, and how do the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source categories?
C. What changes did we propose for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven
Batteries source categories in our August 16, 2023, proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
reviews for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks and Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
E. What are the final rule amendments addressing electronic
reporting?
F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the
amendments?
G. What are the final rule amendments addressing adding 1-
bromopropane to list of HAP?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
A. Residual Risk Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category
B. Technology Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
Source Categories
C. CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category
D. Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) for the
NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and
the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
E. Other Issues
F. Compliance
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments
to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
(PQBS) source category and NESHAP for the Coke Oven Batteries (COB)
source category. The purpose of this final action is to fulfill the
EPA's statutory obligations pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) sections
112(d)(2), (d)(3) and (d)(6) and improve the emissions standards for
the COB and PQBS source categories based on information regarding
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies
(``technology review'').
In addition, this action fulfills the EPA's statutory obligations
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) to evaluate the

[[Page 55686]]

maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the PQBS
source category to determine whether additional standards are required
to address any remaining risk associated with hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions from this PQBS source category (``residual risk
review'').
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
Under the residual risk review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA
section 112(f)(2), the EPA estimated the inhalation maximum individual
risk (MIR) for cancer (based on current actual emissions levels) due to
HAP emissions from PQBS sources is 9-in-1 million, and the MIR based on
allowable emissions was slightly higher (10-in-1 million). All
estimated noncancer risks are below a level of concern. Based on these
risk results and subsequent evaluation of potential controls (e.g.,
costs, feasibility and impacts) that could be applied to reduce these
risks even further, we are promulgating a determination that risks due
to HAP emissions from the PQBS source category are acceptable and the
PQBS NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. Therefore, we are not finalizing amendments under CAA section
112(f)(2).
Under the technology review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6), and consistent with the Louisiana Environmental
Action Network (LEAN) court decision,\2\ the EPA is finalizing MACT
standards for previously unregulated HAP emissions pursuant to CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and 112(h). The EPA identified unregulated
HAP and emissions source combinations from PQBS sources,as follows:
acid gases (AG) (i.e., the sum of hydrochloric acid and hydrofloric
acid), dioxin and furans (D/F), formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide (HCN),
mercury (Hg), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and volatile
organic HAP (VOHAP) from pushing operations; AG, D/F, HCN, Hg, PAH,
particulate matter (PM) nonmercury HAP metals (e.g., lead and arsenic),
and VOHAP from by-product (ByP) coke facility battery stacks; AG,
formaldehyde, Hg, PAH, and PM nonmercury metals from heat and/or
nonrecovery (HNR) facilities' heat recovery steam generators (HRSG)
main stacks; AG, formaldehyde, Hg, PAH, PM nonmercury metals, and VOHAP
from HNR facilities' bypass/waste heat (B/W) stacks. In this action,
under the authority of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h), we
are finalizing MACT floor standards (i.e., the minimum stringency level
allowed by the CAA) for these previously unregulated HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088
(D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also under the technology review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA also is setting a 20 percent opacity
limit for HNR B/W stacks to be measured weekly. The EPA did not
identify any other cost-effective options to reduce emissions from
currently regulated sources under the PQBS NESHAP.
The EPA is finalizing amendments under the technology review for
the COB NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to include: (1) lower
emission leak limits for ByP facility coke oven doors, lids, and
offtakes; (2) for ByP facilities, continuous fenceline monitoring for
benzene along with an action level for benzene (as a surrogate for coke
oven emissions) and a requirement for root cause analysis and
corrective actions (RCACA) if the action level is exceeded; (3) for HNR
facilities, a requirement to demonstrate that there are zero leaks from
their oven doors, as well as to ensure negative pressure in the ovens
or common tunnels; and (4) a revised equation to estimate emissions
from leaks of ByP oven doors that better represents the current
industry emissions. The EPA did not identify any other cost-effective
options to reduce emissions from currently regulated sources under the
COB NESHAP.
We conducted a demographics analysis that indicates that the
population within 10 kilometers (km) of the coke oven facilities with
whole facility cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is
predominantly white (62 percent versus 60 percent nationally). The
population with whole facility cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million is 30 percent African American compared to the national
average of 12 percent. The population with whole facility cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million living within 10 km of the two
facilities located in Alabama is 56 percent African American, which is
significantly higher than the national average. The population with
whole facility cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
also is above the national average for the percent of the population
living below poverty (17 percent versus a 13 percent national average).
In addition, we are finalizing: (1) the removal of exemptions for
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) consistent with a
2008 court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), and clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times;
and (2) the addition of requirements for electronic reporting of
performance test results and compliance reports for both NESHAP and
fenceline monitoring reports for the COB NESHAP.
3. Costs and Benefits
Cost impacts will occur due to the required source testing that
includes: testing every 5 years to demonstrate compliance with the
promulgated MACT floor standards for PQBS; weekly opacity testing of
HNR B/W heat stacks; daily visible leak testing of HNR ovens doors; and
fenceline monitoring at ByP facilities. The total costs for the rules
are estimated to be $4.0 million per year for the 11 operating
facilities ($2023), with $500,000 per facility, on average for the five
HNR facilities and $250,000 per facility, on average, for the 6 ByP
facilities. The testing to demonstrate compliance with the MACT limits
is estimated to be $3.3 million total for the 11 operating facilities,
with $300,000 per facility on average. The HNR B/W stack opacity
testing is estimated to be $22,000 total for the five HNR facilities,
with $4,400 per facility on average. The HNR daily door leak testing
with EPA Method 303A is estimated to be $105,000 total for the five HNR
facilities, with $21,000 per facility on average. The fenceline
monitoring costs are estimated to be $640,472 for the six ByP
facilities, with $107,000 per facility on average.
The EPA has not quantified any benefits associated with this final
rule because all covered facilities are expected to already have HAP
emissions levels that are below the final limits, based on facility
data available to the EPA. However, the EPA anticipates that this final
rule's new requirements will increase the likelihood of facilities
successfully detecting any HAP emissions in excess of the specified
limits, allowing for earlier corrective action and thus preventing
pollution increases that could otherwise occur. The potential public
health benefits associated with such prevention are difficult to
estimate, given that they correspond to hypothetical scenarios of
emissions beyond those indicated by current facility data, and are thus
not quantified in EPA's analysis.
4. Community Outreach
The EPA held a virtual public hearing on August 31, 2023, from
11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. eastern daylight time (EDT), where 37 speakers
provided oral comments. The EPA held a virtual webinar on September 14,
2023, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. EDT, where 34 registrants
participated.

[[Page 55687]]

B. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS \a\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, 40 CFR part 63, 331110 Iron and
and Battery Stacks. subpart CCCCC. Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy
Manufacturing.
Coke Oven Batteries............. 40 CFR part 63, 324199 All Other
subpart L. Petroleum and
Coal Products
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission</a> and
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air</a>. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on RTR website at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous</a>. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by
September 3, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards and must reflect the maximum degree of
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In
developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to
consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or
techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume
of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, referred to as ``beyond-the-
floor'', based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to

[[Page 55688]]

undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology
review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we
must review the technology-based standards and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review, the EPA
is not required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established in
earlier rulemakings. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA,
529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers,
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost
in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). The EPA is required to address regulatory gaps, such as
missing standards for listed air toxics known to be emitted from the
source category, and any new MACT standards must be established under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), or, in specific circumstances, CAA
sections 112(d)(4) or (h).\3\ Under the residual risk review, we must
evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the
technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk
review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-
based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the
residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section
112(f).\4\ For more information on the statutory authority for this
rule, see 88 FR 55858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088
(D.C. Cir. 2020).
\4\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are coke ovens, what are the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
source categories, and how do the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from
the source categories?

Coke ovens are chambers of brick or other heat-resistant material
in which coal is heated to separate the gas, water, and tar in coal to
produce coke, a fuel and source of carbon used in steelmaking. The
coking process takes place at two types of facilities: (1) ByP
facilities, where chemical by-products are recovered from coke oven
emissions (COE), a CAA section 112(b) listed HAP, in coke oven exhaust
at a co-located coke byproduct chemical recovery plant (CBRP); or (2)
HNR facilities, where chemicals are not recovered (and, therefore, are
called ``nonrecovery'' facilities), but heat may be recovered from the
exhaust from coke ovens in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG).
There are 12 coke facilities in the United States (U.S.), with 11 of
these currently operating. Seven of these facilities use the ByP
process and five use the HNR process. Of the five HNR facilities, four
have HRSGs and one does not. For additional background information on
the source categories see the proposal preamble (88 FR 55858).
The COB NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart L), promulgated in 1993,
set emission limits (via limiting the number of seconds of visible
emissions (VE)) from doors, lids, and offtakes at HNR facilities and
any new ByP facilities to 0 percent leaking. The NESHAP for PQBS (40
CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) were promulgated on April 14, 2003. The
PQBS NESHAP established emissions standards for pushing coke out of
ovens, quenching hot coke, and battery stacks of oven combustion.
For nonrecovery facilities, i.e., facilities that do not recover
chemicals, operating before 2004, the 1993 COB NESHAP required good
operating and maintenance practices to minimize emissions during
charging. The 1993 promulgated requirement for charging affected only
SunCoke's Vansant (Virginia) facility, which is a nonrecovery coke
facility, and also does not recover heat. For the nonrecovery
facilities that recover heat that began operating after 2004, which
includes the other four HNR facilities and any future HNR facilities,
the NESHAP regulates charging via PM and opacity limits, requires a PM
control device, and establishes work practices for minimizing VE during
charging.
For ByP facilities, the COB NESHAP regulates emissions occurring
during the charging of coal into the ovens and from leaking oven doors,
leaking topside charging port lids, and leaking offtake ducts. The
charging process for ByP facilities includes opening the lids on the
charging ports on the top of the tall narrow ovens and discharging coal
from hoppers of a car that positions itself over the oven port and
drops coal into the oven. The COB NESHAP limits the number of seconds
of VE during a charge at ByP facilities, as determined by measurements
made according to EPA Method 303.
The emissions from leaks at ByP batteries are regulated under the
COB NESHAP by limits on the percent of doors, lids, and offtakes that
leak COE. The emissions from leaks at HNR batteries are regulated under
the COB NESHAP by limits on leaks only from oven doors. At HNR
facilities, coal is charged into doors on one end of a long horizontal
oven and pushed out the other end through another door at the other end
of the oven. The offtake system at ByP facilities includes ascension
pipes and collector main offtake ducts that are located on the top of
the coke oven and battery. At HNR facilities, a common tunnel collects
exhaust from the batteries and also is located on the top of the coke
oven and battery. The common tunnels are equipped with afterburners
that burn any remaining organics in the coke oven exhaust as it travels
through the common tunnel. The common tunnel routes exhaust from the
batteries to either HRSG or bypass/waste heat stacks depending on
whether there are HRSG at the facility and whether the HRSG are
operating.
The standards for the COB NESHAP are codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart L. The COB NESHAP limits for leaks from doors, lids, and
offtakes, and the requirements for charging are based on the regulatory
``track'' of the facilities. The facilities were required by CAA
section 112(i)(8) to choose either the MACT track or the lowest
achievable emissions rate (LAER) track by 1993 (58 FR 57898). There are
no longer any ByP facilities on the MACT track operating today. Of the
eleven operating coke facilities, all seven ByP facilities are on the
LAER track and one HNR facility (SunCoke's Vansant plant) is on the
LAER track; the remaining four HNR facilities are on the MACT track.
Any future coke facilities of any type (HNR or ByP) would be on the
MACT track,\5\ but no additional ByP facilities are expected in the
future due to the requirement for 0 percent leaking doors, lids, and
offtakes (as determined by EPA Method 303) for new facilities under the
COB NESHAP. The positive pressure operation of ByP ovens likely makes
it impossible to achieve zero leaks with the current ByP coke oven
technology. Therefore, any new facilities would be expected to be only
the HNR type, which operate under negative pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See CAA section 112(i)(8)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The standards for the Coke PQBS NESHAP are codified at 40 CFR part
63,

[[Page 55689]]

subpart CCCCC and apply to both ByP and HNR facilities. The battery
stacks are located only at ByP facilities. The proposed amendments to
the Coke PQBS NESHAP added MACT limits for HNR HRSG main stacks and HNR
B/W stacks, which are located only at HNR facilities.

C. What changes did we propose for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
source categories in our August 16, 2023, proposal?

On August 16, 2023, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the NESHAPs for PQBS and COB, 40 CFR part 63,
subparts CCCCC and L, respectively, that took into consideration the
RTR analysis for the PQBS NESHAP and technology review for the COB
NESHAP. We proposed:
<bullet> 17 new MACT standards for previously-unregulated HAP
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
<bullet> Opacity limit of 10 percent for the HNR B/W stacks and
requirement for daily observation of B/W stacks during charging to
determine if VE are present.
<bullet> Zero leaking oven doors at HNR oven batteries, as
determined by EPA Method 303A, which relies on observing VE emanating
from the ovens; and also monitoring pressure both in the ovens and the
common tunnel, instead of choosing one or the other points to measure
pressure and instead of choosing either 0 oven door leaks or pressure
monitoring, as the current rule allows.
<bullet> Fenceline monitoring for benzene (as a surrogate for COE)
along with an action level for benzene and a requirement for RCACA if
the action level is exceeded.
<bullet> Lower limits for allowable leaks from coke oven doors,
lids, and offtakes at ByP facilities.
<bullet> Removal of exemptions for periods of SSM consistent with a
2008 court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), and clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times.
<bullet> Addition of electronic reporting for performance test
results and compliance reports for both NESHAP.

III. What is included in these final rules?

This action finalizes the EPA's determinations for: (1) the CAA
sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6) residual risk and technology review for
the NESHAP for the PQBS source category; (2) the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review for the NESHAP for the COB source category; and (3)
other changes to the NESHAP, including the removal of SSM exemptions
and addition of electronic reporting.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?

Considering the health risk information and factors discussed in
the August 2023 proposed rule for the PQBS NESHAP, the EPA is
finalizing a determination that the risks for this source category
under the current NESHAP provisions are acceptable pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). We did not identify any potential cost-effective
controls or other measures to reduce risk further under our CAA section
112(f) risk review. Therefore, based on all of the information
presented in the proposed rule and in this final rule preamble, we
conclude that the current standards in the PQBS NESHAP provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and are finalizing no changes
based on the risk review. Furthermore, based on our screening
assessment of environmental risk presented in section IV.B.4. of the
August 2023 proposed rule preamble, we have determined that HAP
emissions from the Coke Ovens: PQBS source category do not result in an
adverse environmental effect, and we are finalizing that it is not
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent an adverse
environmental effect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews
for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
and Coke Oven Batteries source categories?

As part of the technology review for the PQBS source category, we
identified regulatory gaps (previously unregulated processes or
pollutants) and are establishing new standards to fill those gaps, as
described in section III.C. and IV.C. of this preamble. We also are
requiring HNR B/W stacks to meet a limit of 20 percent opacity to be
measured weekly at HNR B/W stacks and weekly at HRSG bypass stacks if
operating.
For the COB source category, to address fugitive emissions at COB
facilities as part of the technology review, we are finalizing a
requirement for a work practice based on the results of fenceline
monitoring for benzene at ByP facilities. The work practice has an
action level of 7 microgram per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) of benzene
(as a surrogate for COE) with a requirement for RCACA if the action
level is exceeded. We also identified improvements in control of ByP
battery leaks and are finalizing reduced allowable limits for the
percent of leaking doors, lids, and offtakes at ByP facilities. We are
finalizing a requirement to demonstrate there are zero leaking oven
doors at HNR facilities, as determined by EPA Method 303A, and
requiring either oven pressure or common tunnel pressure monitoring at
HNR facilities during the main parts of the oven cycle. Lastly, we are
finalizing a revised equation for estimating leaks from ByP coke oven
doors based on our evaluation of the historic equation developed from
1981 coke oven leak data supplemented with recent coke oven leak data,
and also considering comments received.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?

We are finalizing 18 MACT floor standards \6\ unregulated HAP and
process combinations for the NESHAP for PQBS pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) as follows: (1) MACT floor standards for
AG, HCN, Hg, and PAH from pushing operations for existing and new
sources; (2) MACT floor standards for AG, HCN, Hg, and PM (as a
surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals), and a work practice standard for
battery stacks (based on good combustion in battery waste heat flues)
for PAH, D/F and VOHAP emissions from battery stacks at ByP facilities
for existing and new sources; (3) MACT standards for AG, Hg, PAH, and
PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals) from HNR HRSG main stacks
for existing and new sources; and (4) MACT standards for AG,
formaldehyde, Hg, PAH, and PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP
metals) for HNR B/W stacks. More details are provided in section IV.C.
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

We are finalizing the removal of exemptions for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) largely as proposed, consistent with a
2008 court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), and

[[Page 55690]]

clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times.

E. What are the final rule amendments addressing electronic reporting?

The EPA is promulgating that owners and operators of coke oven
facilities, under both the PQBS NESHAP and COB NESHAP, submit
electronic copies of required performance test reports, periodic
reports (including fenceline monitoring reports), and periodic
certifications through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the dockets for
this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0908 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0748).
The promulgated rule requires that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the
ERT website \7\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent
with the xml schema on the ERT website, and other performance test
results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the
attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the quarterly and semiannual compliance reports of the PQBS
NESHAP source category and the semiannual compliance certification of
the COB NESHAP source category, the promulgated rule requires that
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the promulgated templates for
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\8\ The final
version of the templates will be available at the CEDRI website
(<a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See Draft Form 5900-618 Coke Ovens Part 63 Subpart L
Semiannual Report.xlsx, Draft Form 5900-619 Part 63 Subpart L
Fenceline Quarterly Report.xlsx, and Draft Form 5900-621 Coke Ovens
Part 63 Subpart CCCCC Semiannual Report.xlsx, available at Docket
ID. No EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this final
rulemaking increases the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, further assists in the protection of public health and
the environment, improves compliance by facilitating the ability of
regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by
facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and
territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine
compliance, and ultimately reduces the burden on regulated facilities,
delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also
eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \9\ to implement
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide
policy \10\ developed in response to the White House's Digital
Government Strategy.\11\ For more information on the benefits of
electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews. August
2011. Available at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154</a>.
\10\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations. September
2013. Available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf</a>.
\11\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People. May 2012. Available at: <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html">https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the final rule
amendments?

These final rules are effective upon promulgation. The compliance
date for the MACT standards for sources in the PQBS NESHAP is January
5, 2026. For the periodic MACT compliance testing, we are promulgating
that periodic testing be conducted at the beginning of each permit
cycle or every 5 years, whichever is shorter. The compliance date for
opacity limits on HNR B/W stacks is July 7, 2025. The compliance date
for achieving zero leaks from HNR oven doors and concurrent oven or
tunnel pressure monitoring is July 7, 2025.
For fenceline monitoring provisions of the COB NESHAP, the
compliance date to begin fenceline monitoring is July 7, 2025. The
compliance date for complying with the revisions to the limits for
allowable leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes is July 7, 2025.
The date for complying with the SSM changes is no later than July
5, 2024 with the exception of recordkeeping provisions. For
recordkeeping under the SSM, facilities must comply with this
requirement January 2, 2025. The date for complying with the
recordkeeping provisions associated with malfunction events is January
2, 2025.

G. What are the final rule amendments addressing adding 1-bromopropane
to list of HAP?

On January 5, 2022, the EPA published a final rule amending the
list of HAP under the CAA to add 1-bromopropane (1-BP) in response to
public petitions previously granted by the EPA. (87 FR 393).
Consequently, as each NESHAP is reviewed, the EPA is evaluating whether
the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112 HAP list impacts the source
category. For the PQBS and COB source categories, we concluded that the
inclusion of 1-BP as a regulated HAP would not impact the
representativeness of the MACT standard because, based on available
information, we have no evidence that 1-BP is emitted from this source
category. No comments were received on this subject for the coke ovens
NESHAP. As a result, no changes are being promulgated to the PQBS and
COB NESHAP based on the January 2022 rule adding 1-BP to the list of
HAP.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and
the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?

For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the Response to
Comment document,\12\ which is available in the docket for this final
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.

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

[[Page 55691]]

A. Residual Risk Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the NESHAP
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review of the PQBS NESHAP and presented the results of this review,
along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and
ample margin of safety, in the August 16, 2023, proposed rule for the
PQBS source category (88 FR 55858). The results of the risk assessment
for the proposal are presented in table 2 of this preamble. More detail
is in the residual risk technical support document Residual Risk
Assessment for the Coke Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source
Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule.\13\

Table 2--Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated
individual Estimated population annual cancer
Risk assessment Number of cancer risk at increased risk of incidence Maximum chronic Maximum screening
facilities (in 1 million) cancer >= 1-in-1 (cases per noncancer TOSHI acute noncancer HQ
\a\ million year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Actual Emissions Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category Emissions.......... 14 9 2,900................ 0.02 0.1 (arsenic)........ HQREL = 0.6 (arsenic)
Facility-Wide...................... 14 50 2.7 million.......... 0.2 2 (HCN).............. HQREL = 0.6 (arsenic)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Allowable Emissions Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category Emissions.......... 14 10 440,000.............. 0.05 0.2 (arsenic)........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions.

The results at proposal of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer
risk assessment indicated that, based on estimates of current actual
emissions, the MIR posed by the PQBS source category was 9-in-1 million
driven by arsenic emissions, primarily from bypass/waste heat stacks.
The total estimated cancer incidence estimated from this source
category at proposal was 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case
every 50 years. No people were estimated to have inhalation cancer
risks greater than 100-in-1 million; the population estimated to be
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million was
approximately 2,900. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer target
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) from inhalation exposure for this
source category was 0.1 for developmental effects from arsenic
emissions The acute risk screening assessment of reasonable worst-case
inhalation impacts indicated a maximum acute hazard quotient (HQ) of
0.6 based on the REL for arsenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category in Support of the 2023
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. May
2023. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results of the inhalation risk assessment at proposal,
considering MACT-allowable emissions, indicated that the cancer MIR was
10-in-1 million driven by arsenic emissions, primarily from HNR pushing
and bypass/waste heat stacks. The total estimated cancer incidence from
this source category based on allowable emissions was 0.05 excess
cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 20 years. No people
were estimated to have inhalation cancer risks above 100-in-1 million
due to allowable emissions, and the population exposed to cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million was approximately 440,000. In
addition, the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source
category based on allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.2 (for
developmental effects from arsenic emissions).
The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk at proposal posed by
the 14 modeled facilities and based on whole facility emissions was 50-
in-1 million, with COE from coke oven doors (a regulated source in the
COB NESHAP), driving the whole facility risk. The total estimated
cancer incidence based on facility-wide emission levels was 0.2 excess
cancer cases per year. Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI posed by whole facility emissions was
estimated to be 2 (for the neurological and thyroid systems as the
target organs) driven by emissions of HCN from CBRPs, which are
emissions sources not included within the source category (PQBS)
addressed in the risk assessment for this rulemaking nor included in
the COB NESHAP.
We weighed all health risk measures and factors, including those
shown in table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability
determination and proposed that the risks posed by the PQBS source
category under the current MACT provisions were acceptable.
Under the proposed ample margin of safety analysis, we again
considered all of the health factors evaluated in the acceptability
determination and evaluated the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the control devices
and other measures examined under the technology review) that could be
applied to further reduce risk. We also considered whether, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
additional standards are required to prevent an adverse environmental
effect.
We proposed that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and that no additional standards are
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we did
not propose amendments under CAA section 112(f)(2). However, we noted
that the proposed beyond-the-floor (BTF) MACT limits for HNR B/W stacks
would reduce the estimated MIR from 9-in-1 million to 2-in-1 million;
and the population estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million would be reduced from approximately 2,900 to
390 with the proposed BTF MACT limits. The whole facility cancer MIR
(the maximum cancer risk posed by all sources of HAP at coke oven
facilities) would remain unchanged, at 50-in-1 million with BTF MACT
limits, because the whole facility MIR was driven by the estimated
actual

[[Page 55692]]

current fugitive emissions from coke oven doors and we did not expect
reductions of the actual emissions from doors as a result of the
proposed rule.
2. How did the risk review change for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?
Changes were made to the risk emission model file used in the risk
analyses which resulted in small changes in the estimated risk. These
changes are listed below.
<bullet> Removed U.S. Steel Clairton batteries 1 through 3 and
associated sources that were shut down in 2023.
<bullet> Removed Cleveland Cliffs' Follansbee, West Virginia,
facility because it permanently closed in Spring 2022.
<bullet> Removed Cleveland Cliffs' Middletown, Ohio, facility
because it permanently closed as of 2023.
<bullet> Corrected latitude and longitude values for two natural
gas water heaters at Cleveland Cliffs' Warren, Ohio, facility.
<bullet> Corrected the angle of rotation for the byproduct plant
fugitive source at Cleveland Cliffs' Warren, Ohio, facility.
<bullet> Replaced SunCoke's East Chicago facility's HRSG main stack
(default) emissions with test data that was received too late to model
for the proposal (received May 2023).
<bullet> Incorporated Hg emissions submitted for HNR HRSG main
stacks from previous tests for SunCoke's Middletown and East Chicago
(Cokenergy) facilities, which also changed the default average HNR HRSG
main stack Hg emissions used for two other SunCoke facilities
(SunCoke's Franklin Furnace and Gateway facilities).
<bullet> Incorporated Hg emissions data from previous tests
submitted by SunCoke for HNR B/W stacks, which changed the Hg emissions
for SunCoke's Middletown, Vansant, and East Chicago facilities.
<bullet> Revised emissions from door leaks based on revisions to
new equation as a result of comments.
The results of the risk assessment performed for the final rule
that incorporates the above changes are shown in table 3 of this
section. The main difference in the risk estimated for the final rule
and the proposed rule is the reduction in the whole facility MIR from
50 to 40-in-1 million, resulting primarily from removing two facilities
(Cleveland Cliffs' Middleton, Ohio, and Follansbee, West Virginia,
facilities) that shut down after years of being idle and removing three
batteries (1,2,3) at U.S. Steel's facility in Clairton, Pennsylvania,
that were permanently shut down. The baseline PQBS source category MIR
remained at 9-in-1 million.

Table 3--Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, And Battery Stacks Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated
individual Estimated population annual cancer
Risk assessment scenario Number of cancer risk at increased risk of incidence Maximum chronic Maximum screening
Facilities (in 1 cancer >= 1-in-1 (cases per noncancer TOSHI acute noncancer HQ
million)\a\ million year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Actual Emissions Level \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category Emissions.......... 12 9 2,600................ 0.01 0.1.................. HQREL = 0.6
(arsenic)............ (arsenic).
Facility-Wide Emissions \b\........ 12 40 2.4M................. 0.1 2 (HCN).............. HQREL = 0.6
(arsenic).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emission.
\b\ See section IV.A. of this preamble for more details on the risk assessment.

As noted in the proposal, we weigh a range of health risk measures
and factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989). Under the current MACT standards for the PQBS
source category, the revised risk results indicate that the MIR is 9-
in-1 million, driven by emissions of arsenic. The estimated incidence
of cancer due to inhalation exposures is 0.01 excess cancer case per
year. No people are estimated to have inhalation cancer risks greater
than 100-in-1 million, and the population estimated to be exposed to
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is approximately
2,600. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation
exposure for this source category is 0.1 for developmental effects. The
acute risk screening assessment of reasonable worst-case inhalation
impacts indicates a maximum acute HQ of 0.6.
We conducted a revised assessment of facility-wide (or ``whole-
facility'') risk to characterize the source category risk in the
context of whole-facility risk. The maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk based on whole-facility emissions is 40-in-1 million with COE from
coke oven doors (a regulated source in the COB NESHAP source category)
driving the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence based on
facility-wide emission levels is 0.1 excess cancer cases per year. No
people are estimated to have inhalation cancer risks above 100-in-1
million due to facility-wide emissions, and the population exposed to
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is approximately
2.4 million people. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI posed
by whole facility emissions is 2 (for the neurological and thyroid
systems as the target organs) driven by emissions of HCN from CBRPs,
which are emissions sources not included within the source category.
Approximately 10 people are estimated to be exposed to a TOSHI greater
than 1 due to whole facility emissions. The acute risk screening
assessment of reasonable worst-case inhalation impacts indicates a
maximum acute HQ of 0.6.
We are not finalizing the proposed BTF limit for PM, as a surrogate
for nonmercury HAP metals, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)
for HRSG waste heat stacks in the PQBS source category for the reasons
described in section IV.C.4. in this preamble, which would have
achieved a reduction of the metal HAP emissions (e.g., arsenic and
lead) as well as a reduction in the estimated MIR due to arsenic from
these units. Therefore, the overall post control MIR for this source
category remains at 9-in-1 million. Additionally, the total estimated
cancer incidence remains unchanged at 0.01 excess cancer cases per
year, and the maximum modeled chronic noncancer

[[Page 55693]]

TOSHI for the source category remains unchanged at 0.1 (for respiratory
effects from HCl emissions). The estimated worst-case acute exposures
to emissions from the PQBS source category is a maximum acute HQ of
0.6, based on the reference exposure limit (REL) for arsenic.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed
above, including the uncertainties discussed in the proposal preamble,
the EPA is finalizing that the risks for this source category under the
current NESHAP provisions are acceptable.
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we did not change our
proposal assessment that there were no cost-effective controls or
measures to further reduce risks due to HAP emissions. Therefore, there
are no changes for the final rule and the EPA concludes that the final
rule provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, that
HAP emissions from the PQBS source category do not result in an adverse
environmental effect, and that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received a few comments on the risk review that offered other
data and procedures to use rather than the EPA's protocol for risk
assessment as well as comments on the risk to minority populations. The
key comments on the risk review are summarized in this section along
with the EPA's responses to the comments. Other comments received on
the risk review are summarized along with the EPA's responses in the
Response to Comment \14\ document, and which is located in the dockets
to the coke ovens rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter stated that they believe the EPA does not
consider the disproportionate exposure and resulting health impacts for
African Americans and people living below the poverty level to ensure
an ``ample margin of safety'' to protect public health. The commenter
requested that the EPA reduce the health risks and advance
environmental justice for this disproportionate exposure by setting
standards to ensure an ``ample margin of safety to protect public
health.'' The commenter asserted that the EPA's own demographic
analysis reveals that African Americans and people living below the
poverty level experience a higher level of exposure to toxic air
pollution, and consequently greater health impacts, compared to their
representation in the national population. This exposure, combined with
other types of toxic exposure in their neighborhoods, contributes to
cumulative health risks. The commenter stated that the EPA's proposal
does not include any changes to mitigate these health risks or address
the environmental justice implications of this disproportionate
exposure. The commenter contended that this conclusion is unlawful and
arbitrary and runs contrary to the Biden Administration's commitment to
advancing environmental justice.
Response: The EPA is directed by Executive Order, to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice
part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects of
its programs, policies, and activities on communities with
environmental justice concerns. The EPA's environmental justice
policies promote justice, including access to health impact data, by
providing information on the types of environmental justice harms and
risks that are prevalent in communities with environmental justice
concerns. No such policies mandate consideration of any specific
factors or particular outcomes from an action, but they direct that
environmental justice analysis be performed as part of regulatory
impact analysis, as appropriate, so that the public can have this
information. The environmental justice analysis is presented for the
purpose of providing the public with as full as possible an
understanding of the potential impacts of this final action. The EPA
notes that analysis of such impacts is distinct from the determinations
finalized in this action under CAA section 112, which are based solely
on the statutory factors the EPA is required to consider. The residual
risk estimated for the PQBS source category, with a cancer MIR of 9-in-
1 million and where 2,600 people are estimated to have a cancer risk
greater than 1-in-1 million (i.e., risk from 1-in-1 million up to 9-in-
1 million) is considered acceptable for all populations. Also, as noted
previously in this preamble, we conclude that the PQBS NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA include a risk review
for LAER track ovens in this rulemaking. The commenter contended the
EPA did not perform the required risk review in 2020 for the COB,
subpart L, LAER track coke ovens. The EPA mentions in the Technology
Review Memorandum that the LAER track RTR was to be completed by 2020,
however, the commenter indicates that it was not. The Fall 2022
Regulatory Agenda contemplated a risk review for LAER track coke ovens.
However, the risk review for LAER track coke ovens, which includes
eight of the nine ByP facilities, is not included in this rulemaking.
The commenter stated that the EPA has not delivered on its public
commitments to review risks for LAER track ovens, which include almost
all facilities with co-located CBRPs.
Response: The EPA was not able to complete a risk review for LAER
track sources in time for the court-ordered final rule for the Coke
PQBS RTR and Technology Review of the COB NESHAP. The EPA will
undertake the LAER track risk review rulemaking as we plan future
activities in the steel sector.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We considered all of the health risk information and factors due to
emissions from PQBS source category as well as the uncertainties in the
risk assessment and have determined that the risks for this source
category under the current PQBS NESHAP provisions are acceptable
because the cancer MIR of 9-in-1 million is well below the presumptive
level of acceptability (i.e., 100-in-1 million) and because we did not
identify any significant noncancer risks from the source category.
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we again considered all
of the health factors evaluated in the acceptability determination and
evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies
and other measures that could be applied to further reduce risk. We
also considered whether, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, additional standards are required
to prevent an adverse environmental effect. We determined that no
additional standards are required to provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect.

[[Page 55694]]

B. Technology Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries Source
Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the NESHAP
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?
a. MACT Limits
To fulfill the requirements of the LEAN decision,\15\ we proposed
17 new MACT limits \16\ for unregulated HAP and processes pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2)/(3) based on available test data. These MACT
limits along with a summary of comments and responses, changes made for
the final rule, and the rationale for the final standards (i.e., MACT
limits) are provided in section IV.C. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
\16\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Opacity Limit for HNR B/W Stacks
We proposed a 10 percent opacity limit for HNR B/W stacks during
charging to be measured daily to limit the PM emissions from these
sources.
c. Other Aspects of the CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the
PQBS Source Category (Subpart CCCCC)
As explained in the August 2023 proposed rule preamble, under the
technology review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), the EPA did not identify any other cost-effective options to
reduce emissions from currently regulated sources under the PQBS NESHAP
apart from those requirements discussed in IV.B.1.a. and IV.B.1.b. of
this section. Therefore, the EPA did not propose any other changes to
the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). However, the EPA
solicited comments regarding whether a 1-hour opacity standard would
identify short-term periods of high opacity that are not identified
from the current 24-hour standard of 15 percent opacity; and whether
excessive COE are emitted from ovens after being pushed and before they
are charged again (i.e., ``soaking emissions'') despite work practice
standards currently applicable to these emisions.
2. How did the technology review change for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category?
As described in section IV.C. of this preamble, we are finalizing
17 \17\ new MACT floor emissions limits pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2)/(3) based on available test data for previously unregulated
HAP, as identified in the August 2023 proposal (see section IV.C. for
details). However, some of the limits changed in the final rule to
reflect additional data submitted by coke oven facilities since the
limits were developed for the proposal as well as comments received to
standardize limits which are in units of grains per dry standard cubic
feet (gr/dscf) to 10 percent oxygen. The revised MACT limits include
those for: (1) pushing for AG, HCN, and PAH; (2) battery stacks for AG,
HCN, Hg, and PM to standardize to 10 percent oxygen; (3) HNR main
stacks for AG, Hg, PAH, and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP),
and to standardize all limits to 10 percent oxygen; and (4) HNR B/W
stacks for Hg and PM, and to standardize all limits to 10 percent
oxygen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA also is finalizing a MACT floor work practice standard
based on ``good combustion,'' pursuant to CAA section 112(h), that
addresses the previously unregulated organic HAP of D/F, PAH, and VOHAP
from battery stacks. Details regarding the final MACT standards are
described in section IV.C. of this preamble.
In addition, the EPA is finalizing surrogate determinations to
address the additional unregulated HAP of D/F, formaldehyde, and VOHAP
from pushing; formaldehyde from HNR main stacks; and VOHAP from HNR B/W
stacks. Details regarding these surrogates are described in section
IV.C. of this preamble.
We also are finalizing a requirement for 20 percent HNR B/W stack
opacity to reflect current permit requirements that is to be determined
weekly for HNR waste heat stacks, and weekly for HRSG bypass stacks
when operating longer than an hour in any week.
We are not setting 1-hour opacity standards for battery stacks in
the final rule. We did not propose a 1-hour battery stack limit for
comment and because there was a wide variation in the data collected
from facilities for 1-hour opacity from battery stacks, without
additional information we were not able to determine a 1-hour limit
that considered all the factors which may influence short-term opacity
and the impacts the limit might have on facilities not meeting a new 1-
hour standard. Although we received three comments in favor of a 1-hour
standard, one against, and one comment recommending a work practice to
be triggered by an (unspecified) 1-hour opacity value, we are not
setting a 1-hour battery stack opacity standard at this time as part of
the Technology Review in this rulemaking as a development in practices,
processes, and control technologies. We also are not including
additional work practices or new control device requirements for
soaking emissions in the final rule as part of the technology review.
The short-term nature of soaking fugitives emissions would prevent
accurate measurement of a limit for opacity, and the addition of a
second collecting duct that routes standpipe COE exhaust to a control
device would present safety hazards to workers and could prove to be
impractical. We received one comment in favor of setting soaking
standards and two comments against. See the Response to Comment \18\
document for this rulemaking to see details of the comments received on
both of these sources and the EPA responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the NESHAP
for Coke Oven Batteries source category?
a. Fenceline Monitoring
We proposed a fenceline monitoring work practice standard (for
benzene, as a surrogate for COE). Fenceline monitoring refers to the
placement of monitors along the perimeter of a facility to measure
fugitive pollutant concentrations. The proposed fenceline monitoring
work practice standard would have required owners and operators to
monitor for benzene and conduct RCACA upon exceeding an ``action
level'' concentration of 3 [mu]g/m\3\ based on the rolling 12-month
average ``delta c'', notated as [Delta]c, which represents the
concentration difference between the highest measured concentration and
lowest measured concentration for a set of samples in one sampling
period. The sampling period

[[Page 55695]]

[Delta]c values are averaged over 12 months to create the rolling
average. We also proposed a procedure for reduced monitoring at a
particular monitoring location after consistent low measurements at
that monitor. More details are provided in the August 16, 2023,
proposed rule preamble.
b. Lower Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes
Due to improvements in leak control at coke oven facilities, we
proposed to lower the allowable door leak limits in the NESHAP under
the technology review for the COB source category pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6). We proposed for facilities with coke production
capacity of greater than or equal to 3 million tpy of coke to lower the
allowable leaking door limit from the current limit of 4 percent to 1.5
percent for tall leaking doors and from 3.3 percent to 1.0 percent for
``not tall'' leaking doors. These proposed standards would currently
only apply to the U.S. Steel Clairton facility in Pennsylvania. For COB
facilities that have coke production capacity less than 3 million tpy
coke, we proposed an allowable leaking door limit of 3.0 percent
leaking doors for all sizes of doors that is lower than the limit
currently in the NESHAP of 4.0 and 3.3 percent leaking doors for tall
and not tall doors, respectively.
We also proposed to lower the lid and offtake allowable leak limits
in the NESHAP due to similar improvements in operation of these sources
by the coke facilities. The current NESHAP includes limits of 0.4
percent leaking lids and 2.5 percent leaking offtakes; we proposed a
revised limit of 0.2 percent for leaking lids and a revised offtake
limit of 1.2 percent leaking offtakes.
The proposed changes to the leak limits were meant to ensure
continued low emissions from doors, lids, and offtakes and reflect
improvements in performance of the facilities to minimize leaks. We
estimated that there would be no reductions in actual emissions and
there would be no control costs, but the lower limits would reduce the
allowable emissions. More details are provided in the August 16, 2023,
proposed rule preamble.
c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors, and Concurrent Oven or
Common Tunnel Pressure Monitoring
The current NESHAP requires HNR facilities to demonstrate (with
method 303) that facilities have zero leaks or demonstrate the ovens
are under negative pressure. We proposed to revise the COB NESHAP for
new and existing HNR doors (40 CFR 63.303(a)(1) and (b)(1)) to require
zero leaks from oven doors at HNR coke batteries, as determined by EPA
Method 303A, which relies on observing VE emanating from the ovens; and
monitoring pressure both in the ovens and the common tunnel, instead of
choosing one or the other points to measure pressure and instead of
choosing either 0 oven leaks or pressure monitoring, as the current
rule allows. We also proposed to add the requirement to measure both
pressure in the ovens and common tunnels during the critical periods in
the entire oven cycle to include, at minimum, during pushing, coking,
and charging (but not necessarily continuously throughout the oven
cycle).
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Emissions From Leaking Doors
We proposed a revised version of the equation than that
historically had been used to estimate COE from leaking oven doors. The
proposed revised equation provided more accurate estimates of COE from
doors that reflected operation of any coke facility, not just the
facility upon which the equation was derived, and includes facilities
where advancements in preventing and reducing door leaks have occurred
since 1981, which is when the equation was first developed. The
proposed revised equation was as follows:
COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLD<INF>yard</INF>/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x
(PLD<INF>yard</INF> x 0.94<INF>bench-only/yard</INF>)/100) x (0.023 lb/
hr)

Where:
ND = number of doors
PLD = percent leaking doors
PLDbench = percent leaking doors from bench
PLDyard = percent leaking doors from yard

A summary of the proposed revised equation and the rationale for
its development are provided in the August 16, 2023, preamble. A more
detailed explanation can be found in the memorandum prepared for the
proposal, Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven
Doors,\19\ located in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven
Doors. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 2021. Docket
ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Opacity From HNR B/W Stacks
We proposed a new opacity limit of 10 percent on the HNR
facilities' HNR B/W stacks and to require a daily observation of all
bypass or waste heat stacks during charging to determine if VE are
present.
4. How did the technology review change for the NESHAP for the Coke
Oven Batteries source categories?
a. Fenceline Monitoring
As a result of comments, we revised the modeling procedures used to
determine the fenceline action level by including additional offsite
receptors in our modeling to more appropriately assess the maximum
concentrations from irregular-shaped facility properties. Due to the
unique layout of the coke oven sources and the elongated shape of their
fencelines, the spatial resolution of the default receptor grid was not
sufficient to accurately estimate the maximum ambient concentration.
This change in procedures resulted in a change to the action level from
3 [micro]g/m\3\ to 7 [micro]g/m\3\ of benzene. In addition, in the
final rule, we are only requiring fenceline monitoring and corrective
action at ByP coke oven facilities and not at HNR facilities because
the NESHAP will have sufficient monitoring of VE to ensure minimal HNR
fugitive emissions and the operation of the coke ovens at HNR
facilities is under negative pressure, i.e., outside air and oven
exhaust is pulled through ovens and into the common tunnels by suction,
which effectively prevents excess fugitive emissions from these
sources. Furthermore, data received from CAA section 114 information
request from one HNR facility showed very low benzene at the fenceline
(a maximum individual sample concentration of 0.7 [micro]g/m\3\ and an
average [Delta]c of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\), which demonstrates the low
fenceline impact from these sources. Lastly, for those facilities
subject to fenceline monitoring, the EPA is providing the opportunity
to develop site-specific monitoring plans (SSMP) and, when approved by
the EPA, to monitor and correct for the contribution of benzene
emissions from co-located sources not subject to a regulation codified
in 40 CFR part 63 (such as the CBRP) and offsite emissions sources to
the measured fenceline concentration. The SSMP must include: (1)
identification of the near-field sources whose emissions, if approved,
will be subtracted from the monitor concentrations, i.e., offsite and
co-located sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part
63; (2) the impacted monitoring location(s) and the near-field
source(s) that impact them; (3) the detailed data reduction criteria
and calculations; (4) the details of the real-time sampling
technique(s) being employed and how meteorological conditions will be
measured; and (5) explanation of how monitoring data are handled during
adverse conditions.

[[Page 55696]]

b. Lower Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes
We revised the proposed leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes
based on information and data obtained from a number of ByP facilities
in late 2023 on the variability of leaks in daily rolling 30-day
averages basis, including Cleveland Cliffs' Warren, Ohio, and Burns
Harbor, Indiana, facilities, EES Coke in Michigan, and U.S. Steel
Clairton in Pennsylvania; and based on additional information and data
provided by email from David Alor (of COETF) on February 5, 2024 and
March 22, 2024 regarding the maximum 30-day rolling averages across
facilities for the period 2018-2023. These data are available in the
docket for this action.
Using the available data, we compared the maximum 30-day rolling
averages with the maximum annual averages and developed adjustment
factors to account for variability. Then, we multiplied the adjustment
factors by the maximum annual average for each door type to obtain the
revised leak limits. In this final rule, we are promulgating the
revised leak limits shown in table 4 and in the revised memorandum
prepared for the final rule, Technology Review for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source
Categories-Final Rule,\20\ hereafter referred to as the Technology
Review Memorandum--Final Rule. These six revised leak limits (shown in
table 4) are higher than all the maximum 30-day averages in our dataset
(available in docket). Therefore, we expect facilities will be able to
comply with these limits without the need for any new controls or
operating costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories--Final
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E.
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.

Table 4--Revised Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes To Account for Variability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum annual Adjustment Revised leak
Source, battery type, No. facilities and Current NESHAP Proposed limit average 2022/ factor for limits for Higher or lower than
batteries limit 2023 variability final rule proposed limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doors--Higher Capacity (<ls-thn-eq> or = 3M ton/year), Tall Batteries \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 facility, 2 batteries................... 4.0% 1.5% 0.54% 4.6X 2.5% higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doors--Higher Capacity (<ls-thn-eq> or = 3M ton/year), Not Tall Batteries \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 facility, 8 batteries................... 3.3% 1.0% 0.39% 4.4X 1.7% higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doors--Lower Capacity (< 3M ton/year), Tall Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 facilities 3 batteries.................. 4.0% 3.0% 2.9% \b\ 1.3X 3.8% higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doors--Lower Capacity (< 3M ton/year), Not Tall Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 facilities, 14 batteries................ 3.3% 3.0% 2.4% 1.3X 3.2% higher.
Offtakes--6 facilities.................... 2.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.6X 2.1% higher.
Lids--6 facilities........................ 0.4% 0.2% 0.087% 3.7X 0.32% higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Tall = doors are equal to or greater than 6 meters (20 ft) in height. ``Not tall'' doors are doors that are not tall.
\b\ This value is the average for 10 months of 2023.

c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors and Concurrent Oven or
Common Tunnel Pressure Monitoring
We are not requiring pressure monitoring in both common tunnels and
ovens in the final rule but instead are allowing a choice between the
two as in the current rule because we did not receive any comments in
support of requiring both and we received comments pointing out the
expense and safety hazards of oven pressure monitoring. We are
requiring the pressure monitoring in either ovens or tunnels to be
performed at minimum during pushing, charging, and coking. For the
final rule, we also are requiring zero leaks from HNR oven doors with
daily leak testing, as determined by EPA Method 303A, along with
pressure monitoring in either the common tunnels or the ovens during
pushing, charging, and coking.
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Emissions From Leaking Doors
We revised the proposed equation to estimate COE emissions from
leaking doors based on VE test data from two facilities that the EPA
received in 2022 and combined these data with VE test results from
1981, which was when the original equation first was developed. The
2022 VE testing was performed at Cleveland Cliffs' Burns Harbor and
U.S. Steel's Clairton facilities and included simultaneous yard and
bench VE tests at the coal-side and coke-side of two batteries at each
facility. The 1981 data also had been collected at U.S. Steel Clairton.
In addition, we received a comment that the equation did not account
for the case where no VE from oven doors is observed from the yard but
VE from ovens is observed from the bench. A linear regression analysis
of the combined 1981 and 2022 data provided a revised equation with an
intercept that is only dependent on the number of doors (ND) and not
dependent on yard observations and provides an estimate of emissions
when yard VE is zero. The final equation is as follows:

COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLD<INF>yard</INF>/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x
(PLD<INF>yard</INF>/100 x 1.5 * PLD<INF>(bench-only-to-yard)</INF> x
(0.023 lb/hr)) + 0.7/100 * ND x (0.023 lb/hr),

Where:

ND = number of doors
PLD = percent leaking doors
e. Opacity From HNR B/W Stacks
For the final rule, we revised the proposed 10 percent opacity
limit for HNR B/W stacks during charging with daily testing to 20
percent and moved the requirement from the COB rule (subpart L) to the
Coke PQBS rule (subpart CCCCC). We also changed the proposed daily
testing requirement to weekly. For HNR facilities without continuous
bypass, weekly opacity testing is only required if the bypass event
continues for more than an hour.

[[Page 55697]]

For HNR facilities with continuous bypass, weekly testing is required.
5. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
The key comments on the proposed results of the technology review
are summarized in this section along with the EPA's responses to the
comments. Other comments received on the technology review not included
here are summarized along with the EPA's responses in the Response to
Comment \21\ document, which is located in the dockets to the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Fenceline Monitoring
We received many comments on fenceline monitoring with comments
both in favor of the proposed requirement and comments that were
opposed to the requirements or requested significant changes.
Comment: A commenter asserted the proposed rule would exceed the
EPA's authority under CAA section 112 because it would impose
monitoring and a work practice standard on the CBRP, which is not a
source category listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter
set forth the reasons why they believe the EPA's authority to
promulgate ``emission standards'' under CAA sections 112(d) and (f) are
limited to source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The
commenter stated that if fenceline monitoring is required in the final
rule, sampling stations should be located so as to monitor emissions
only from coke oven batteries and no other sources, and the rule should
provide that both offsite and onsite non-source category sources should
be subtracted out in determining compliance with any corrective action
level. The commenter added that such an exercise would be complicated
by the fact that benzene in COE from coke oven batteries is entrained
by the hot, buoyant vertical plume rise. The EPA would also need to
consider the feasibility of designing and implementing such a program,
given the close proximity and size of the co-located CBRP and nearby
offsite sources of benzene emissions. At U.S. Steel Clairton, for
example, the CBRP is located in between the coke batteries, so
isolating the impacts from the category-specific sources would be
difficult, and perhaps impossible.
Response: As explained in the Federal Register document announcing
the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP final rule (80 FR 75178) and again in
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP final rule (known as the ``HON''),
published on May 16, 2024 (89 FR 42932), the EPA concludes that CAA
section 112(d)(6) provides the EPA with the authority to require
fenceline monitoring requirements in NESHAPs. Comments on the proposal
did not take issue with this fundamental authority, but rather argued
only that the EPA does not have the authority to apply the work
practice associated with fenceline monitoring to a non-listed source
category, in this case the CBRP.
The fenceline monitoring provisions in the final rule can be
thought of as consisting of two elements, one being measurement and
reporting of fenceline concentrations, the other being compliance with
the RCACA, the latter being the work practice element of the rule. To
the extent the commenters assert that the EPA's authority is lacking in
regard to the requirements to measure and report fenceline
concentrations resulting from emissions from CBRPs, the EPA disagrees.
By its own terms, the commenter's argument regarding the limits of CAA
section 112 authority to non-listed source categories pertains only to
``emission standards,'' which as defined in CAA section 302(k) are
requirements that ``limit[ ] the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions . . .'' The commenter's own reasoning, therefore, does not
suggest that the EPA may not require monitoring of non-listed CBRPs.
In any case, CAA section 114 independently provides ample authority
to require monitoring of CBRPs. Relevant to the fenceline monitoring
provisions of this rule, CAA section 114 gives the EPA authority to
require the owner or operator of a source of emissions to monitor
emissions, including by periodic sampling, either for the purpose of
assisting in the development of a CAA section 112 standard, or to
determine compliance with an existing CAA section 112 standard. The
fenceline monitoring provisions in the final rule will serve both
purposes. It will inform the EPA's consideration of whether and how to
further regulate emissions from CBRP. It may also provide information
relevant to determining compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart L
applicable to CBRP. Fenceline monitoring will further these goals
notwithstanding that the final rule does not require corrective action
at CBRP, and also notwithstanding that coke oven facilities may seek
approval of an SSMP that may reduce the likelihood of needing to
perform a root cause analysis at the CBRP.
Regarding requirements pertaining to the RCACA work practice
element of the rule, 40 CFR 63.314(d)(3) of the final rule provides
that corrective action will not be required at sources not subject to a
regulation codified in part 63. At present, CBRP are not subject to a
regulation codified in part 63, and as a consequence there is no
requirement to conduct corrective action at CBRP until a part 63
regulation is promulgated for that source category.
The final rule also provides an opportunity for facilities to
develop an SSMP, subject to review and approval by the EPA, allowing a
facility to account for the contribution to measured fenceline
concentrations due to benzene emissions from offsite or co-located
sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63 (such as
CBRP). The owner/operator may choose to develop a technically-sound
monitoring plan to isolate and distinguish emissions from CBRP from
other emission sources. The SSMP may be used to correct the measured
concentration at impacted sample locations, thereby reducing the number
of exceedances of the action level caused by the CBRP, and also
reducing the number of root cause investigations pointing to the CBRP.
The EPA recognizes that, similar to refineries where the correction for
onsite sources is also allowed, development of a monitoring program to
implement the SSMP for onsite sources is expected to be complicated. We
have also extended the time for the EPA to review the SSMP to 120 days
from 90 days to account for the increased complexity of SSMP as a
result of the inclusion of these onsite sources. Real-time monitoring
techniques, such as open-path monitoring and sensor networks, could
potentially be useful to characterize emissions from such proximate
sources. Further, if information from a root cause investigation
demonstrates that a primary or other contributing cause of an
exceedance of the corrective action level are due to emissions from a
CBRP, no corrective action would be required to address those causes at
the non-listed CBRP operations beyond those that may be required under
current regulations (40 CFR part 61, subpart L, or other applicable
regulatory requirements). For example, if during the root cause
investigation the primary or other contributing cause(s) is traced to a
leak, as defined by 40 CFR part 61 subpart L, in the connections or
seals of a control system, that leak would be required to

[[Page 55698]]

be repaired within 15 days as stipulated in 40 CFR 61.132(b)(3), but
not as a result of the fenceline monitoring corrective action
requirements. Primary and other contributing cause(s) of exceedances of
the action level that are located within the facility grounds,
excepting those sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR
part 63, would need to be addressed. Sources that contribute to the
fenceline benzene concentrations above the action level that are not
subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63 may be accounted for
through the SSMP.
Comment: A commenter opposed to the proposed fenceline monitoring
provisions stated that they believe the proposed benzene fenceline
monitoring program ``targets'' co-located CBRP and not benzene in COE
from the source category coke batteries. The commenter asserts that
benzene in COE from the source category coke batteries is dispersed at
90 to 200 meters above ground level due to the heat flux and vertical
momentum rise (buoyancy), while benzene from CBRP operations generally
remain near ground level and would more likely be measured by fenceline
monitors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See email from D. Ailor, ACCCI/COETF, to D.L. Jones, EPA
OAQPS, (Mar. 26, 2021, available in the docket for this rule <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0605">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0605</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: To the extent the commenter is asserting that fenceline
monitoring is not an effective means of measuring coke oven emissions,
the EPA disagrees. Benzene comprises a significant portion of the COE
emitted from coke oven doors, which are fugitive emissions that are
released at heights considerably lower than the 90 to 200 meters
mentioned by the commenter. Likewise, internal facility monitoring
conducted in close proximity to the coke oven batteries at four
byproduct facilities, as part of the 2022 CAA section 114 requests,
identified benzene as the predominant volatile organic compound (VOC)
(which includes benzene) measured in the area of the coke oven
batteries and at elevated average concentrations ranging from
approximately 11 [micro]g/m\3\ to 340 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, we
maintain the position that benzene is a good surrogate for COE and that
fenceline monitoring is appropriate for this type of fugitive emissions
source. We also identified benzene as the predominant VOC measured in
close proximity to the CBRPs at equivalent or greater concentration
than was measured in close proximity to the coke oven batteries. This
underscores the potential impact of these non-regulated sources such as
CBRPs on the fenceline concentration at some facilities. We have
revised the fenceline monitoring requirements in this final rule to
provide an opportunity for a facility to develop an SSMP to determine
and account for the benzene emissions from onsite sources (such as
CBRPs) not currently subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63
in the calculation of [Delta]c.
Comment: A commenter requested that the proposed fenceline
monitoring requirements for HNR facilities be withdrawn and not be
included in the final rule. The commenter contended that fenceline
monitoring is not a new trend in facility procedures or generally in
use at HNR facilities. The commenter stated that because ByP ovens
operate under positive pressure, small openings or cracks in ByP ovens
allow raw coke oven gas and HAPs to leak into the atmosphere. In
contrast, the commenter indicated that their facility's (SunCoke's) HNR
ovens operate under negative pressure and release the heat of
combustion within the oven system. The commenter stated that the EPA
previously acknowledged that operating the coke ovens under negative
pressure virtually eliminates the risk of leakage of COE through doors
or other potential leakage points. See the EPA document, ``National
Emissions Standards for Coke Oven Batteries: Background Information for
Final Amendments,'' at 21 (Mar. 31, 2005; Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0051-0232).
The commenter continued that fugitive HAP emissions monitoring
conducted at one of SunCoke's plants for ten years demonstrates that
there is no impact on ambient HAP levels, that any emissions are below
risk-based screening levels, and that the state agency agreed with this
determination. The commenter contended in determining whether to adopt
fenceline monitoring requirements in the current rulemaking, the EPA
selected five coke facilities--four ByP facilities and one HNR
facility. The commenter asserted that the proposal inappropriately
grouped ByP and HNR facilities together as subject to fenceline
monitoring despite significant differences in potential for fugitive
emissions.
One commenter contended the predicted maximum benzene
concentrations for ByP plants range from 0.3 to 3 [micro]g/m\3\, while
the predicted maximum benzene concentrations for HNR plants range from
0.00005 to 0.0003 [micro]g/m\3\. Sampling at HNR plants is predicted to
yield results at about twice the MDL for the method or lower. The
commenter stated that only a major malfunction at a HNR plant would
ever trigger performance of a root cause analysis. The commenter stated
that such an increase in emissions would be noticed by plant personnel
and addressed long before the 45 days after the end of a sampling
period allowed for laboratory analysis and [Delta]c calculation. The
commenter indicated that an exceedance of the proposed subpart L limits
at HNR batteries, monitored by EPA Method 303A, would alert plant
personnel of the need to address excess fugitive emissions in a timely
manner.
Another commenter contended the EPA did not remark upon the
discrepancy of benzene concentrations between ByP and HNR facilities;
the benzene fenceline concentrations detected at ByP facilities were 90
to 4,000 percent higher than the levels detected at SunCoke's Haverhill
facility in Franklin Furnace, Ohio. The absence of any necessity for
fenceline monitoring at HNR facilities was demonstrated by the
company's Haverhill facility, which performed almost 10 years of
monitoring for PAH and VOCs as required by the facility's Title V
operating permit. The permit called for sampling at three ambient
monitoring locations near the plant (one upwind, one downwind, and one
adjacent to the entry gate to the plant). The sampling was initiated
when the plant was being built in late 2004, continued as the plant
became operational in mid-2005, and continued until the Ohio EPA
terminated the requirements for monitoring (in 2013 for PAH and in 2014
for VOC) because the HAP monitoring data demonstrated that Haverhill
had no impact on ambient HAP levels and emissions were below risk-based
screening levels. (Commenter cites ``Letter from Ohio EPA to Haverhill
Coke Company, July 14, 2014''.)
Response: After considering these public comments and other
relevant information, the EPA has decided to not finalize the
requirement to require fenceline monitoring and RCACA at HNR facilities
because the HNR coke ovens operate under negative pressure, i.e., under
suction, which causes any leaks to consist of outside air moving into
the ovens rather than coke oven exhaust leaking out, and, as a result,
have negligible fugitive benzene emissions. Fenceline monitoring data
collected through the 2022 CAA section 114 request, which can be found
in the memorandum Fugitive Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities,\23\
showed an HNR

[[Page 55699]]

facility's fenceline benzene concentrations to be very low (a maximum
individual sample concentration of 0.7 [micro]g/m\3\ and an average
[Delta]c of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ of benzene) during the 3 months of
fenceline monitoring, especially as compared to the ByP fenceline
average delta [Delta]c values at four facilities that ranged from 3
[micro]g/m\3\ to 33 [micro]g/m\3\. Additionally, the total estimated
benzene emissions from the 5 HNR facilities are quite low, estimated at
2.3 tpy year, which equates to an average of 0.5 tpy benzene per
facility, on average, based on all sources at the facilities, both
category and noncategory. This compares to ByP facilities that are
estimated to emit 25 tpy, which equates to 3.6 tpy per facility, on
average, also based on all sources at the facilities, both category and
noncategory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Fugitive Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities. D.L. Jones, K.
Boaggio, K. McGinn, and N. Shappley, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; and G.E. Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1,
2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0880 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0051-0735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter stated that coke plants cover large areas with
substantial fenceline/perimeters where some portions when located close
to communities may be more critical, and therefore, the SSMP should
address certain specific information. The commenter said that the EPA
should require plants to develop a SSMP that at a minimum addresses the
following items:
<bullet> Physical plant boundary including each fenceline ``reach''
on a properly-drawn scaled map, showing all coke-making and related
operations as well as the land uses beyond the plant, adjacent to each
reach of the fenceline.
<bullet> Types of pollutants emitted by the plant--for which the
starting point is the collection of 2016 and 2022 (ICR) data, as
supplemented by ongoing testing. This will include a range of VOCs and
HAPs, PAHs, PM<INF>2.5</INF> (as a surrogate for nonmercury metals),
Hg, AG, etc.
<bullet> Sampling approach to initially measure all potential HAP
emissions at each fenceline reach, and especially for those reaches
where there is potential for community exposure if pollutants escape
the plant boundary--at least for a period of 1 year.
<bullet> Potential reduction of the list of measured HAP that are
potentially emitted at each fenceline reach, as needed, based on the
first year of data collection.
<bullet> Proper frequency of sampling at the critical fenceline
reaches. For example, if benzene or naphthalene are identified as the
potential pollutants for adjacent community exposures, the plan should
include continuous measurements using open path methods as opposed to
periodic sorbent tube collection. Continuous measurements will provide
the data on short-term variability of such impacts as opposed to a 2-
week or similar average using sorbent tubes. Refineries in California
have successfully implemented such continuous fenceline monitoring for
many years and the EPA can readily access how these have been
implemented.
<bullet> Collection of continuous meteorological data in order to
assist in data evaluation--i.e., to determine if the coke plant or some
other source may have been the likely cause of a spike in emissions.
This would eliminate the need to address upwind corrections since,
depending on the meteorological data, the upwind fenceline can always
be readily identified, making this correction defensible and simple.
Another commenter asked how the monitoring requirements that
support the exclusion of benzene from offsite sources can be made more
transparent and enforceable, particularly if the SSMP is the method for
excluding benzene from offsite sources. The commenter requested that
the EPA revise the proposed rule text for fenceline monitoring (40 CFR
63.314(i)(1)(ii)) accordingly to make this requirement more transparent
and enforceable. The commenter suggested the following text as a
replacement: ``. . . . . identify the location of the additional
monitoring stations that must be used to determine the uniform
background concentration and the near-field source concentration
contribution. Modeling may not be used in lieu of monitoring to
identify near-field sources that an SSMP applicant alleges contribute
significantly to fenceline benzene levels at the applicant's
facility.''
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that SSMP are
necessary for every facility. In the proposed rule, the EPA stipulated
that an EPA-approved SSMP is required if a facility wants to account
for near-field offsite upwind sources in their determination of
[Delta]c. In the final rule, this requirement is extended to accounting
for onsite sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part
63. The EPA disagrees that the additional elements suggested by the
commenter are necessary for the correct implementation of fenceline
monitoring. The siting criteria of EPA Method 325A are specified based
on the size and shape of facility, and the location of monitors are
detailed in each quarterly report. It is unclear from the comment what
is meant by fenceline ``reach.'' Land uses outside of the fenceline of
the facility are not necessarily known by the facility, since they are
outside the control of the facility. Benzene is being used as a
surrogate for COE, which encompasses many different HAP and of which
benzene is the dominant HAP as indicated by fenceline monitoring and
the interior facility monitoring conducted through the CAA section 114
information collection request. Continuous meteorological data is
already required to be collected to correct the measured concentration
to standard temperature and pressure and depending on the locality, it
can be used in locating potential sources of any emissions. When an
SSMP has been developed, the meteorological data can be used to account
for up-wind or onsite benzene contributions. To achieve this, the
meteorological data must be collected at an onsite location when an
SSMP is implemented.
The EPA acknowledges the feedback from the commenter about making
the language for near field source correction of upwind contributions
more transparent and enforceable in the final rule. The rule requires
an owner or operator to submit a SSMP to the EPA for review and
approval when near-field offsite upwind sources or certain onsite
sources are being accounted for. The EPA will approve or disapprove the
SSMP in writing within 120 days of receiving a complete SSMP submittal.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that more specificity should be
provided in the SSMP and has chosen to revise the final rule to include
more prescriptive language to define the requirements of the SSMP and
to harmonize the approach for this rule with other NESHAPs.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA needs to include a more
comprehensive suite of pollutants for fenceline monitoring, not just
one surrogate parameter. The commenters requested that the EPA expand
the initial set of target analytes.
One commenter stated the proposed rule does not include hydrogen
sulfide fenceline monitoring. The commenter argued that the EPA has
failed to account for its own data about how damaging these facilities
are. The commenter stated that in 2018, the EPA produced a ``Geospatial
Monitoring of Air Pollution Report'' (October 31, 2018) after
conducting some fenceline monitoring over 6 days along one side of
Middletown Works (which then had an operating coke plant). The
commenter indicated that the EPA concluded ``These mobile and
stationary data indicate a potential acute human health hazard.'' The
commenter asserted that these hydrogen sulfide results show

[[Page 55700]]

the need for far more comprehensive fenceline monitoring.
Another commenter stated that benzene is an adequate surrogate for
some HAP, but not for inorganic compounds, and indicated that the EPA
should require fenceline monitoring of arsenic. This commenter
requested that the EPA add a requirement for fenceline monitoring of
arsenic. The commenter contended that while benzene seems to be a good
indicator for hydrocarbons such as BTEX or PAH, it is not clear that it
is also a surrogate for inorganic pollutants. The commenter stated that
the U.S. Geological survey examined arsenic levels in coal, finding a
broad range of mean concentrations from 1.5 ppm to 71 ppm, depending on
the source (<a href="https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3152/fs2005-3152.pdf">https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3152/fs2005-3152.pdf</a>). The
commenter stated that wide differences in arsenic content were also
found in a review article by Yudovich and Ketris (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516204001673">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516204001673</a>). The
commenter stated such differences in arsenic coal content are reflected
in emission levels: A study of trace metal elements released during
coal coking found differences of 600 percent in arsenic levels between
different facilities, stating ``This is obvious owing to the different
levels of trace elements contents in coals, depending on the coal type,
origin, basin, and other factors.'' (Konieczynski J, Zajusz-Zubek E,
Jablonska M. The release of trace elements in the process of coal
coking. (Scientific World Journal. 2012;2012:294927. Doi: 10.1100/2012/
294927). While this study refers to different facilities, such
variability is expected to apply to different times within a given
facility as well.
The commenter stated that the EPA identified arsenic as the leading
cause for cancer and chronic health risks from COE but benzene has not
been proven to be an adequate surrogate for arsenic levels. According
to the commenter, adding a fenceline monitoring requirement for arsenic
would be feasible and simple to implement. The commenter said that the
EPA has a number of methods to determine metal concentration in ambient
air that could be used for the fenceline monitoring (see <a href="https://www.epa.gov/amtic/compendium-methods-determination-inorganic-compounds-ambient-air">https://www.epa.gov/amtic/compendium-methods-determination-inorganic-compounds-ambient-air</a>). The commenter said there are a number of EPA-certified
ambient air monitoring methods for metals, including arsenic, that
could easily be installed and sampled on the same deployment and
retrieval data collection schedule as the fenceline benzene monitors.
Response: The EPA required some facilities in the industry to
conduct comprehensive fenceline monitoring as part our 2022 CAA section
114 request, which included measurement of a suite of organic HAPs. The
results of this monitoring can be found in the memorandum Fugitive
Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities \24\ The monitoring identified
benzene as the most common organic HAP measured above detection level
and the organic HAP with the highest concentration, making it an
appropriate surrogate for fugitive emissions from coke ovens and COE.
For fugitive leaks of COE, the intended use of fenceline monitoring,
benzene is the chemical best suited as a surrogate for COE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Fugitive Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities. D.L. Jones, K.
Boaggio, K. McGinn, and N. Shappley, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; and G.E. Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1,
2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0880 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0051-0735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arsenic requires a different monitoring approach with much higher
costs, both for the analytical tests and for installation, and requires
electricity at each sampling location. Benzene also is present in much
higher concentrations in COE than arsenic; therefore, any leaking coke
oven gas contains benzene and at much higher concentrations than
arsenic. The EPA did not evaluate arsenic (or any other metal HAP) as
part of the information requests related to fenceline monitoring.
Instead, fenceline monitoring was performed at these sites to evaluate
VOC/HAP emissions from fugitive sources. Although we recognize that
arsenic is emitted from these facilities, the arsenic emissions are
typically hot and emitted from ducted sources such as stacks at much
higher elevations than the ground level of the fenceline. Therefore, we
do not expect arsenic to be detected at the fenceline. The emissions
from elevated, ducted sources regulated under subpart CCCCC that do not
directly impact the fenceline measurements are measured at the source
through periodic compliance testing required to demonstrate compliance
with the MACT standards.
Lastly, hydrogen sulfide is not currently a listed HAP under CAA
section 112, and so could not be considered in this rulemaking unless
the EPA determined that it was a surrogate for one or more HAP emitted
as fugitives from the category. We have not made such a determination.
Comment: A commenter said that the ``[Delta]c'' calculation is not
sufficient to account for offsite sources of benzene when there are
significant offsite sources or when wind direction information
demonstrates the impact of offsite sources on monitoring locations. The
commenter requested that the EPA redesign the [Delta]c element of the
fenceline monitoring program. The commenter provided, as an example,
the CAA section 114 fenceline monitoring data for the Cleveland Cliffs'
Burns Harbor facility, which demonstrated that the highest benzene
concentrations are associated with sources at the adjacent port
facility and are not located near the coke facility.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the final rule should provide a
mechanism in addition to that already incorporated in the proposed rule
to take into account the impact of offsite sources. As proposed, the
final rule accomplishes this not just through the [Delta]c calculation
methodology, but also through allowing the use of an SSMP. The rule
states that an owner or operator may elect to submit an SSMP (for EPA
review and approval), which could allow for the subtraction of upwind
contributions. The final rule includes more prescriptive language to
define the requirements of the SSMP. This is consistent with fenceline
monitoring provisions in other NESHAPs.
Comment: Commenters stated that they believe the fenceline monitor
data should be made available to the public to improve transparency.
The commenters requested that the EPA provide public access to the
fenceline data as it is being collected and reviewed so people can be
aware of their exposure risks. A commenter requested that the fenceline
data be put on a website that is easily accessible to a layperson or
community member near a facility who is not aware of and has not had
training on that portal. A commenter contended when action levels are
exceeded, the community must be provided immediate notification of such
exceedances and that reporting through the EPA's electronic reporting
and data retrieval portal is not sufficient and is confusing to use.
Making pollution data readily available to the public is a low-cost,
efficient way to drive pollution reduction.
A commenter contended the EPA does not specify when fenceline
monitoring data submitted via CEDRI will be made available to the
public. The commenter said that public access to fenceline data will
allow regulators to detect non-compliance earlier, and that communities
would be simultaneously informed of dangerous, higher concentrations of
chromium (and for lead, if the EPA includes lead in the

[[Page 55701]]

fenceline standard, as they should) with less delay. The commenter
contended that prompt public disclosure of benzene monitoring data will
make the failure to collect and report such information more visible,
will give regulators and communities quicker access to information
about dangerous spikes in benzene levels, and will give companies a
``real time'' incentive to move quickly to clean up emission sources
causing the problem.
Response: As described in the proposed rule preamble and in this
preamble, the EPA is only requiring fenceline monitoring for benzene in
this final rule. We decided it is not necessary or appropriate to
require fenceline monitoring for lead, arsenic or any other metal HAP
as part of this rulemaking. See other responses in this section for
more details on this topic.
Regarding the public availability of data and monitoring locations,
we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that the exact location
of each sampling location (latitude and longitude) as well as the
individual sampling results (both original results and corrected
results if a monitoring location result is modified as a result of an
SSMP) are included in the quarterly report at 40 CFR 63.311(j)(3) and
(5). These quarterly fenceline reports will be submitted to CEDRI and
subsequently be available to the public via the Web Factor Information
Retrieval System (WebFIRE) (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/webfire">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/webfire</a>). The fenceline monitoring data is released to
WebFIRE 30 days after submittal to CEDRI to allow time for the EPA and
any delegated authority to review the data prior to release. For a
general discussion on the electronic reporting process, see the
memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the dockets for this action
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0908 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0748).
To search for a fenceline monitoring report required by this rule,
begin at the WebFIRE home page, <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire">https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire</a>, and
select ``Search for Reports.'' On the following page, select ``Air
Emissions Reports'' and click ``Submit Search.'' From the ``Search
Criteria,'' select ``Part 63--NESHAP'', and ``NESHAP--L: Coke Oven
Batteries'' from the list and click ``Submit Search''. From this page,
additional search criteria can be used to narrow the search to a
specific facility, either through ``Submitting Organization and/or
Facility Name,'' the ``Facility Location,'' or Federal Registry Service
identification ``FRS ID'', which can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/frs/frs-query">https://www.epa.gov/frs/frs-query</a>. From the results screen, individual reports can be
selected or multiple reports may be selected for a bulk download,
either through the link at the top of the page for all reports matching
the search criteria, or for a smaller subset of results through
selecting multiple reports in the ``Include Report in Bulk Download''
and clicking ``Bulk Download Selected Reports'' on the bottom of the
page. Depending on the overall file size, this may take some time to
download.
b. Lowered Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes
We received a few comments on the proposed lowered leak limits for
doors, lids, and offtakes with comments both in favor of the proposed
requirement and comments that were opposed to the requirements or
requested significant changes.
Comment: Commenters stated that they believe the leak rate data
used for new limits are not a ``development in practices, processes,
and control technologies.'' Commenters requested that the EPA not
finalize the proposed leak limits because the proposed rule fails to
demonstrate that there have been any new cost-effective developments in
leak control practices, processes, or control technologies for doors,
lids, and offtakes. Further, one commenter stated they believe that the
EPA does not demonstrate why coke facility production capacity is a
factually sound basis for establishing differing door leak limits. The
commenter requested that the EPA not finalize the proposed leak limits
for doors, lids, and offtakes based on capacity. This commenter also
stated they believed that the EPA offers no basis for its conclusion
that ``tall'' and ``not tall'' doors should have the same leak limits
at facilities with less than 3 million tpy production capacity. The
commenter requested that the EPA use door height for setting door
limits as in current rule for lower production capacity facilities.
Commenters contended that across the cokemaking industry, leak
control for doors, lids, and offtakes is achieved through operational
and maintenance work practices, not through add-on pollution controls
or other equipment; and the current leak control methods existed and
were considered during development of the original MACT standards [for
subpart L, in 1993]. The EPA's use of new leak rate data for coke
battery facilities is not based on any previously unidentified leak
control work practices, operational procedures, process changes, add-on
controls, or pollution prevention alternatives. Leak rate data, like
other forms of emissions data, are simply information about a practice,
process, or control technology. The commenters stated the EPA's
approach improperly equates data showing overcompliance with existing
standards as ``developments'' in leak control practices and processes.
Nothing in the language of CAA section 112(d)(6) gives the EPA
authority to rachet-down existing MACT floor limits based solely on
data showing overcompliance with those existing limits. The commenter
contended there is no explanation for why the EPA selected a 3 million
tpy threshold versus some other level of coke production capacity. It
is counterintuitive to presume that higher coke production capacity
correlates to lower leak rates. The existing subpart L door leak
standards are not based on coke production capacity; and one would
expect that higher production facilities have a larger number of ovens
in operation, with more cycles of charges and pushes, etc. All of these
factors would be expected to correlate with similar or higher leak
rates compared to smaller capacity facilities.
The commenter also stated that since promulgation in 1993, the
subpart L door leak limits have been based on the height of the door
(i.e., ``tall'' doors (6 meters and taller) and ``not tall'' doors)
because taller doors are more correlated with the occurrence of leaks.
``Tall'' doors have a longer perimeter length compared to ``not tall''
doors, and longer perimeters have more area where leaks can occur. For
example, a 6-meter ``tall'' battery door has 43 percent more perimeter
length compared to a 4.3-meter ``not tall'' door. Therefore, ``tall''
doors are expected to have higher leak rates compared to ``not tall''
doors, and the existing door leak limits reflect these differences.
The commenter contended the EPA seemingly acknowledges this by
proposing different leak limits for ``tall'' and ``not tall'' doors for
facilities with greater than 3 million tpy production capacity.
However, the EPA offers no explanation why size of the door matters for
leak limits at higher production facilities but size does not matter
for lower production facilities.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the leak rate
data used for new limits are not a development in ``practices,
processes, and control technologies.'' The EPA believes there is a
strong basis to infer that the data acquired by the EPA in CAA section
114 requests from current coke facilities in 2016 and 2022, which
showed fewer leaking doors, lids, and offtakes than

[[Page 55702]]

that allowed under the rule, reflects improved performance due to
improved work practices for observing leaks during operations, and more
quickly and efficiently sealing and adjusting doors, or other practices
related to door leaks. We also received additional leak data in 2023
and 2024 from a number of facilities that provide further evidence that
there has been improved performance. These data are available in the
docket for the final rule. There is no other known factor that
correlates to reduced leak frequency or duration. As a commenter points
out, these practices, broadly described, are not necessarily new.
However, CAA section 112(d)(6) does not require that practices be
either recently invented or recently identified. The CAA section
112(d)(6) gives the EPA authority to revise standards based upon
``developments'' in practices, which clearly can include improvements
in previously existing practices and new information about the
performance of those improvements. Here there is no apparent reason for
lower leak rate values other than positive developments in work
practices concerning detection and minimization of leaks. Industry
commenters have not suggested any alternative explanation. It is
therefore reasonable to infer that lower leak rate values reflect
developments in work practices to control leaks. See the response to
the next comment in regard to the data supporting this statement.
The lower leak rate standard for larger capacity facilities
reflects the lower leak rates shown in the recent EPA Method 303 data
for those operations. The commenter correctly notes that oven leak
rates are not functionally related to the number of ovens at a
facility; rather, leak rates depend on whether each oven is well-sealed
or not. As noted above, the primary determinant of leak rates is the
effectiveness of work practices to detect and minimize leaks. There is
not an apparent reason for why larger capacity facilities are attaining
lower leak rates other than that they are more effectively employing
work practices to control leaks. Industry commenters have not suggested
an alternative explanation. In this situation, the distinction based on
facility size (as allowed by CAA section 112(d)(1)) reflects more
effective work practices at the larger facilities. There may be, for
instance, cost-related reasons why smaller capacity facilities have not
employed the same work practices as larger facilities. It is reasonable
to infer that a larger capacity facility may be able to invest more
resources in leak control practices. Lacking a firm basis for
concluding that smaller facilities can reasonably achieve the same
performance as larger facilities, the EPA is finalizing the capacity-
based distinction in leak rate limits supported by current measurement
data.
That leak rates are primarily determined by work practices, and
that work practices are not restricted to facility capacity, if
anything, suggests that the lower leak rates achieved at larger
capacity facilities should be achievable at smaller facilities as well.
Notwithstanding such a possible inference, the EPA is setting leak rate
limits at levels demonstrated to be achievable by the available data.
The EPA selected a 3 million tpy production of coke production
capacity because the production of the facility in this category
(nearly 5 million tpy capacity) is more than twice the capacity of the
next highest facility (<2 million tons coke capacity). This is a clear
break point in size between larger and smaller capacity facilities, and
that break point aligns with the data showing lower leak rates at the
larger facility.
Regarding the commenter's request to use door height for setting
door limits for lower production capacity facilities, the EPA agrees
with the commenter and is finalizing allowable door limits for both
``tall'' and ``not tall'' batteries, as described in section IV.B.4.b.
of this preamble and in the Technology Review Memorandum-Final
Rule,\25\ and which reflect the current rule. Also, see the EPA's
response to other comments on the revised leak limits in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories--Final
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E.
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter stated that they believed the EPA has not
provided adequate information regarding what data were used and how the
EPA calculated the proposed leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes.
The commenter requested that the EPA provide rationale for new leak
limits for doors, lids, and offtakes. The commenter contended the
Technology Review Memorandum identifies the proposed limits but
provides little information on how the EPA derived the limits. Beyond a
sentence stating that ``[t]he 2022 facility-average data showed a high
of 46 percent of the standard for tall doors (standard 4.0 percent); a
high of 52 percent of the standard for all other doors, i.e., not tall
(standard 3.3 percent); and a high of only 36 percent of the standard
for foundry (standard 4.0 percent) . . .'' it is not apparent how the
EPA derived any of the proposed leak limits, including the averaging
time the EPA used. It is not clear if the EPA used or disregarded the
2022 ICR data in developing the proposed limits, which makes it
difficult to verify the EPA's claim regarding the facility-average
data.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has revised the
proposed leak limits. The proposed limits were based on data described
in the memorandum prepared for the proposal Technology Review for the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack and Coke Oven
Batteries Source Categories,\26\ hereafter referred to as the
``Proposal Technology Review Memorandum,'' and specifically, Section
3.2 Current Leak Control at ByP Coke Oven Facilities and ``Table 5.
Summary of ByP Facility Method 303 Performance and COE Emissions Data
from 2022 Coke Section 114 Request.'' The EPA developed an annual
average for 2022 each facility and each battery from the submitted
monthly averages for 2022. However, we used a different approach for
the final rule limits. The revised limits are based on consideration of
public comments and additional facility data for rolling 30-day average
leak rates received after the publication of the proposed rule, as
described in section IV.B.4.b. of this preamble (e.g., see table 4 in
section IV.B.4.b.) and in the Technology Review Memorandum-Final
Rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories. D.L.
Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E. Raymond, RTI
International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.
\27\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories--Final
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E.
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors and Concurrent Oven or
Common Tunnel Pressure Monitoring
We received 2 comments on requiring both zero leaks from HNR oven
doors and concurrent oven and common tunnel pressure monitoring. Both
commenters were not in favor of the proposed amendments to require
pressure monitoring in ovens. No comments in support were received.

[[Page 55703]]

Comment: A commenter stated that costly and onerous HNR oven
pressure monitoring is unnecessary, burdensome, and unsafe. The
commenter explained that if pressure monitors are located in the ovens,
they must be manually cleaned out by maintenance personnel 2 to 3 times
per week. The commenter requested that the EPA not require HNR oven
pressure monitoring (in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(1)(i)) in addition to VE
monitoring. The commenter contended the EPA lacks authority to require
costly and onerous oven pressure monitoring for HNR oven door leaks.
The commenter noted that the EPA had stated in the proposal that it
``did not identify any developments in practices, processes or control
technologies,'' (88 FR 55883) and acknowledged that ``[VE] monitoring
has been used as an effective surrogate for monitoring door leaks in
the past.'' The commenter asserted the EPA incorrectly assumes that
increased pressure monitoring is necessary to establish negative oven
pressure. The EPA's proposed requirement ``to measure pressure in the
ovens during the main points in the entire oven cycle to include, at
minimum, during pushing, coking, and charging,'' (88 FR 55884), is
inconsistent with its findings that for pushing and charging, ``no
technology has been identified that demonstrates reduced emissions . .
. beyond the current control technology in use.''
The commenter continued that installing and maintaining pressure
monitors in each oven would be exorbitantly expensive, challenging, and
unreliable. The commenter estimated costs of $3 to 4 million for every
100 ovens subject to this requirement. In addition, pressure monitors
located in the ovens must be manually cleaned out by maintenance
personnel 2 to 3 times per week, exposing personnel to excessive heat,
which is an unnecessary safety risk. The commenter stated that
SunCoke's heat recovery facilities already monitor negative pressure in
the common tunnel electronically on a continuous basis and have one
pressure transmitter for every seven (7) ovens in the battery on
average. Monitoring for negative pressure in the common tunnel, in
conjunction with monitoring for coke oven leaks throughout all stages
of coking as previously described, accurately captures any time that an
oven is experiencing positive pressure and allows personnel to take
action in a timely and safe manner when necessary. Therefore, the
commenter states that the EPA should not include these proposed changes
to pressure monitoring in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(i) in the final rule.
Another commenter also stated that the EPA proposed rule includes
unnecessary and redundant instrumentation to monitor HNR oven
operational pressure continuously.
In regard to the proposed requirement to require zero leaks from
HNR oven doors, as determined by EPA Method 303A, a commenter notes
that SunCoke's work practices are already consistent with 40 CFR
63.303(c)(2) in that SunCoke monitors the ovens for the entirety of the
coking cycle and responds to any observed door leaks to make
adjustments to the ovens by reviewing electronic data and physically
walking the coke oven batteries. Any door leaks due to positive
pressure are corrected by adjusting oven uptakes, dampers, and/or sole
flues, and are then recorded, and reported as required under 40 CFR
63.303(c)(2).
Response: In response to what the EPA believes to be credible
concerns regarding safety hazards and costs, the EPA is not finalizing
a requirement for both HNR oven and common tunnel pressure monitoring
in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(1)(i). The costs of requiring both oven pressure
monitoring and common tunnel monitoring would not be justifiable given
the already low leak emissions from HNR ovens that will be complying
with the 0 percent leaking oven doors requirement in the final rule,
and the common tunnel pressure monitoring already in place at HNR
facilities.
Because of the commenter's statements that due to another part of
the COB rule, 40 CFR 63.303(c)(2), HNR facilities are already required
to respond to oven leaks, and that all HNR facilities already ``monitor
the ovens for the entirety of the coking cycle and respond to any
observed door leaks to make adjustments to the ovens by reviewing
electronic data and physically walking the coke oven batteries,'' we
are promulgating the requirement for zero leaks from oven doors, with
daily monitoring using EPA Method 303A, so that the current SunCoke
practice to observe oven doors to maintain zero leaks is codified in
the rule.
Therefore, in the final rule, a HNR facility is required to
demonstrate and maintain zero leaks from HNR oven doors, and measure
pressure in either the ovens or common tunnels to demonstrate negative
pressure, minimally during charging, coking, and pushing.
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Emissions From Leaking Doors
We received one comment on the revised emissions equation for
emissions from leaking doors which suggested corrections to the
equation.
Comment: A commenter stated they believe the EPA's proposed change
to the equation for estimating leaks would underestimate
PLD<INF>bench</INF> and thus COE, and proposed an alternative equation.
To test the EPA's proposed change, the commenter plotted
PLD<INF>bench</INF> versus PLD<INF>yard</INF> (shown in this section as
Commenter's Figure 1). The commenter asserted that for a valid equation
the points should fall along a line with a slope of 0.94 and intercept
of 0, and that because data for these four batteries in Commenter's
Figure 1 are above this line, the EPA's proposed equation
underestimates PLD<INF>bench</INF> and thus COE.
The commenter continued that another issue is that the EPA's
proposed change assumes that PLD<INF>bench</INF> is zero when
PLD<INF>yard</INF> is zero. However, even when there are no leaks
visible from the yard, there will still likely be leaks visible only
from the bench. It appears a more appropriate method for estimating
PLD<INF>bench</INF> from PLD<INF>yard</INF> is to fit a line to the
data with a non- zero intercept. Doing so yields the following equation
for estimating PLD<INF>bench</INF> from PLD<INF>yard</INF>:
PLD<INF>bench</INF> = 0.30 * PLD<INF>yard</INF> + 1.11 (Equation 1)

[[Page 55704]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.000

The commenter asserted the EPA should estimate PLD<INF>bench</INF>
using Equation 1 (PLD<INF>bench only</INF> = 0.30 * PLD<INF>yard</INF>
+ 1.11), resulting in a more accurate estimate of PLD<INF>bench</INF>
only and presumably of COE.
Response: We agree with the commenter that there could be PLD from
the bench, i.e., PLD bench-only emissions, when PLD from the yard is
zero. However, the term PLD<INF>bench</INF> in the equation in the
proposal materials represented emissions from the PLD from bench-only,
see pg. 2 of the Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from
Oven Doors prepared for the proposal,\28\ as well as the memorandum
prepared for the final rule titled Revised Equation to Estimate Coke
Oven Emissions from Oven Doors-Final Rule,\29\ where it was stated that
the PLD<INF>bench</INF> term was the ``percent of doors with leaks only
visible from the bench, assumed [previously] to be 6%''. The PLD-bench
total is equal to ``PLD-bench only'' plus PLD visible from both the
bench and the yard (PLD-yard). We have added subscripts for all the
terms in the equation in the memorandum prepared for the final rule
(and in this section) so that it is clear what emissions are being
referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven
Doors. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 2021. Docket
ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
\29\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven
Doors-Final Rule. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1,
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2022 CAA section 114 test data submitted included only PLD from
the bench, i.e., bench total, and PLD from the yard. PLD-Bench-only is
obtained from the PLD-Bench Total leak data, obtained via the 2022 CAA
section 114 request, minus the PLD yard. To evaluate the door leak
equation, the comparison should be between the ratio of PLD bench-only
to the PLD yard.
The results of the analysis of CAA section 114 data submitted by
Cleveland Cliffs' Burns Harbor and U.S. Steel's Clairton facilities are
shown in table 5 of this section. Similar to the commenter, we combined
the 1981 leak data with the 2022 leak data so as to have a more robust
data set. We first determined the average ratio of PLD-bench-only to
PLD-yard for both batteries from each facility, and from both coal and
coke sides in the 1981 and 2022 data. These ratios were averaged
together to produce a revised PLD bench-only/PLD yard ratio of 1.5 to
use in the leak emissions equation. See table 6 of this section.

Table 5--Summary of Door Leak Study at Cleveland Cliffs Burns Harbor and U.S. Steel's Clairton Facilities Submitted for 2022 CAA Section 114 Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke side Coal side
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average PLD Average PLD
Facility Battery ID -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench-only Bench-only
Bench (%) (%) Yard (%) Bench (%) (%) Yard (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Burns Harbor............................ 2............................ 3.8 2.7 1.1 0.61 0.61 0.0
1............................ 4.4 2.6 1.8 1.7 0.61 1.1
Facility Avg................. 4.1 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.61 0.53
U.S. Steel Clairton........................ 20........................... 1.1 0.38 0.72 1.9 1.3 0.57
19........................... 1.6 1.03 0.57 1.7 1.4 0.29
Facility Avg................. 1.4 0.71 0.60 1.8 1.4 0.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 55705]]

Table 6--Ratios of PLD-Yard to PLD-Bench-Only in 1981 and 2022 Data Sets and Overall Averages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio PLD bench-only/PLD yard
Facility Battery ID -----------------------------------------------
Coke side Coal side Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC-Burns Harbor....................... 2....................... 2.6 NA \a\ ..............
1....................... 1.4 0.57
Facility Avg............ 2.0 0.57 1.3
U.S. Steel Clairton................... 20...................... 0.53 2.3 ..............
19...................... 1.8 4.9 ..............
Facility Avg............ 1.2 3.6 2.4
1981 Data \b\......................... ........................ .............. .............. 0.94
Overall Average................... ........................ .............. .............. 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Coal-side ratio can't be calculated because coal-side yard PLD is zero.
\b\ Ratio was determined from bench-only value of 6.0 and PLD yard of 6.4 (6.0/6.4 = 0.94).

In order to determine the value for PLD-bench only when PLD yard is
equal to zero, we plotted PLD yard by PLD bench-only, similar to the
commenter's approach but using PLD bench-only instead of PLD bench-
total. The intercept of the regression line with the y-axis is the
value for PLD-bench-only when PLD yard is 0, at 0.7 percent (or a
factor of 0.007). The correlation coefficient (r\2\) of the regression
line is 0.84, which is considered a good fit.\30\ See Figure 2 in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Davide, C., M.J. Warrens, and G. Jurman. The coefficient of
determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE,
MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. PeerJ Comput Sci.
2021; 7: e623. Published online 2021 Jul 5. doi: 10.7717/peerj-
cs.623. July 5, 2021. <a href="https://peerj.com/articles/cs-623/">https://peerj.com/articles/cs-623/</a>.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.001

The revised door leak equation using the revised ratio of PLD-
bench-only to PLD yard of 1.5 and adding a third term in the equation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to represent the case where PLD-yard is equal to zero is shown below:

COE-doors (lb/hr) = N<INF>D</INF> x (PLD<INF>yard</INF>/100) x (0.04
lb/hr)
+
N<INF>D</INF> x ((PLD<INF>yard</INF> x
1.5<INF>PLDbench-only/PLDyard</INF>)/100) x (0.023 lb/hr)
+
N<INF>D</INF> x 0.007 x (0.023 lb/hr)

See the Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven
Doors--Final Rule \31\ for documentation of the revised leak limit
equation for the final rule that reflects comments received and
additional analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven
Doors-Final Rule. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1,
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Opacity Testing of HNR B/W Stacks
We received one comment on the proposed opacity limit for HNR B/W
stacks that objected to the numerical value, the frequency of the
proposed limit, and the coke NESHAP (COB) in which the limit was
proposed. The comment is summarized below along with the EPA response.
Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA's redline version of its
proposed amendments to subpart L includes a proposed change to 40 CFR
63.303(d)(3) to impose a 10 perent opacity limit on HNR B/W stacks. The
commenter contends they are not aware of any coke plant that could meet
the proposed limit. According to the commenter, the permits and state

[[Page 55706]]

regulatory authorities already limit VE from the HNR B/W stacks to 20
percent opacity. As demonstrated by the performance testing conducted
and the deviation reports submitted in response to the EPA's CAA
section 114 request, the commenter stated that SunCoke is in
substantial compliance with the existing opacity limits for the HNR B/W
stacks. When this equipment is in operation, SunCoke personnel monitor
opacity from the HNR B/W stacks and adjust oven dampers to minimize or
eliminate VE if present to ensure compliance with the existing opacity
limits. At SunCoke's Jewell facility, which is the only facility where
the waste heat stacks operate on a continuous basis, an equivalent
weekly monitoring requirement is already established by its CAA Title V
requirement. The commenter stated more frequent monitoring is not
necessary, citing Jewell's vast history of complying with its opacity
limit.
The commenter also stated that it would not be appropriate to
establish a daily [opacity] observation requirement at heat recovery
facilities because the bypass stacks do not operate on a continuous
basis. Because venting at SunCoke's heat recovery facilities can be
brief and intermittent, imposing such a requirement any time the bypass
vent stacks are in operation would result in greater environmental harm
because it would extend the duration of venting to allow SunCoke
sufficient time to dispatch certified personnel to the appropriate
location in the plant to conduct readings per EPA Method 9. The
commenter, therefore, urged the EPA to not include its proposed changes
to 40 CFR 63.303(d)(3) in the final rule, and stated that including
these changes would be unnecessary, arbitrary and capricious. Moreover,
SunCoke notes that the EPA is attempting to regulate the same source--
bypass/HNR B/W stacks--as part of two different source categories,
subparts L and CCCCC. The commenter also stated that the EPA lacks
authority to impose the proposed new opacity limit and the related
requirements, arguing that the EPA had not shown these requirements are
``necessary,'' taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6)
(requiring the EPA to ``review, and revise as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section''); 88
FR 55883 (the EPA ``did not identify any developments in practices,
processes or control technologies'') (emphasis added).
Response: We agree with the commenter that daily testing from HNR
bypass to achieve 10 percent opacity is not demonstrated and that 20
percent opacity is a limit that has been established as a feasible
limit for HNR B/W stacks via an existing facility's permit. We also
agree that the intermittent nature of the HNR B/W events could prevent
HNR facilities from testing under EPA Method 9 and also could
unnecessarily extend the bypass event in order to perform the testing.
Based on the comments received, we are finalizing a 20 percent
opacity limit for HNR B/W stack, pursuant to a CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review of the PQBS NESHAP, to be measured weekly when a
bypass event occurs for more than one continuous hour to allow
sufficient time to ascertain whether the bypass event will last long
enough to test opacity with EPA Method 9 and, if so, to dispatch
personnel qualified to perform EPA Method 9 to the B/W stack. When
there is at least one bypass event during any week that last for at
least one hour, the weekly opacity testing requirement applies. This
condition is important for the four HNR facilities that do not have
continuous bypass. The one HNR facility with continuous bypass will be
able to test anytime during each week. We agree with the commenter that
the revised opacity requirements for HNR B/W stacks should be included
as part of the technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC.
6. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
a. Coke Oven Leak Limits
The leak limits being finalized for doors, lids, and offtakes
reflect changes from the proposed rule based on information obtained
from a number of ByP facilities on the variability of leaks on daily
rolling 30-day average basis. Using the available data, we compared the
maximum 30-day rolling averages with the maximum annual averages and
developed adjustment factors to account for variability. Then, we
multiplied the adjustment factors by the maximum annual average for
each leak type. We are promulgating these revised leak limits (shown in
table 4 of this preamble). Available data demonstrate that these limits
reflect current performance of facilities and are, therefore,
achievable. The current performance reflects improvements in work
practices, specifically practices designed to enhance prevention,
detection, and remediation of leaks and, therefore, constitute a
``development'' for purposes of CAA section 112(d)(6).
b. Fenceline Monitoring Requirements
We revised the modeling procedures to incorporate irregular-shaped
facility properties after considering public comments. This resulted in
a change in the action level from 3 [micro]g/m\3\ to 7 [micro]g/m\3\.
This action level reflects emissions from the whole site and takes into
account all emissions from the coke oven facilities. In addition, in
the final rule we are requiring fenceline monitoring and corrective
action only at ByP coke oven facilities and not at HNR facilities
because the HNR facilities operate under negative pressure, already
have very low fugitive benzene emissions, and the NESHAP requires
monitoring to ensure no fugitive emissions at HNR facilities.
Furthermore, in this final rule, the EPA is providing an opportunity
for facilities to develop SSMPs to account for the contribution to the
fenceline monitoring by benzene emissions from co-located sources that
are not currently subject to regulation under CAA section 112 (such as
the non-listed CBRPs).
c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors and Negative Pressure
Monitoring in Ovens or Tunnels
We are not requiring pressure monitoring in both ovens and common
tunnels in the final rule for COB because we did not receive any
comments in support of requiring both and we received information on
the cost and other problems with installing and maintaining oven
monitors. We received two comments describing the redundance of
requiring both as well as description of the safety problems with using
pressure monitors within ovens. In the final rule, we are requiring
both zero leaks from HNR oven doors and pressure monitoring in either
ovens or common tunnels. From the comments received, we learned that
HNR facilities already monitor ovens to ensure there are no leaks, so
the final rule codifies this practice. The compliance date for zero
leaking oven doors and pressure monitoring at HNR facilities is July 7,
2025.
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Doors
We revised the proposed equation to estimate COE emissions from
leaking doors based on VE test data received from two facilities that
was obtained by the EPA in 2022 and combined these data with VE test
results from 1981, which was when the equation first was developed. In
addition, we received a comment that the equation did not account for
the case where no VE from

[[Page 55707]]

oven doors is observed from the yard but VE from ovens is observed from
the bench. A linear regression analysis of the combined 1981 and 2022
data provided a revised equation that reflects these data and addresses
the comments.
e. Opacity Limits for HNR B/W Stacks
We are finalizing a 20 percent opacity limit for HNR B/W stacks
under the PQBS NESHAP because this limit is currently required and
achieved at the one HNR facility with continuous bypass and because the
opacity limit in the rule will ensure continued compliance for this
source as well as the other HNR B/W sources with intermittent bypass.
We are requiring weekly testing for HNR waste heat stacks, which
operate continuously. For HNR bypass stacks, which operate
intermittently, testing is required weekly if and when bypass occurs
longer than one hour so as to enable testing using the procedures in
EPA Method 9 and so as to not prolong emitting bypass exhaust solely
for the purpose of testing. The compliance date for opacity limit on
HNR B/W stacks is July 7, 2025.

C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category?
a. MACT Limits
Consistent with the LEAN decision,\32\ we proposed 17 \33\ new MACT
floor limits for unregulated HAP and processes based on available test
data, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
\33\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Pushing: AG, HCN, Hg, PAHs;
<bullet> ByP battery combustion: AG, HCN, Hg, nonmercury HAP
metals;
<bullet> HNR HRSG main stack: AG, Hg, nonmercury HAP metals, PAHs;
and
<bullet> HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks: AG, Hg, formaldehyde,
nonmercury HAP metals, and PAHs.
Based on the data we had at proposal, we expected all sources could
meet the 17 \34\ new MACT floor limits without additional controls.
Compliance testing was the only costs that EPA anticipated would be
associated with the proposed rule for testing. More details are
provided in the August 16, 2023, proposed rule preamble (88 FR 55858).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. BTF Standards at HNR Facilities Without HRSG
We proposed BTF limits for Hg and non-Hg particulate matter (PM)
HAP metals at HNR facilities without HRSG based the addition of
baghouses and activated carbon injection (ACI). More details are
provided in the August 16, 2023, proposed rule preamble.
2. How did the amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)
change for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
a. MACT Limits
We are finalizing 17 new MACT floor-based standards \35\ for
unregulated HAP and processes that were previously identified in the
August 2023 proposed rule. Some of the proposed 17 emission limits
changed in the final rule to reflect additional data submitted by coke
oven facilities since the limits were developed for the August 2023
proposal, and also from comments received on standardizing limits in
gr/dscf to a specific oxygen concentration. The MACT limits, as
revised, include: (1) HNR main stack limits for AG, Hg, PAH, and PM (as
a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP) based on additional data, and to
standardize all limits to 10 percent oxygen; (2) HNR Bypass stack
limits based on additional data for Hg and PM, and to standardize all
limits to 10 percent oxygen; (3) revised limits for battery stacks
based on additional data for AG, HCN, and Hg, and to standardize the
proposed PM limits to 10 percent oxygen; and (4) revised limits for AG,
HCN, and PAH for pushing based on additional data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the 17 MACT floor limits described above, during the
EPA's review of this Coke Ovens RTR final rule, we realized that we did
not propose standards for eight additional HAP and process
combinations. As a result, the EPA also is finalizing a MACT work
practice standard based on ``good combustion practices'' in battery
waste heat flues to address the organic HAP emissions of D/F, PAH, and
VOHAP from battery stacks. In addition, we are finalizing surrogate
standards for five additional HAP and process combinations for which
many, but not all, test runs were below the detection limits (BDL), as
follows: D/F, formaldehyde, and VOHAP from pushing; formaldehyde from
HNR main stacks; and VOHAP from HNR B/W stacks.
The additional eight unregulated HAP and process described in this
section were documented in the memorandum Maximum Achievable Control
Technology Standard Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor
Cost Impacts for Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart
CCCCC prepared for the proposal, hereafter called the ``Proposal MACT/
BTF Memorandum,'' \36\ which was located in the docket for the proposed
rule (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0859) and has been
available since publication of the proposal in August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCC--Proposed
Rule. D. L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the test data for the 17 HAP \37\ for which MACT floor
emissions limits were proposed included some measurements that were
BDL, the majority of test runs were above the detection limits. With
regard to the eight additional HAP and process combinations identified
for this final rule, many of the test runs were BDL and seven of the
eight had a majority of test runs BDL. For all eight HAP and process
combinations, emissions are low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To address this issue, we are promulgating work practice standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for battery stacks based on ensuring
good combustion in battery waste heat flues for D/F, PAH, and VOHAP
emissions from battery stacks since it is not economically and
technically feasible to

[[Page 55708]]

reliably measure emissions of these HAP, as evidenced by the large
percent of test runs that are BDL. For the other five HAP and process
combinations, we are finalizing a determination that three of the 17
MACT floor emission limits serve as surrogates for these five HAP and
process combinations, and that the five HAP are subject to these
surrogate limits. This is shown in table 7. The limits themselves are
not changing otherwise as a result of this surrogacy determination. The
EPA has used all data available to set valid and appropriate standards
and address these eight unregulated HAP. Recognizing that additional
data would further support appropriate regulation of these HAP, the
Agency intends to obtain additional data, and in a separate, future
action use that data to ensure the appropriateness of these standards.
The three additional emission standards and one work practice
standard apply as follows: (1) the final limits for PAH for pushing
serve as a surrogate for all other organic HAP for pushing, including
D/F, VOHAP, and formaldehyde (all had greater than 55 percent of test
runs BDL); (2) the final limits for PAH from HNR HRSG main stacks serve
as a surrogate for all organic HAP from this source, including
formaldehyde, for which greater than 25 percent of test runs were BDL
and from very limited data (only one test report from one facility);
(3) the final limits for formaldehyde from HNR HRSG B/W stacks serve as
a surrogate for VOHAP from B/W stacks (for which greater than 55
percent of test runs were BDL); and (4) a work practice standard of
``good combustion practices'' during ByP waste heat combustion in
battery flues to minimize organic HAP emissions from battery stacks,
including PAH, D/F and VOHAP.
The good combustion work practice standards require owners or
operators to identify and implement a set of site-specific good
combustion work practices for each battery. These good combustion work
practices should correspond to the facility's standard operating
procedures for maintaining the proper and efficient combustion within
battery waste heat flues. Good combustion work practices include, but
are not limited to, the following:
<bullet> Proper operating conditions for each battery (e.g.,
minimum combustion temperature, burner alignment, or proper fuel-air
distribution/mixing).
<bullet> Routine inspection and preventative maintenance and
corresponding schedules of each battery.
<bullet> Performance analyses of each battery.
<bullet> Maintaining applicable operator logs.
<bullet> Maintaining applicable records to document compliance with
each element.
The work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions from
battery stacks are being finalized under CAA section 112(h) because the
EPA has determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emissions standard. Sections 112(h)(1) and (h)(2)(B) of the CAA provide
the EPA with the discretion to adopt a work practice standard rather
than a numeric standard when ``the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' The ``application of
measurement methodologies'' (described in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B))
means not only conducting a measurement, but also that a measurement
has some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting (i.e., that
the measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not the case here,
where a clear majority of values are BDL using best available
technology.
With regard to surrogacy limits, we conclude that PAHs are a good
surrogate for the other organic HAP (including D/F, VOHAP and
formaldehyde) for the pushing operation because the relative amount of
emissions of the other organic HAP due to the high temperature thermal
distillation process in coke ovens which are expected to be emitted at
a similar degree as PAHs. Regarding the HNR HRSG main stacks, PAHs are
a good surrogate for formaldehyde and other organic HAP because the
afterburners that facilities use to combust any remaining organic HAP
in the oven exhaust are expected to control these organic HAP to
similar levels as PAH. Likewise, formaldehyde is a good surrogate for
VOHAP for HNR B/W stacks for the same reason (i.e., the afterburners
are expected to control VOHAP to a similar degree as formaldehyde).
We also conclude that the additional work practice standard and
surrogacy determinations will not result in any new control costs or
compliance testing costs.
The 17 MACT floor emissions limits,\38\ one MACT work practice
standard based on good combustion practices, and five HAP and process
combinations for which surrogacy determinations have been made are
shown in table 7 of this section. For additional discussion and
documentation of these final MACT standards, see the memorandum Maximum
Achievable Control Technology Standard Calculations, Cost Impacts, and
Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCC--Final Rule,\39\ hereafter referred to as the
``Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum,'' which is available in the docket
for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
\39\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC--Final
Rule. D. L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1,
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.

Table 7--MACT Standards for PQBS Sources in This Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of affected source (new or existing)
Source or process Pollutant -----------------------------------------------
Existing New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pushing............................ AG......................... 0.013 lb/ton coke 5.3E-04 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [3xRDL].
HCN........................ 0.0015 lb/ton coke 3.8E-05 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
Hg......................... 8.9E-07 lb/ton coke 5.1E-07 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [3xRDL].
PAH \a\.................... 4.0E-04 lb/ton coke 1.4E-05 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
-----------------------------------------------

[[Page 55709]]

D/F, formaldehyde, VOHAP... Meet applicable PAH limits and requirements of
40 CFR 63.7290(e).
-----------------------------------------------
Battery Stack...................... AG......................... 0.160 lb/ton coke 0.013 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
-----------------------------------------------
D/F, PAH, VOHAP............ ``Good combustion'' work practices in battery
waste heat combustion flues and meet
requirements of 40 CFR 63.7300(c)(4).
-----------------------------------------------
HCN........................ 0.032 lb/ton coke 7.4E-04 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
Hg......................... 4.5E-05 lb/ton coke 7.1E-06 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
PM......................... 0.13 PM gr/dscf @10% 0.013 gr/dscf @10% O2
O2 [UPL]. [UPL].
HNR HRSG Main Stack................ AG......................... 0.049 gr/dscf @10% O2 0.0034 gr/dscf @10% O2
[UPL]. [UPL].
-----------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde............... Meet applicable PAH limit and requirements of
40 CFR 63.7297(d).
-----------------------------------------------
Hg......................... 3.0E-06 gr/dscf @10% 1.5E-06 gr/dscf @10%
O2 [UPL]. O2 [UPL].
PAH \b\.................... 4.8E-07 gr/dscf @10% 4.7E-07 gr/dscf @10%
O2 [UPL]. O2 [UPL].
PM......................... 0.0049 gr/dscf @10% O2 8.8E-04 gr/dscf @10%
[UPL]. O2 [UPL].
HNR B/W Stack...................... AG......................... 0.12 gr/dscf @10% O2 0.093 gr/dscf [UPL].
[UPL].
Formaldehyde \c\........... 0.0012 gr/dscf @10% O2 1.8E-05 gr/dscf @10%
[UPL]. O2 [UPL].
Hg......................... 1.2E-05 gr/dscf @10% 8.6E-06 gr/dscf @10%
O2 [UPL]. O2 [UPL].
PAH........................ 2.7E-06 gr/dscf @10% 2.7E-06 gr/dscf @10%
O2 [UPL]. O2 [UPL].
PM......................... 0.032 gr/dscf @10% O2 0.022 gr/dscf @10% O2
[UPL]. [UPL].
-----------------------------------------------
VOHAP...................... Meet applicable formaldehyde limits and
requirements of 40 CFR 63.7298(e).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Serves as a surrogate for other organic HAP including D/F, formaldehyde and VOHAP.
\b\ Serves as a surrogate for other organic HAP including formaldehyde.
\c\ Serves as a surrogate for VOHAP.
Note: gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic feet. RDL = representative detection level. UPL = upper prediction
limit.

Based on consideration of public comments and our revised cost
estimates, the EPA is not promulgating the BTF standards for HNR
facilities without HRSG. Instead, these units will need to comply with
the same MACT floor standards that the EPA is promulgating for HNR HRSG
bypass stacks for facilities with HRSG.

3. What key comments did we receive on the amendments pursuant to CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?

We received many comments on the proposed MACT and BTF standards
with comments in favor of the proposed limits, comments requesting more
stringent limits, and comments that were opposed to the proposed
requirements. The key comments on the proposed amendments developed
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) are summarized in this
section along with the EPA's responses to the comments. Other comments
received on these proposed amendments are summarized along with the
EPA's responses in the Response to Comment \40\ document, which is
located in the dockets for these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: A commenter stated that they believe the EPA is not
required by CAA section 112(d) or by the LEAN \41\ court decision to
set new ``gap filling'' MACT floors when the cost of control is extreme
and the benefit of further emission reduction is minimal due to very
low risk to public health. The commenter requested the EPA consider the
cost of meeting the proposed MACT standards as well as the non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements of
doing so. The commenter asserted the following reasons for why they
believe the EPA is not required to set new ``gap filling'' MACT floors
for existing sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Further reductions of these pollutants are not necessary
due to very low risk of the source category;
<bullet> Controlling these pollutants has not been demonstrated for
sources like ByP battery stacks;
<bullet> The cost of adding controls would be exorbitant; and
<bullet> The new standards would not be cost effective due to the
extreme cost of controls and the minimal reductions in these pollutants
that would be achieved.
The commenter urged the EPA to reconsider its long-held
interpretation that costs are not considered in setting the MACT floor.
The commenter argued that interpretation is not reasonable in the
context of a setting LEAN \42\ ``gap-filling'' MACT standards where the
cost of control is extreme and the benefit of further emission
reduction is minimal due to very low risk to public health. The
commenter believes all relevant factors should be considered in that
context, including ``the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter also asserted that the EPA erred in calculating MACT
floors for existing sources based on actual emissions performance
rather than on enforceable limitations to which existing sources are
subject. The commenter argues this contravenes the plain language of
CAA section 112(d)(3), which requires the MACT floor to be based on the
``average emission limitation achieved ``by the best performing
sources.''
Response: Regarding the assertion that the assessment of risk
should affect

[[Pag

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 5, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.