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, 55858-55903 [2023-16620]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55858
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2003–0051; FRL–8471–01–OAR]
RIN 2060–AV19
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments
to the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks (PQBS) source category,
and the NESHAP for the Coke Oven
Batteries (COB) source category. This
proposal presents the results of the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted as required under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the PQBS
source category, and the periodic
technology review for the COB source
category, also required under the CAA.
The EPA is proposing 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. Under
the technology review for PQBS
NESHAP, we are proposing there are no
developments in practices, processes or
control technologies that necessitate
revision of standards for this source
category. Under the technology review
for the COB source category, the EPA is
proposing amendments to the NESHAP
to lower the limits for leaks from doors,
lids, and offtakes to reflect
improvements in technology to
minimize emissions. We also are
proposing a requirement for fenceline
monitoring for benzene (as a surrogate
for coke oven emissions) and a
requirement to conduct root cause
analysis and corrective action upon
exceeding an action level. In addition,
we are proposing: (1) new standards for
several unregulated HAP or sources of
HAP at facilities subject to PQBS
NESHAP; (2) the removal of exemptions
for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction consistent with a 2008
court decision, and clarifying that the
standards apply at all times for both
source categories; and (3) the addition of
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
electronic reporting for performance test
results and compliance reports. We
solicit comments on all aspects of this
proposed action.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be
received on or before October 2, 2023.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of
consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
receives a copy of your comments on or
before September 15, 2023.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us
requesting a public hearing on or before
August 21, 2023, we will hold a virtual
public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for information on
requesting and registering for a public
hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2002–0085 (Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category) and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0051 (Coke Oven Batteries source
category) by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Include Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2002–0085 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0051 in the subject line of the message.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention
Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0085 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051.
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0085 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051,
Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20004. The Docket
Center’s hours of operation are 8:30
a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except
federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID Nos. for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this proposed action,
contact Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (MD–243–02),
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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:
jones.donnalee@epa.gov. For specific
information regarding the risk modeling
methodology, contact 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: moeller.michael@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public
hearing. To request a virtual public
hearing, contact the public hearing team
at (888) 372–8699 or by email at
SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If
requested, the hearing will be held via
virtual platform on August 31, 2023.
The hearing will convene at 11:00 a.m.
Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at
3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a
session 15 minutes after the last preregistered speaker has testified if there
are no additional speakers. The EPA
will announce further details at https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-pushingquenching-and-battery-stacks-nationalemission or https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-batteries-national-emissionsstandards-hazardous-air.
If a public hearing is requested, the
EPA will begin pre-registering speakers
for the hearing no later than 1 business
day after a request has been received. To
register to speak at the virtual hearing,
please use the online registration form
available at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-pushing-quenching-and-batterystacks-national-emission or https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-batteries-nationalemissions-standards-hazardous-air, or
contact the public hearing team at (888)
372–8699 or by email at
SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last
day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be August 28, 2023. Prior
to the hearing, the EPA will post a
general agenda that will list preregistered speakers in approximate
order at: https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-pushing-quenching-and-batterystacks-national-emission, or https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-batteries-nationalemissions-standards-hazardous-air.
The EPA will make every effort to
follow the schedule as closely as
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
possible on the day of the hearing;
however, please plan for the hearings to
run either ahead of schedule or behind
schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes
to provide oral testimony. The EPA
encourages commenters to provide the
EPA with a copy of their oral testimony
electronically (via email) by emailing it
to jones.donnalee@epa.gov. The EPA
also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written
comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions
during the oral presentations but will
not respond to the presentations at that
time. Written statements and supporting
information submitted during the
comment period will be considered
with the same weight as oral testimony
and supporting information presented at
the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to
any aspect of the hearing will be posted
online at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-pushing-quenching-and-batterystacks-national-emission, or https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-batteries-nationalemissions-standards-hazardous-air.
While the EPA expects the hearing to go
forward as set forth above, please
monitor our website or contact the
public hearing team at (888) 372–8699
or by email at SPPDpublichearing@
epa.gov to determine if there are any
updates. The EPA does not intend to
publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a
translator or special accommodation
such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public
hearing team and describe your needs
by August 23, 2023. The EPA may not
be able to arrange accommodations
without advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established
dockets for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0085 (Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category) and
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051 (Coke Oven
Batteries source category). All
documents in the dockets are listed in
https://www.regulations.gov/. 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. With the
exception of such material, publicly
available docket materials are available
electronically in Regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0085 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051.
The EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit electronically to https://
www.regulations.gov/ any information
that you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. This type of
information should be submitted as
discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/
website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means
the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the
EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov/, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about the EPA’s public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit
information containing CBI to the EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55859
through https://www.regulations.gov/.
Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information on any digital
storage media that you mail to the EPA,
note the docket ID, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI, and
identify electronically within the digital
storage media the specific information
that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as
CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI directly to
the public docket through the
procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage
media that does not contain CBI, mark
the outside of the digital storage media
clearly that it does not contain CBI and
note the docket ID. Information not
marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA’s electronic
public docket without prior notice.
Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
Our preferred method to receive CBI
is for it to be transmitted electronically
using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol (FTP), or other online file
sharing services (e.g., Dropbox,
OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic
submissions must be transmitted
directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the
email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as
described above, should include clear
CBI markings and note the docket ID. If
assistance is needed with submitting
large electronic files that exceed the file
size limit for email attachments, and if
you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov
to request a file transfer link. If sending
CBI information through the postal
service, please send it to the following
address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID No’s EPA–
HQ–OAR–2002–0085 or EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0051. The mailed CBI
material should be double wrapped and
clearly marked. Any CBI markings
should not show through the outer
envelope.
Preamble acronyms and
abbreviations. Throughout this
preamble the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or
‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA.
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:
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
55860
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
1–BP 1-bromopropane
ACI activated carbon injection
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the
HEM model
B/W Bypass/Waste
BTF beyond-the-floor
ByP by-product recovery coke production
process
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI confidential business information
CBRP coke by-product chemical recovery
plant
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COE coke oven emissions
delta c lowest concentration subtracted
from the highest concentration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning
guideline
ERT electronic reporting tool
FGD flue gas desulfurization
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HCN hydrogen cyanide
HEM human exposure model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HNR heat and nonrecovery, or only
nonrecovery, no heat
HQ hazard quotient
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
IBR incorporation by reference
IRIS integrated risk information system
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS national ambient air quality
standards
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to
be persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
RDL representative detection limit
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TBD to be determined
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE total risk integrated
methodology.fate, transport, and ecological
exposure model
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
UF uncertainty factor
UPL upper prediction limit
mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
WAS wet alkaline scrubber
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?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What are the source categories and how
do the current NESHAPs regulate HAP
emissions?
C. What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action?
D. What other relevant background
information and data were available?
III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking
A. How do we consider risk in our
decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology
review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk
posed by the coke ovens: pushing,
quenching, and battery stacks source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)?
B. What are the results of the risk
assessment and analyses for coke ovens:
pushing, quenching, and battery stacks
source category?
C. What are our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effect?
D. What are the results and proposed
decisions based on our technology
review?
E. What other actions are we proposing?
F. What compliance dates are we
proposing?
G. Adding 1-bromopropane to List of HAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the other environmental
impacts?
D. What are the cost impacts?
E. What are the economic impacts?
F. What are the benefits?
G. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
H. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The EPA is proposing amendments to
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the
NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries. The
purpose of this proposed 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
Coke Oven Batteries and Coke Ovens
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
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 maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards for the Coke Ovens Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category to determine whether
additional standards are needed to
address any remaining risk associated
with HAP emissions from this Coke
Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category (‘‘residual risk
review’’).
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Regulatory Action
The EPA is proposing amendments
under the technology review for the
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6), including: (1)
revising the emission leak limits for
coke oven doors, lids, and offtakes; and
(2) requiring fenceline monitoring for
benzene along with an action level for
benzene (as a surrogate for coke oven
emissions (COE)) and a requirement for
root cause analysis and corrective
actions if the action level is exceeded.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Under the technology review for the
Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA did not
identify any cost-effective options to
reduce actual emissions from currently
regulated sources under the Coke Ovens
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
NESHAP. However, EPA is asking for
comment on 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 on
whether COE are emitted from ovens
after being pushed and while they are
waiting to be charged again (i.e.,
‘‘soaking emissions’’).
As part of the technology review, the
EPA must also set MACT standards for
previously unregulated HAP emissions
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3). The EPA identified 17 unregulated
HAP or emissions sources from Coke
Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks sources including hydrogen
chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF),
mercury (Hg), and PM metals (e.g., lead
and arsenic) from heat nonrecovery
(HNR) facility heat recovery steam
generators (HRSG) main stacks and
bypass/waste (B/W) stacks, and HCl,
HF, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), Hg, and
PM metals from pushing and coke oven
battery stacks. In this action, under the
authority of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3), we are proposing MACT floor limits
(i.e., the minimum stringency level
allowed by the CAA) for 15 of the 17
unregulated HAP and beyond the floor
limits (i.e., more stringent than the
MACT floor) for two HAP (mercury and
nonmercury HAP metals) from B/W
stacks.
With regard to the residual risk
review for the Coke Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), the
estimated inhalation maximum
individual risk (MIR) for cancer for the
baseline scenario (i.e., current actual
emissions levels) due to HAP emissions
from Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks sources is 9-in-1
million, and the MIR based on allowable
emissions was only slightly higher (10in-1 million), as shown in Table 1.
Furthermore, 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
55861
be applied to reduce these risks even
further, we are proposing that risks due
to HAP emissions from the Coke Ovens
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category are acceptable and the
Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. Therefore, we are not proposing
amendments under CAA section
112(f)(2); however, we note that the
proposed BTF MACT limit for 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. However, 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 because the whole
facility MIR is driven by the estimated
actual current fugitive emissions from
coke oven doors (as described in section
IV.B. of this preamble) and we do not
expect reductions of the actual
emissions from doors as a result of this
proposed rule (as explained further in
section IV.D. of this preamble).
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CANCER RISK REDUCTIONS
Inhalation
cancer risk
Population cancer risk
Item
Estimated annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
MIR in
1 million
Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category ............................
Post Control Risks for the Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source
Category .............................................................................................................................
Whole Facility ........................................................................................................................
Post Control Whole Facility Risks .........................................................................................
≥ 1-in-1
million
9
0.02
2,900
2
50
50
a 0.02
390
2.7M
2.7M
0.2
0.2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures is 0.02 excess cancer case per year (or 1 case every 50 years) and stays approximately the same due to emission reductions as a result of this proposed action.
Furthermore, we conducted a
demographics analysis, which indicates
that the population within 10 km of the
coke oven facilities with risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million is
disproportionately African American.
With regard to other actions, we are
proposing the removal of exemptions for
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction 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 the addition of
electronic reporting for performance test
results and compliance reports for both
NESHAPs.
With regard to costs and emissions
reductions, we estimate that the
proposed BTF limits for B/W stacks will
achieve an estimated 237 tons per year
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
(tpy) reduction of PM emissions, 14 tpy
of PM2.5 emissions, 4.0 tpy reduction of
nonmercury metal HAP emissions, and
144 pounds per year reduction of
mercury emissions. The total capital
costs for the industry (for 1 facility) are
estimated to be $7.5M and the estimated
annual costs for the industry for all
proposed requirements are about $9.1M/
yr for 11 affected facilities.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Table 2 of this preamble lists the
NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the
subjects of this proposal. Table 2 is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
the entities that this proposed action is
likely to affect. The proposed standards,
once promulgated, will be directly
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
applicable to the affected sources.
Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be
affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories
of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and
Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List, Final
Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July
1992), the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category includes emissions from
pushing and quenching operations, and
battery stacks at a coke oven facility.
The Coke Oven Batteries source
category includes emissions from the
batteries themselves. A coke oven
facility is defined as a facility engaged
in the manufacturing of metallurgical
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55862
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
coke by the destructive distillation of
coal.
TABLE 2—NESHAP AND SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION
NESHAP
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks.
Coke Oven Batteries .........................................
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC ....................
a North
40 CFR part 63, subpart L ...............................
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing.
324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing.
American Industry Classification System.
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 action
is available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the
EPA will post a copy of this proposed
action at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-pushing-quenching-and-batterystacks-national-emission and https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-batteries-nationalemissions-standards-hazardous-air.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key
technical documents at these same
websites. Information on the overall
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) program is available at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A memorandum showing the rule
edits that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCCC and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart L proposed in this action are
available in the dockets (Docket ID Nos.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085 and EPA–
HQ–OAR–2003–0051). Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the
EPA also will post a copy of this
document to https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-pushing-quenching-and-batterystacks-national-emission and https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-batteries-nationalemissions-standards-hazardous-air.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
NAICS Code a
Source category
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 112 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA
establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources.
Generally, the first stage involves
establishing technology-based standards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
and the second stage involves
evaluating those standards that are
based on maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) to determine
whether additional standards are
needed to address any remaining risk
associated with HAP emissions. This
second stage is commonly referred to as
the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition
to the residual risk review, the CAA also
requires the EPA to review standards set
under CAA section 112 every 8 years
and revise the standards as necessary
taking into account any ‘‘developments
in practices, processes, or control
technologies.’’ This review is commonly
referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’
When the two reviews are combined
into a single rulemaking, it is commonly
referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology
review.’’ The discussion that follows
identifies the most relevant statutory
sections and briefly explains the
contours of the methodology used to
implement these statutory requirements.
A more comprehensive discussion
appears in the document titled CAA
Section 112 Risk and Technology
Reviews: Statutory Authority and
Methodology, in the docket for this
rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section
112 standard setting process, the EPA
promulgates technology-based standards
under CAA section 112(d) for categories
of sources identified as emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in CAA section
112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are
either major sources or area sources, and
CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards
and area source standards. ‘‘Major
sources’’ are those that emit or have the
potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy)
or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or
more of any combination of HAP. All
other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For
major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2)
provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum
degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost,
energy requirements, and nonair quality
health and environmental impacts).
These standards are commonly referred
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to as MACT standards. CAA section
112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum
control level for MACT standards,
known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ In certain
instances, as provided in CAA section
112(h), the EPA may set work practice
standards in lieu of numerical emission
standards. Pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA must also
consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. Standards more
stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor (BTF)
MACT standards. The EPA evaluates
whether BTF standards are needed
based on emission reductions, costs of
control, and other factors. If EPA
determines that there are potential BTF
standards that might be cost-efffective,
the EPA typicallly develops and
evaluates those BTF control options.
After evaluating the BTF options, the
EPA typically proposes such BTF
options if EPA determines those BTF
options under consideration are
technically feasible, costs impacts are
reasonable, and that the BTF standard
would achieve meaningful reductions
and not result in significant non-air
impacts such as impacts to other media
or excessive energy use. For area
sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the
EPA discretion to set standards based on
generally available control technologies
or management practices (GACT
standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting
focuses on identifying and addressing
any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). For
source categories subject to MACT
standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA
requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is
needed to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or to
prevent an adverse environmental
effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA
provides that this residual risk review is
not required for categories of area
sources subject to GACT standards.
Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the
two-step approach for developing
standards to address any residual risk
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
and the Agency’s interpretation of
‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in
the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene
Emissions from Maleic Anhydride
Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants,
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene
Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54
FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The
EPA notified Congress in the Residual
Risk Report that the Agency intended to
use the Benzene NESHAP approach in
making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p.
ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted
this approach in its residual risk
determinations and the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit upheld the EPA’s
interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in
the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
The approach incorporated into the
CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate
residual risk and to develop standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA
determines whether risks are acceptable.
This determination ‘‘considers all health
information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive
limit on maximum individual lifetime
[cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1
in 10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045). If risks
are unacceptable, the EPA must
determine the emissions standards
necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable
level without considering costs. In the
second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions
standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ‘‘in
consideration of all health information,
including the number of persons at risk
levels higher than approximately 1 in 1
million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts,
technological feasibility, and other
factors relevant to each particular
decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate
emission standards necessary to provide
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health or determine that the
standards being reviewed provide an
ample margin of safety without any
revisions. After conducting the ample
margin of safety analysis, we consider
whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual
risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one
metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated
risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect.
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately
requires the EPA to review standards
promulgated under CAA section 112
and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking
into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)’’ no
less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call
the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not
required to recalculate the MACT floors
that were established during 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 MACT standards for listed air
toxics known to be emitted from the
source category. Louisiana
Environmental Action Network (LEAN)
v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
B. What are the source categories and
how do the current NESHAPs regulate
HAP emissions?
Coke oven facilities produce
metallurgical coke from coal in coke
ovens. Coke ovens are chambers of brick
or other heat-resistant material in which
coal is heated to separate the coal gas,
coal water, and tar to produce coke. In
a coke oven, coal undergoes destructive
distillation to produce coke, which is
almost entirely carbon. A coke oven
‘‘battery’’ is a group of ovens connected
by common walls. There are two types
of metallurgic coke: (1) furnace coke,
which is primarily used in integrated
iron and steel furnaces, along with iron
ore pellets (known as Taconite pellets)
and other materials, to produce iron and
steel; and (2) foundry coke, which is
primarily used in foundry furnaces for
melting iron to produce iron castings.
The process begins when a batch of
coal is discharged from the coal bunker
into a larry car (i.e., charging vehicle
that moves along the top of the battery).
The larry car is positioned over the
empty, hot oven; the lids on the
charging ports are removed; and the coal
is discharged from the hoppers of the
larry car into the oven. The coal is
heated in the oven in the absence of air
to temperatures approaching 2,000
degrees Fahrenheit (°F) which drives off
most of the volatile organic constituents
of the coal as gases and vapors, forming
coke which consists almost entirely of
carbon. Coking continues for 15 to 18
hours to produce blast furnace coke and
25 to 30 hours to produce foundry coke.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55863
At the end of the coking cycle, doors
at both ends of the oven are removed,
and the incandescent coke is pushed out
of the oven by a ram that is extended
from the pusher machine. The coke is
pushed through a coke guide into a
special rail car, called a quench car,
which transports the coke to a quench
tower, typically located at the end of a
row of batteries. Inside the quench
tower, the hot coke is deluged with
water so that it will not continue to burn
after being exposed to air. The quenched
coke is discharged onto an inclined
‘‘coke wharf’’ to allow excess water to
drain and to cool the coke.
This process takes place at two types
of facilities: (1) by-product recovery
(ByP) facilities, where chemical byproducts are recovered from coke oven
emissions (COE) in a co-located coke byproduct chemical recovery plant
(CBRP); or (2) heat and nonrecovery, or
only nonrecovery with no heat recovery
(HNR) facilities, where chemicals are
not recovered but heat may be recovered
from the exhaust from coke ovens in a
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG).
The coke production process
described above is similar at both types
of facilities, except that at by-product
facilities the ovens are under positive
pressure and the organic gases and
vapors that evolve are removed through
an offtake system and sent to a CBRP for
chemical recovery and coke oven gas
cleaning. The CBRPs are not part of the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category or the
Coke Oven Batteries source category.
The CBRPs comprise a separate source
category that is regulated under the 40
CFR part 61, subpart L NESHAP, which
was promulgated in 1989.
At the HNR facilities and the only
nonrecovery with no heat recovery
facilities, as the names imply, the coke
production process does not recover the
chemical by-products. Instead, all of the
coke oven gas is burned and the hot
exhaust gases can be recovered for the
cogeneration of electricity. Furthermore,
the non-recovery ovens are of a
horizontal design (as opposed to the
vertical design used in the by-product
process). Ovens at HNR facilities are
typically 30 to 45 feet long, 6 to 12 feet
wide, and 5 to 12 feet high. Typically,
the individual ovens at ByP facilities are
36 to 56 feet long, 1 to 2 feet wide, and
8 to 20 feet high, and each oven holds
15 to 25 tons of coal. Ovens at ByP
facilities operate under positive
pressure and, consequently, leak COE, a
HAP, that includes both gases and
particulate matter (PM), via oven door
jams (‘‘doors’’), charging port lids
(‘‘lids’’), offtake ducts (‘‘offtakes’’), and
during charging. Ovens at HNR facilities
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55864
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
are designed to operate under negative
pressure to reduce or eliminate leaks but
require maintenance and monitoring to
ensure constant operation at negative
pressure.
There are 14 coke facilities in the
United States (U.S.). Nine of these
facilities use the ByP process and five
use the HNR process, as listed in Table
3. Of these 14 facilities, 11 are currently
operating, with six ByP process facilities
and five HNR facilities. Of the five HNR
facilities, four have HRSGs and one does
not. The one facility without HRSGs
sends COE directly to the atmosphere
via waste heat stacks, 24 hours per day,
7 days per week. At the current heat
recovery facilities, each HRSG can be
bypassed ranging from 192 to 1,139
hours per year, depending on the
facilities’ permits, sending COE directly
into the atmosphere.
TABLE 3—COKE OVEN FACILITIES
Firm name
Parent company
City
ABC Coke ..........................................
Bluestone ...........................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ..................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ..................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ..................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ..................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ..................................
EES Coke Battery .............................
Indiana Harbor Coke .........................
Haverhill Coke ...................................
Gateway Coke ...................................
Middletown Coke ...............................
Jewell Coke .......................................
US Steel Clairton ...............................
Drummond Co. .................................
Bluestone ..........................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ................................
Cleveland-Cliffs ................................
DTE Vantage ....................................
SunCoke Energy ..............................
SunCoke Energy ..............................
SunCoke Energy ..............................
SunCoke Energy ..............................
SunCoke Energy ..............................
United States Steel ..........................
Tarrant ..............................................
Birmingham ......................................
Middletown .......................................
Follansbee ........................................
Burns Harbor ....................................
Monessen .........................................
Warren ..............................................
Detroit ...............................................
East Chicago ....................................
Franklin Furnace ..............................
Granite City ......................................
Middletown .......................................
Vansant ............................................
Clairton .............................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP regulates
both ByP and HNR facilities. Emissions
occur during the pushing process,
where coke oven doors are opened at
both ends of the coke oven and a pusher
machine positioned next to the ovens
pushes the incandescent coke from the
oven’s coke end (or coke side of the
battery) using a ram that is extended
from the coal or push end of the oven
(or push side of the battery) to the coke
end, where coke then leaves the oven.
Particulate emissions that escape from
open ovens during pushing are collected
by particulate control devices such as
baghouses, cyclones, and scrubbers that
remove metal HAP in the form of PM.
The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP includes
limits for PM emissions (as a surrogate
for nonmercury metal HAPs) from the
pushing control device, ranging from
0.01 to 0.04 pounds per ton (lb/ton),
depending on whether the control
device is mobile or stationary, and
whether the battery is tall or short,
according to the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP
definitions.2 Opacity (which also is a
surrogate for nonmercury metal HAPs)
during pushing is limited by the
NESHAP to 30 or 35 percent, depending
2 Tall battery in the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP means a ByP
coke oven battery with ovens 16.5 feet (five meters)
or more in height; short battery means a ByP coke
oven battery with ovens less than 16.5 feet (five
meters) in height. Note the two rules (40 CFR part
63, subparts CCCCC and L) differ in their
designation of tall ovens (5 meters for subpart 5C
and 6 meters for Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
on whether the battery is short or tall,
respectively.
The incandescent coke pushed from
the ovens is received by rail quench cars
that travel to the nearby quench tower.
In the quenching process, several
thousand gallons of water are sprayed
from multiple ports within the quench
tower onto the coke mass to cool it. The
quench towers have baffles along the
inside walls to condense any steam and
coke aerosols, which then fall down the
inside of the tower and exit as
wastewater. The Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
requires that baffles limit the quench
towers to 5 percent open space and that
the dissolved solids in the quench water
are no greater than 1,100 milligrams per
liter (mg/L). The Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
also requires the use of clean quench
water.
The battery stack that collects the
underfire hot gases, which surround the
oven and do not contact the coke or
coke gas, into the oven flues and
discharges to the atmosphere is limited
to 15 percent opacity during normal
operation, as a daily average, and to 20
percent opacity during extended coking,
as a daily average, which is the period
when the coke ovens are operated at a
lower temperature to slow down the
coke-making process.
The HAP emissions from HRSG main
stacks and COE from bypass/waste heat
stacks are not currently regulated by any
NESHAP and, therefore, we are
proposing to revise the NESHAP for the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category to add
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
State
AL
AL
OH
WV
IN
PA
OH
MI
IN
OH
IL
OH
VA
PA
Coke
process
ByP
ByP
ByP
ByP
ByP
ByP
ByP
ByP
HNR
HNR
HNR
HNR
HNR
ByP
Currently
operating
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
standards for these emission points. The
exhaust from HRSGs currently is
controlled by flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) units and baghouses for removal
of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and PM,
respectively. The control of PM also
reduces HAP (nonmercury metal)
emissions from the baghouse exhaust.
The Coke Oven Batteries source
category addresses emissions from both
ByP and HNR facilities. At HNR
facilities, the NESHAP addresses
emissions from charging and emissions
from doors (offtake and lids leaks also
are addressed but only ‘‘if applicable to
the new nonrecovery coke oven
battery,’’ which they are not). The HNR
facilities are required to have 0
emissions from leaking doors on the
coke oven battery (and 0 emissions from
leaking lids to ovens and offtake
systems, if any). Door leaks include
emissions from coke oven doors when
they are closed and the oven is in
operation. Charging at HNR facilities
involves opening one of the two doors
on an oven and loading coal into the
oven using a ‘‘pushing/charging
machine.’’ Because coal is charged on
the ‘‘coal side’’ of a HNR battery, there
are no ports with ‘‘lids’’ on top of HNR
ovens for charging coal as there are on
ByP ovens. The Coke Oven Battery
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 and any
new ByP facilities to 0 percent leaking.
For HNR facilities operating before
2004, the 1993 Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP required good operating and
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55865
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
maintenance practices to minimize
emissions during charging. This
requirement for charging affects only
SunCoke’s Vansant (Virginia) facility,
which is a nonrecovery coke facility and
does not recover heat. For HNR facilities
operating after 2004, which includes the
other four HNR facilities (that are heat
recovery) and any future HNR facilities,
the NESHAP regulates charging via PM
and opacity limits, and requires a PM
control device and work practices for
minimizing VE during charging.
For ByP facilities, the Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP regulates emissions
occurring during the charging of coal
into the ovens and from leaking of 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 ovens
and discharging of coal from hoppers of
a car that positions itself over the oven
port and drops coal into the oven. The
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP limits the
number of seconds of visible emissions
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 Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAP by limits on the
percent of doors, lids and offtakes that
leak COE. Doors are located on both
sides of the ovens. 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. The Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP established limits for the
percent of leaking doors, lids, and
offtakes for the current ByP coke
facilities that are shown in Table 4 and
are based on the regulatory ‘‘track’’ of
the facilities. The facilities were
required by the CAA section 112(i)(8) to
choose either the MACT track or the
lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER)
track by 1993 (58 FR 57898). Only one
of the nine ByP coke oven facilities
remains as a MACT track facility today
(Cleveland Cliffs, Middletown, OH). The
remaining eight existing ByP facilities
are on the LAER track.
TABLE 4—LIMITS FOR EXISTING BYP FACILITIES UNDER THE COKE OVEN BATTERIES NESHAP
Limits by track a and effective date
MACT
Emission source
LAER
2005 b
July 14,
(residual risk)
Percent leaking lids .....................................................................................................................
Percent leaking offtakes ..............................................................................................................
Charging (log d) s/charge e ..........................................................................................................
Percent leaking doors—Tall f .......................................................................................................
Percent leaking doors—All other g ..............................................................................................
Percent leaking doors—Foundry h ...............................................................................................
0.4
2.5
12
4.0
3.3
3.3
January
2010
Residual
Risk
0.4
2.5
12
4.0
3.3
4.0
TBD c.
TBD.
TBD.
TBD.
TBD.
TBD.
a The
tracks were established in the 1993 NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries in a tiered approach (58 FR 57898).
in the 2005 RTR final rule for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19992). Only applies to one current ByP facility, which is idle.
c TBD = to be determined, as specified in section 171 of the CAA.
d Log = the logarithmic average of the observations of multiple charges (as opposed to an arithmetic average).
e s/charge = seconds of visible emissions per charge of coal into the oven.
f Tall = doors 20 feet (six meters) or more in height (Coke Oven Batteries).
g All other = all blast furnace coke oven doors that are not tall, i.e., doors less than 20 feet (six meters).
h Foundry = doors on ovens producing foundry coke. Two of the 14 coke oven facilities, both LAER track, produce foundry coke exclusively.
b Established
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
One HNR facility is on the LAER track
(SunCoke’s Vansant facility in Virginia)
and the other four HNR facilities are
under the MACT track. Any future coke
facilities of any type (HNR or ByP)
would be under the MACT track,3 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 Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAP. The positive
pressure operation of ByP ovens makes
it impossible to achieve 0 leaks with the
current ByP coke oven technology.
C. What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action?
The EPA sent two CAA section 114
information requests to industry in 2016
and 2022 (CAA section 114 request).
The CAA section 114 request in 2016
was sent to nine parent coke companies,
which included a facility questionnaire
and source testing request, and resulted
3 See
CAA section 112(i)(8)(D).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
in information gathered for 11 facilities
of which seven were requested to
perform testing. After testing was
conducted and data were submitted, the
EPA was notified that one of the CAA
section 114 request facilities (Erie Coke)
was shut down in late 2019.
The 2016 CAA section 114 request
questionnaire was composed of ten
parts: owner information, general
facility information, regulatory
information, process flow diagrams and
plot plans, emission points, process and
emission unit operations, air pollution
control and monitoring equipment,
economics/costs, startup and shutdown
procedures, and management practices.
The compilation of the facility
responses can be found in the dockets
to this proposed rulemaking (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2002–0085 and EPA–HQ–OAR–
2003–0051).
Through the 2016 CAA section 114
request, source test data were obtained
for HAP and PM emissions at the
following coke stack sources: pushing,
ByP battery combustion stacks, ByP
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
boiler stacks, HRSG main stacks, HRSG
bypass/waste heat stacks, HNR charging
control device outlets, and quench
towers for a total of 18 units among the
seven facilities that performed testing.
In addition, results of daily and monthly
EPA Method 303 leak tests were
obtained for ByP charging, lids, doors,
and offtakes. The EPA sent each facility
its compiled testing results for review,
and corrections, if needed, and
incorporated the facilities’ comments
and revisions into the final results. The
final compilation of 2016 source testing
results can be found in the docket to
this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085
and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051).
The CAA section 114 request in 2022
was sent to six parent companies, which
included a facility questionnaire and
source testing request, and resulted in
information gathered for eight facilities.
In the 2022 CAA section 114 request,
the 2016 CAA section 114 request
questionnaire was resent to six facilities
that already had received the CAA
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55866
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
section 114 request in 2016 to update if
needed and then also sent to two
facilities for the first time. The 2022
CAA section 114 request also included
additional questionnaire sections for
work practices that prevent leaks at ByP
facilities; EPA Method 303 leak data for
coke oven doors, lids, offtakes, and
charging at ByP coke oven facilities;
coke ByP battery stack opacity data and
work practices that prevent stack limit
exceedances; information concerning
miscellaneous sources, such as
emergency battery flares; community
issues; and paperwork reduction act
estimates. The compilation of the
facility responses can be found in the
dockets to this proposed rulemaking
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085 and EPA–
HQ–OAR–2003–0051).
Through the 2022 CAA section 114
request, source test data were obtained
for volatile and particulate HAP and
COE at the following coke point sources:
HRSG main stacks and HRSG bypass/
waste heat stacks. In addition, data and
information were obtained for HAP
from: the CBRP cooling towers, light oil
condensers, sulfur recovery/
desulfurization units, and flares; EPA
Method 303 door leaks from the bench
and yard; and fugitive emissions
monitoring at the fenceline and interior
on site locations. The fenceline
monitoring requirements and results are
described in much more detail in
section IV.D.5. of this preamble. The
CAA section 114 requests sent by EPA
and compilation of source testing results
can be found in the docket to this action
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085 and EPA–
HQ–OAR–2003–0051).
The 2016 and 2022 CAA section 114
request responses and other data for
emissions for coke facilities were used
to populate the risk assessment
modeling input files and included all
source testing results and relevant
questionnaire responses on facility
operations (e.g., stack parameters, stack
locations) as well as estimates for
sources not currently operating.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
D. What other relevant background
information and data were available?
1. Noncategory Emissions
The 2017 National Emission
Inventory (NEI)/Emission Inventory
System (EIS) data were used to estimate
some emissions for the noncategory
sources at coke facilities, such as
CBRPs, excess coke oven gas flares, and
other miscellaneous units not related to
coke manufacturing (e.g., process
heaters, metal finishing, steel pickling,
annealing furnaces, reheat furnaces,
thermal coal dryers, etc.). Other
emissions, such as number of leaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
doors, lids, and offtakes and emissions
from charging, which are regulated
under Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP,
were obtained from CAA section 114
request responses obtained in 2016 and
2022.
A. How do we consider risk in our
decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A. of this
preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP,
in evaluating and developing standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply
a two-step approach to determine
whether or not risks are acceptable and
to determine if the standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on
acceptability cannot be reduced to any
single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he
Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under [CAA]
section 112 is best judged on the basis
of a broad set of health risk measures
and information.’’ (54 FR 38046).
Similarly, with regard to the ample
margin of safety determination, ‘‘the
Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that
information, additional factors relating
to the appropriate level of control will
also be considered, including cost and
economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties,
and any other relevant factors.’’ Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach
provides flexibility regarding factors the
EPA may consider in making
determinations and how the EPA may
weigh those factors for each source
category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of
the MIR posed by emissions of HAP that
are carcinogens from each source in the
source category, the hazard index (HI)
for chronic exposures to HAP with the
potential to cause noncancer health
effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for
acute exposures to HAP with the
potential to cause noncancer health
effects.5 The assessment also provides
estimates of the distribution of cancer
risk within the exposed populations,
cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse
environmental effect. The scope of the
EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with
the explanation in EPA’s response to
comments on our policy under the
Benzene NESHAP. That policy, chosen
by the Administrator, permits the EPA
to consider multiple measures of health
risk. Not only can the MIR be
considered, but also cancer incidence,
the presence of noncancer health effects,
and uncertainties of the risk estimates.
This allows the effect on the most
exposed individuals to be reviewed as
well as the impact on the general public.
The various factors can then be weighed
in each individual case. This approach
complies with the Vinyl Chloride
mandate that the Administrator
determine an acceptable level of risk to
the public by employing his or her
expertise to assess available data. It also
complies with Congressional intent
behind the CAA, which did not exclude
use of any particular measure of public
health risk from the EPA’s consideration
with respect to CAA section 112
regulations, and thereby implicitly
permits consideration of any and all
measures of health risk which the
Administrator, in his or her judgment,
4 Coke Ovens Risk and Technology Review, Data
Summary. 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 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051.
5 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated
with a lifetime of exposure at the highest
concentration of HAP where people are likely to
live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP
that affect the same target organ or organ system.
2. Emissions From CBRP
The emissions from operations at the
CBRP are sources of HAP at ByP
facilities, which are regulated by the
Benzene NESHAP for Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants in 40 CFR part 61. We
intend to list CBRP operations (as we
are calling the co-located plants at coke
ByP facilities) that currently are
addressed under the Benzene NESHAP
in 40 CFR part 61, as a source category
under CAA section 112(c)(5). We
request additional information on the
individual HAP emitted, the process
units that are the source(s) of the HAP
emissions, and the estimated amount of
HAP emissions, if known, by these
CBRP activities. Once we have this
information, we will be in a better
position to finalize the decision to list
and to identify the appropriate scope of
the source category to be listed. Details
on the currently available estimates of
CBRP emissions are located in the
document: Coke Ovens Risk and
Technology Review: Data Summary,4
hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Data
Memorandum,’’ available in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
III. Analytical Procedures and
Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the
analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and
other issues addressed in this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
believes are appropriate to determining
what will ‘‘protect the public health. (54
FR 38057). Thus, the level of the MIR is
only one factor to be weighed in
determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an
MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper
end of the range of acceptability. As
risks increase above this benchmark,
they become presumptively less
acceptable under CAA section 112, and
would be weighed with the other health
risk measures and information in
making an overall judgment on
acceptability. Or, the Agency may find,
in a particular case, that a risk that
includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is
unacceptable in the light of other health
risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. In other
words, risks that include an MIR above
100-in-1 million may be determined to
be acceptable, and risks with an MIR
below that level may be determined to
be unacceptable, depending on all of the
available health information. Similarly,
with regard to the ample margin of
safety analysis, the EPA stated in the
Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes
the relative weight of the many factors
that can be considered in selecting an
ample margin of safety can only be
determined for each specific source
category. This occurs mainly because
technological and economic factors
(along with the health-related factors)
vary from source category to source
category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also
consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as
discussed earlier in this preamble, in
our determinations of acceptability and
ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not
considered certain health information to
date in making residual risk
determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that
may be associated with emissions from
other facilities that do not include the
source categories under review, mobile
source emissions, natural source
emissions, persistent environmental
pollution, or atmospheric
transformation in the vicinity of the
sources in the categories.
The EPA understands the potential
importance of considering an
individual’s total exposure to HAP in
addition to considering exposure to
HAP emissions from the source category
and facility. We recognize that such
consideration may be particularly
important when assessing noncancer
risk, where pollutant-specific exposure
health reference levels (e.g., reference
concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
adverse health effects. For example, the
EPA recognizes that, although exposures
attributable to emissions from a source
category or facility alone may not
indicate the potential for increased risk
of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting
from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of
the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to
which an individual is exposed may be
sufficient to result in an increased risk
of adverse noncancer health effects. In
May 2010, the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR
assessments will be most useful to
decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader
context of aggregate and cumulative
risks, including background
concentrations and contributions from
other sources in the area.’’ 6
In response to the SAB
recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR
risk assessments. The Agency (1)
conducts facility-wide assessments,
which include source category emission
points, as well as other emission points
within the facilities; (2) combines
exposures from multiple sources in the
same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent
and bioaccumulative pollutants,
analyzes the ingestion route of
exposure. In addition, the RTR risk
assessments consider aggregate cancer
risk from all carcinogens and aggregated
noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target
organ system.
Although we are interested in placing
source category and facility-wide HAP
risk in the context of total HAP risk
from all sources combined in the
vicinity of each source, we note there
are uncertainties of doing so. Estimates
of total HAP risk from emission sources
other than those that we have studied in
depth during this RTR review would
have significantly greater associated
uncertainties than the source category or
facility-wide estimates.
B. How do we perform the technology
review?
Our technology review primarily
focuses on the identification and
evaluation of developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT
standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze
their technical feasibility, estimated
6 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and
Technology Review Methods Panel are provided in
their report, which is available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/
documents/epa-sab-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55867
costs, energy implications, and nonair
environmental impacts. We also
consider the emission reductions
associated with applying each
development. This analysis informs our
decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to
revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to
new sources versus retrofitting existing
sources. For this exercise, we consider
any of the following to be a
‘‘development’’:
• Any add-on control technology or
other equipment that was not identified
and considered during development of
the original MACT standards;
• Any improvements in add-on
control technology or other equipment
(that were identified and considered
during development of the original
MACT standards) that could result in
additional emissions reduction;
• Any work practice or operational
procedure that was not identified or
considered during development of the
original MACT standards;
• Any process change or pollution
prevention alternative that could be
broadly applied to the industry and that
was not identified or considered during
development of the original MACT
standards; and
• Any significant changes in the cost
(including cost effectiveness) of
applying controls (including controls
the EPA considered during the
development of the original MACT
standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices,
processes, and control technologies that
were considered at the time we
originally developed or last updated the
NESHAP, we review a variety of data
sources in our investigation of potential
practices, processes, or controls. We
also review the NESHAP and the
available data to determine if there are
any unregulated emissions of HAP
within the source categories and
evaluate this data for use in developing
new emission standards. See sections
II.C. and II.D. of this preamble for
information on the specific data sources
that were reviewed as part of the
technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk
posed by the coke ovens: pushing,
quenching, and battery stacks source
category?
In this section, we provide a complete
description of the types of analyses that
we generally perform during the risk
assessment process. In some cases, we
do not perform a specific analysis
because it is not relevant. For example,
in the absence of emissions of HAP
known to be persistent and
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55868
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
bioaccumulative in the environment
(PB–HAP), we would not perform a
multipathway exposure assessment.
Where we do not perform an analysis,
we state that we do not and provide the
reason. While we present all of our risk
assessment methods, we only present
risk assessment results for the analyses
actually conducted (see section IV.B. of
this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment
that provides estimates of the MIR for
cancer posed by the HAP emissions
from each source in the source category,
the HI for chronic exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the HQ for acute
exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of
the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence,
and an evaluation of the potential for an
adverse environmental effect. The eight
sections that follow this paragraph
describe how we estimated emissions
and conducted the risk assessment. The
docket for this rulemaking contains the
following document which provides
more information on the risk assessment
inputs and models: 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.7 The methods used to assess risk
(as described in the eight primary steps
below) are consistent with those
described by the EPA in the document
reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB
in 2009; 8 and described in the SAB
review report issued in 2010. They are
also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that
report.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
1. How did we estimate actual
emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category emits
HAP from pushing of coke out of ovens,
ByP battery (combustion) stacks, HNR
HRSG control device main stacks, and
quench towers; and volatile and
particulate COE from HNR HRSG
bypass/waste heat stacks. Emissions
7 Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks Source Category in Support of the 2023 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule. M. Moeller.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085).
8 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR)
Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the
EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—
MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland
Cement Manufacturing. EPA–452/R–09–006. June
2009. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/
rtrpg.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
estimates and release characteristics for
HAP and COE from the above affected
sources at current coke facilities were
derived from stack test data obtained
through the 2016 and 2022 CAA section
114 requests. The derivation of actual
emissions estimates and release
characteristics for the emission points
are described in the Data Memoradum,4
which is available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
The affected sources of the Coke Oven
Battery NESHAP include COE leaks
from oven doors, charging port lids, and
offtakes; charging control device HAP
emissions; and visible fugitive
emissions from charging. Emissions
estimates for leaks were derived from
EPA Method 303 data submitted as part
of the CAA section 114 requests (with
estimates for door leak emissions
derived using an equation described in
section IV.D.6. of this preamble).
Emissions estimates and release
characteristics for HAP from charging
control devices were derived from stack
test data obtained through the CAA
section 114 requests. The derivation of
all actual emissions estimates and
release characteristics for sources
subject to the Coke Oven Battery
NESHAP are discussed in more detail in
the Data Memorandum,4 available in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the
RTR emissions dataset include estimates
of the mass of HAP emitted during a
specified annual time period. These
‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower
than the emission levels allowed under
the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under
the MACT standards are referred to as
the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We
discussed the consideration of both
MACT-allowable and actual emissions
in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70
FR 19992, 19998–19999, April 15, 2005)
and in the proposed and final
Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71
FR 34421, 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71
FR 76603, 76609, December 21, 2006,
respectively). In those actions, we noted
that assessing the risk at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable
since that risk reflects the maximum
level facilities could emit and still
comply with national emission
standards. We also explained that it is
reasonable to consider actual emissions,
where such data are available, in both
steps of the risk analysis, in accordance
with the Benzene NESHAP approach.
(54 FR 38044.)
For pushing, the PM limits in the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Battery Stacks NESHAP were used along
with measured HAP and PM data from
the 2016 CAA section 114 request for
pushing operations to estimate
allowable HAP emissions. The ratio of
allowable PM based on the standards to
actual PM was multiplied by HAP
emissions measured in the 2016 CAA
section 114 request to estimate
allowable HAP emissions. For battery
stacks, the ratio of the opacity limits to
opacity data from the 2016 CAA section
114 request was used with HAP test
data from battery stacks from the 2016
CAA section 114 request to develop
allowable HAP emissions for battery
stacks. The ratios of the quench tower
water limit for total dissolved solids
(TDS) to water TDS test data from the
2016 CAA section 114 request were
used along with test data for HAP air
emissions from the 2016 CAA section
114 request for the quench tower to
estimate allowable HAP air emissions
from the quench tower. For HAP from
HRSG main control device stacks and
COE from HRSG bypass/waste heat
stacks, allowable emissions were set
equal to actual emissions, developed
from 2016 and 2022 CAA section 114
test request data because the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks NESHAP currently does not have
emission limits for these sources.
For sources subject to the Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP, the limits for COE
from doors, lids, offtakes, and charging
were used with 2016 and 2022 CAA
section 114 request operating data to
estimate allowable emissions from these
emission points.
Further details regarding the
development of allowable emissions
estimates using data from source test
reports and other parts of the 2016 and
2022 CAA section 114 request responses
are provided in the Data Memorandum4
available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
3. How do we conduct dispersion
modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and
population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term
inhalation exposure concentrations and
health risk from the source category
addressed in this proposal were
estimated using the Human Exposure
Model (HEM).9 The HEM performs three
primary risk assessment activities: (1)
conducting dispersion modeling to
estimate the concentrations of HAP in
ambient air, (2) estimating long-term
and short-term inhalation exposures to
9 For more information about HEM, go to https://
www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modelinghuman-exposure-model-hem.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
individuals residing within 50
kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and
population-level inhalation risk using
the exposure estimates and quantitative
dose-response information.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD,
used by the HEM model, is one of the
EPA’s preferred models for assessing air
pollutant concentrations from industrial
facilities.10 To perform the dispersion
modeling and to develop the
preliminary risk estimates, HEM draws
on three data libraries. The first is a
library of meteorological data, which is
used for dispersion calculations. This
library includes 1 year (2019) of hourly
surface and upper air observations from
838 meteorological stations selected to
provide coverage of the United States
and Puerto Rico. A second library of
United States Census Bureau census
block 11 internal point locations and
populations provides the basis of
human exposure calculations (U.S.
Census, 2010). In addition, for each
census block, the census library
includes the elevation and controlling
hill height, which are also used in
dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response
values is used to estimate health risk.
These are discussed below.
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for
chronic exposures, we use the estimated
annual average ambient air
concentrations of each HAP emitted by
each source in the source category. The
HAP air concentrations at each nearby
census block centroid located within 50
km of the facility are a surrogate for the
chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who
reside in that census block. A distance
of 50 km is consistent with the
limitations of Gaussian dispersion
models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR
as the cancer risk associated with a
continuous lifetime (24 hours per day,
7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70
years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each
inhabited census block. We calculate
individual cancer risk by multiplying
the estimated lifetime exposure to the
ambient concentration of each HAP (in
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) by
10 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air
Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General
Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion
Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218,
November 9, 2005).
11 A census block is the smallest geographic area
for which census statistics are tabulated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an
individual’s incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of
exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic
meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs
from the EPA’s Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For
carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable
sources of cancer dose-response values,
often using California EPA (CalEPA)
UREs, where available. In cases where
new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in
a manner consistent with EPA
guidelines and have undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by
the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in
addition to, other values, if appropriate.
The pollutant-specific dose-response
values used to estimate health risk are
available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/
dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer
risks associated with exposure to HAP
emissions from each facility in the
source category, we sum the risks for
each of the carcinogenic HAP 12 emitted
by the modeled facility. We estimate
12 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic
to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’
and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with
the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen,
and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are
the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51
FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the
document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
(EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a
supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both
documents can be obtained from https://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=
20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944.
Summing the risk of these individual compounds
to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach
that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their
2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—
an SAB Advisory, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100JOEY.
TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&
Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=
&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&
TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=
&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=
&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&
File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%
20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000033%
5CP100JOEY.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&
Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&
ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/
i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=
ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&
BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&
ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55869
cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source
category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated
for any of those census blocks. In
addition to calculating the MIR, we
estimate the distribution of individual
cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals
within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified
risk range. We also estimate annual
cancer incidence by multiplying the
estimated lifetime cancer risk at each
census block by the number of people
residing in that block, summing results
for all of the census blocks, and then
dividing this result by a 70-year
lifetime.
To assess the risk of noncancer health
effects from chronic exposure to HAP,
we calculate either an HQ or a target
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI).
We calculate an HQ when a single
noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more
than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we
sum the HQ for each of the HAP that
affects a common target organ or target
organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The
HQ is the estimated exposure divided
by the chronic noncancer dose-response
value, which is a value selected from
one of several sources. The preferred
chronic noncancer dose-response value
is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human
population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime’’ (https://
iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/
termreg/searchandretrieve/
glossariesandkeywordlists/
search.do?details=&vocabName=
IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an
RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available
or where the EPA determines that using
a value other than the RfC is
appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from
the following prioritized sources, which
define their dose-response values
similarly to the EPA: (1) the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2)
the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure
Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/
crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as
noted above, a scientifically credible
dose-response value that has been
developed in a manner consistent with
the EPA guidelines and has undergone
a peer review process similar to that
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55870
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific
dose-response values used to estimate
health risks are available at https://
www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP
That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
For each HAP for which appropriate
acute inhalation dose-response values
are available, the EPA also assesses the
potential health risks due to acute
exposure. For these assessments, the
EPA makes conservative assumptions
about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. As part of our efforts
to continually improve our
methodologies to evaluate the risks that
HAP emitted from categories of
industrial sources pose to human health
and the environment,13 we revised our
treatment of meteorological data to use
reasonable worst-case air dispersion
conditions in our acute risk screening
assessments instead of worst-case air
dispersion conditions. This revised
treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in
more detail in Residual Risk Assessment
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks Source Category in
Support of the 2023 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule and
in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical
Support Document for Acute Risk
Screening Assessment. This revised
approach has been used in this
proposed rule and in all other RTR
rulemakings proposed on or after June 3,
2019.
To assess the potential acute risk to
the maximally exposed individual, we
use the peak hourly emission rate for
each emission point,14 reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions
(i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of
highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the
source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur
13 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to
Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A
Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017.
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
14 In the absence of hourly emission data, we
develop estimates of maximum hourly emission
rates by multiplying the average actual annual
emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account
for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk
Assessment for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks in Support of the 2023 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix
5 of the report: Technical Support Document for
Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
and that a person is present at the point
of maximum exposure.
To characterize the potential health
risks associated with estimated acute
inhalation exposures to a HAP, we
generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs,
acute exposure guideline levels
(AEGLs), and emergency response
planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour
exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is
calculated by dividing the estimated
acute exposure concentration by the
acute dose-response value. For each
HAP for which acute dose-response
values are available, the EPA calculates
acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the
concentration level at or below which
no adverse health effects are anticipated
for a specified exposure duration.’’ 15
Acute RELs are based on the most
sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect
reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are
designed to protect the most sensitive
individuals in the population through
the inclusion of margins of safety.
Because margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and
uncertainties, exceeding the REL does
not automatically indicate an adverse
health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general
public and are applicable to emergency
exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8
hours.16 They are guideline levels for
‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term
exposures to airborne concentrations of
acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’
Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically
defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration
(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or
mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of
a substance above which it is predicted
that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could
experience notable discomfort,
irritation, or certain asymptomatic
nonsensory effects. However, the effects
15 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I,
The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure
Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary.
16 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing
Operating Procedures for Developing Acute
Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_
operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended
in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues
to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://
www.epa.gov/aegl).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are not disabling and are transient and
reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’
The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne
concentrations below AEGL–1 represent
exposure levels that can produce mild
and progressively increasing but
transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id.
AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/
m3) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population,
including susceptible individuals, could
experience irreversible or other serious,
long-lasting adverse health effects or an
impaired ability to escape.’’ Id.
ERPGs are developed, by the
American Industrial Hygiene
Association (AIHA), for emergency
planning and are intended to be healthbased guideline concentrations for
single exposures to chemicals. The
ERPG–1 is the maximum airborne
concentration, established by AIHI
below which it is believed that nearly
all individuals could be exposed for up
to 1 hour without experiencing other
than mild transient adverse health
effects or without perceiving a clearly
defined, objectionable odor. Similarly,
the ERPG–2 is the maximum airborne
concentration, established by AIHA,
below which it is believed that nearly
all individuals could be exposed for up
to 1 hour without experiencing or
developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could
impair an individual’s ability to take
protective action.
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure
durations is typically lower than its
corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1.
Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the
same as the corresponding ERPG–1s,
and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG–
2s. The maximum HQs from our acute
inhalation screening risk assessment
typically result when we use the acute
REL for a HAP. In cases where the
maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also
report the HQ based on the next highest
acute dose-response value (usually the
AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1).
For these source categories, a factor of
2 was applied to actual emissions to
calculate the acute emissions. Coke
oven charging, pushing, and quenching
operations maintain largely consistent
hour-to-hour pushing rates because
plants are constrained by oven capacity,
coking temperatures, coking times, and
plant design/equipment. Coke plants
may have small deviations in short-term
emission rates from annual average
emission rates. An analysis of hourly
pushing records at five coke plants
showed that the hourly pushing rate
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
does not deviate significantly from the
annual average pushing rate, with
multipliers ranging from 1.26 to 2.06.17
Acute levels of HAP emissions from
other coke emission sources are thought
to mirror the pushing emissions based
on a reasonable expectation that those
levels would mirror the acute levels
estimated for pushing operations;
therefore, an acute factor of two was
used for all sources at coke facilities. A
further discussion of why this factor
was chosen can be found in the Data
Memorandum,4 located in the docket for
the rule. We request comments on the
validity of the assumption of two for an
acute factor.
In our acute inhalation screening risk
assessment, acute impacts are deemed
negligible for HAP for which acute HQs
are less than or equal to 1, and no
further analysis is performed for these
HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from
the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess the site-specific data to ensure
that the acute HQ is at an off-site
location.
4. How do we conduct the
multipathway exposure and risk
screening assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening
assessment examining the potential for
significant human health risks due to
exposures via routes other than
inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first
determine whether any sources in the
source categories emit any HAP known
to be persistent and bioaccumulative in
the environment, as identified in the
EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment
Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/riskassessment-and-modeling-air-toxicsrisk-assessment-reference-library).
For the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category, we identified PB–HAP
emissions of arsenic, cadmium, dioxin,
lead, mercury and POMs (polycyclic
organic matter), so we proceeded to the
next step of the evaluation. Except for
lead, the human health risk screening
assessment for PB–HAP consists of three
progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening
assessment, we determine whether the
magnitude of the facility-specific
emissions of PB–HAP warrants further
evaluation to characterize human health
risk through ingestion exposure. To
facilitate this step, we evaluate
emissions against previously developed
17 Personal
communication (email). A.C.
Dittenhoefer, Coke Oven Environmental Task Force
(COETF) of the American Coke and Coal Chemicals
Institute, with D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. August 31, 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
screening threshold emission rates for
several PB–HAP that are based on a
hypothetical upper-end screening
exposure scenario developed for use in
conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk
Integrated Methodology. Fate,
Transport, and Ecological Exposure
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with
screening threshold emission rates are
arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins
and furans, mercury compounds, and
POM. Based on the EPA estimates of
toxicity and bioaccumulation potential,
these pollutants represent a
conservative list for inclusion in
multipathway risk assessments for RTR
rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_
reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we
compare the facility-specific emission
rates of these PB–HAP to the screening
threshold emission rates for each PB–
HAP to assess the potential for
significant human health risks via the
ingestion pathway. We call this
application of the TRIM.FaTE model the
Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of
a facility’s actual emission rate to the
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate
is a ‘‘screening value.’’
We derive the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rates for these PB–
HAP (other than lead compounds) to
correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million
(i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and
furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause
noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium
compounds and mercury compounds), a
maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate
of any one PB–HAP or combination of
carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1
screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate for
any facility (i.e., the screening value is
greater than 1), we conduct a second
screening assessment, which we call the
Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2
screening assessment separates the Tier
1 combined fisher and farmer exposure
scenario into fisher, farmer, and
gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment,
the location of each facility that exceeds
a Tier 1 screening threshold emission
rate is used to refine the assumptions
associated with the Tier 1 fisher and
farmer exposure scenarios at that
facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/
or farm is located near the facility. As
part of the Tier 2 screening assessment,
we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
database to identify actual waterbodies
within 50 km of each facility and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55871
assume the fisher only consumes fish
from lakes within that 50 km zone. We
also examine the differences between
local meteorology near the facility and
the meteorology used in the Tier 1
screening assessment. We then adjust
the previously-developed Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates for
each PB–HAP for each facility based on
an understanding of how exposure
concentrations estimated for the
screening scenario change with the use
of local meteorology and the USGS lakes
database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we
maintain an assumption that the farm is
located within 0.5 km of the facility and
that the farmer consumes meat, eggs,
dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced
near the facility. We may further refine
the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to
characterize a range of exposures, with
the gardener scenario being more
plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the
gardener scenario, we assume the
gardener consumes home-produced
eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at
the same ingestion rate as the farmer.
The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on
the high-end food intake assumptions
that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile
fish consumption) 18 and locally grown
or raised foods (90th percentile
consumption of locally grown or raised
foods for the farmer and gardener
scenarios).19 If PB–HAP emission rates
do not result in a Tier 2 screening value
greater than 1, we consider those PB–
HAP emissions to pose risks below a
level of concern. If the PB–HAP
emission rates for a facility exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission
rates, we may conduct a Tier 3
screening assessment.
There are several analyses that can be
included in a Tier 3 screening
assessment, depending upon the extent
of refinement warranted, including
validating that the lakes are fishable,
locating residential/garden locations for
urban and/or rural settings, considering
plume-rise to estimate emissions lost
above the mixing layer, and considering
hourly effects of meteorology and
plume-rise on chemical fate and
transport (a time-series analysis). If
necessary, the EPA may further refine
the screening assessment through a sitespecific assessment.
18 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish
and game: Exposures of high end recreationists.
International Journal of Environmental Health
Research, 12:343–354.
19 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011
Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F,
2011.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55872
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
In evaluating the potential
multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing
a screening threshold emission rate, we
compare maximum estimated chronic
inhalation exposure concentrations to
the level of the current National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for lead.20 Values below the level of the
primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are
considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
For further information on the
multipathway assessment approach, see
the 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
available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we conduct the
environmental risk screening
assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect,
Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
The EPA conducts a screening
assessment to examine the potential for
an adverse environmental effect as
required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of
the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA
defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’
as ‘‘any significant and widespread
adverse effect, which may reasonably be
anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or
other natural resources, including
adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or
significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad
areas.’’
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which
are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’
in its screening assessment: six PB–HAP
and two acid gases. The PB–HAP
included in the screening assessment
are arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, dioxins/furans, POM,
mercury (both inorganic mercury and
methyl mercury), and lead compounds.
The acid gases included in the screening
20 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal
standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is
requisite to protect public health and provide an
adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))—
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard
(requiring, among other things, that the standard
provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect
public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS
is a reasonable measure of determining risk
acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene
NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the
most susceptible group in the human population—
children, including children living near major lead
emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73
FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the
primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step
is conservative since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
The HAP that persist and
bioaccumulate are of particular
environmental concern because they
accumulate in the soil, sediment, and
water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are
included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to
terrestrial plants. In the environmental
risk screening assessment, we evaluate
the following four exposure media:
terrestrial soils, surface water bodies
(includes water-column and benthic
sediments), fish consumed by wildlife,
and air. Within these four exposure
media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are
defined by the ecological entity and its
attributes. For PB–HAP (other than
lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are
included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant
communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a
concentration of HAP that has been
linked to a particular environmental
effect level. For each environmental
HAP, we identified the available
ecological benchmarks for each
assessment endpoint. We identified,
where possible, ecological benchmarks
at the following effect levels: probable
effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple
effect levels were available for a
particular PB–HAP and assessment
endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine
whether ecological risks exist and, if so,
whether the risks could be considered
significant and widespread.
For further information on how the
environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a
discussion of the risk metrics used, how
the environmental HAP were identified,
and how the ecological benchmarks
were selected, see Appendix 9 of the
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 available in the docket
for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening
Methodology
For the environmental risk screening
assessment, the EPA first determined
whether any facilities in the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category emitted any of
the environmental HAP. For the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category, we identified
emissions of arsenic, cadmium, dioxin,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury
and divalent mercury), and POMs.
Because one or more of these
environmental HAP are emitted by at
least one facility in the source category,
we proceeded to the second step of the
evaluation for the source category.
c. PB–HAP Methodology
The environmental screening
assessment includes six PB–HAP,
arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, dioxins/furans, POM,
mercury (both inorganic mercury and
methyl mercury), and lead compounds.
With the exception of lead, the
environmental risk screening
assessment for PB–HAP consists of three
tiers. The first tier of the environmental
risk screening assessment uses the same
health-protective conceptual model that
is used for the Tier 1 human health
screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE
model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rates. The screening threshold
emission rates represent the emission
rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the
facility that equal the relevant ecological
benchmark. To assess emissions from
each facility in the category, the
reported emission rate for each PB–HAP
was compared to the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP
for each assessment endpoint and effect
level. If emissions from a facility do not
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the
screening assessment, and, therefore, is
not evaluated further under the
screening approach. If emissions from a
facility exceed the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental
screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to
account for local meteorology and the
actual location of lakes in the vicinity of
facilities that did not pass the Tier 1
screening assessment. For soils, we
evaluate the average soil concentration
for all soil parcels within a 7.5 kmradius for each facility and PB–HAP.
For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for
each facility for each pollutant is used.
If emission concentrations from a
facility do not exceed the Tier 2
screening threshold emission rate, the
facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening
assessment and typically is not
evaluated further. If emissions from a
facility exceed the Tier 2 screening
threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health
risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
environmental screening assessment, we
examine the suitability of the lakes
around the facilities to support life and
remove those that are not suitable (e.g.,
lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for
plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour
time-series assessments. If these Tier 3
adjustments to the screening threshold
emission rates still indicate the
potential for an adverse environmental
effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds
the screening threshold emission rate),
we may elect to conduct a more refined
assessment using more site-specific
information. If, after additional
refinement, the facility emission rate
still exceeds the screening threshold
emission rate, the facility may have the
potential to cause an adverse
environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect from lead,
we compared the average modeled air
concentrations (from HEM) of lead
around each facility in the source
category to the level of the secondary
NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead
NAAQS is a reasonable means of
evaluating environmental risk because it
is set to provide substantial protection
against adverse welfare effects which
can include ‘‘effects on soils, water,
crops, vegetation, man-made materials,
animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and
climate, damage to and deterioration of
property, and hazards to transportation,
as well as effects on economic values
and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk
Methodology
The environmental screening
assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced
productivity of plants due to chronic
exposure to HF and HCl. The
environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares
modeled ambient air concentrations
(from AERMOD) to the ecological
benchmarks for each acid gas. To
identify a potential adverse
environmental effect (as defined in
section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from
emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate
the following metrics: the size of the
modeled area around each facility that
exceeds the ecological benchmark for
each acid gas, in acres and square
kilometers; the percentage of the
modeled area around each facility that
exceeds the ecological benchmark for
each acid gas; and the area-weighted
average screening value around each
facility (calculated by dividing the areaweighted average concentration over the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
50 km-modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas).
For further information on the
environmental screening assessment
approach, see Appendix 9 of the
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 available in the docket
for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide
assessments?
To put the source category risks in
context, we typically examine the risks
from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the
facility includes all HAP-emitting
operations within a contiguous area and
under common control. In other words,
we examine the HAP emissions not only
from the source category emission
points of interest, but also emissions of
HAP from all other emission sources at
the facility for which we have data. For
this source category, we conducted the
facility-wide assessment using a dataset
compiled from CAA section 114 request
data from 2016 and 2022, as well as
from the 2017 NEI. The source category
data were evaluated as described in
section II.C. of this preamble: What data
collection activities were conducted to
support this action? Once a qualityassured source category dataset was
available, the facility-wide file was then
used to analyze risks due to the
inhalation of HAP that are emitted
‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations
residing within 50 km of each facility,
consistent with the methods used for
the source category analysis described
above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, the modeled source category
risks were compared to the facility-wide
risks to determine the portion of the
facility-wide risks that could be
attributed to the source category
addressed in this risk assessment. We
also specifically examined the facility
that was associated with the highest
estimate of risk and determined the
percentage of that risk attributable to the
source category of interest. The Residual
Risk Assessment for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
Source Category in Support of the 2023
Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, available through the docket for
this action, provides the methodology
and results of the facility-wide analyses,
including all facility-wide risks and the
percentage of source category
contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we conduct communitybased risk assessments?
In addition to the source category and
facility-wide risk assessments, we also
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55873
assessed the combined inhalation
cancer risk from all local stationary
sources of HAP for which we have
emissions data. Specifically, we
combined the modeled impacts from the
facility-wide assessment (which
includes category and non-category
sources) with other nearby stationary
point source model results. The facilitywide emissions used in this assessment
are discussed in section II.C. of this
preamble. For the other nearby point
sources, we used AERMOD model
results with emissions based primarily
on the 2018 NEI. After combining these
model results, we assessed cancer risks
due to the inhalation of all HAP emitted
by point sources for the populations
residing within 10 km of coke oven
facilities. In the community-based risk
assessment, the modeled source
category and facility-wide cancer risks
were compared to the cancer risks from
other nearby point sources to determine
the portion of the risks that could be
attributed to the source category
addressed in this proposal. The
document titled The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
Source Category in Support of the 2023
Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket
for this rulemaking, provides the
methodology and results of the
community-based risk analyses.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in
risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias
are inherent in all risk assessments,
including those performed for this
proposal. Although uncertainty exists,
we believe that our approach, which
used conservative tools and
assumptions, ensures that our decisions
are health and environmentally
protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions
dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation
exposure estimates, and dose-response
relationships follows below. Also
included are those uncertainties specific
to our acute screening assessments,
multipathway screening assessments,
and our environmental risk screening
assessments. A more thorough
discussion of these uncertainties is
included in the 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 available in the docket for this
action.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55874
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions
Dataset
Although the development of the RTR
emissions dataset involved quality
assurance/quality control processes, the
accuracy of emissions values will vary
depending on the source of the data, the
degree to which data are incomplete or
missing, the degree to which
assumptions made to complete the
datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The
emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for
certain years, and they do not reflect
short-term fluctuations during the
course of a year or variations from year
to year. The estimates of peak hourly
emission rates for the acute effects
screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to
the average annual hourly emission
rates, which are intended to account for
emission fluctuations due to normal
facility operations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in
ambient concentration estimates
associated with any model, including
the EPA’s recommended regulatory
dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a
model to estimate ambient pollutant
concentrations, the user chooses certain
options to apply. For RTR assessments,
we select some model options that have
the potential to overestimate ambient air
concentrations (e.g., not including
plume depletion or pollutant
transformation). We select other model
options that have the potential to
underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not
including building downwash). Other
options that we select have the potential
to either under- or overestimate ambient
levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor
locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties
commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion
models, the approach we apply in the
RTR assessments should yield unbiased
estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the
selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the
risk estimates. As we continue to update
and expand our library of
meteorological station data used in our
risk assessments, we expect to reduce
this variability.
emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory
likely dominate the uncertainties in the
exposure assessment. Some
uncertainties in our exposure
assessment include human mobility,
using the centroid of each census block,
assuming lifetime exposure, and
assuming only outdoor exposures. For
most of these factors, there is neither an
under nor overestimate when looking at
the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the
distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures,
actual exposures may not be as high if
people spend time indoors, especially
for very reactive pollutants or larger
particles. For all factors, we reduce
uncertainty when possible. For
example, with respect to census-block
centroids, we analyze large blocks using
aerial imagery and adjust locations of
the block centroids to better represent
the population in the blocks. We also
add additional receptor locations where
the population of a block is not well
represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response
Relationships
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
Assessment
There are uncertainties inherent in
the development of the dose-response
values used in our risk assessments for
cancer effects from chronic exposures
and noncancer effects from both chronic
and acute exposures. Some
uncertainties are generally expressed
quantitatively, and others are generally
expressed in qualitative terms. We note,
as a preface to this discussion, a point
on dose-response uncertainty that is
stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely,
that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is
protection of human health;
accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk
assessment procedures, including
default options that are used in the
absence of scientific data to the
contrary, should be health protective’’
(the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7).
This is the approach followed here as
summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk
assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper
bound estimate of risk.21 That is, they
represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the
true value of a quantity’’ (although this
is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some
circumstances, the true risk could be as
Although every effort is made to
identify all of the relevant facilities and
emission points, as well as to develop
accurate estimates of the annual
21 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_
internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/
glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&
glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
low as zero; however, in other
circumstances the risk could be
greater.22 Chronic noncancer RfC and
reference dose (RfD) values represent
chronic exposure levels that are
intended to be health-protective levels.
To derive dose-response values that are
intended to be ‘‘without appreciable
risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an
uncertainty factor (UF) approach,23
which considers uncertainty, variability,
and gaps in the available data. The UFs
are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect
against appreciable risk of deleterious
effects.
Many of the UFs used to account for
variability and uncertainty in the
development of acute dose-response
values are quite similar to those
developed for chronic durations.
Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in
extrapolation from observations at one
exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to
derive an acute dose-response value at
another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).
Not all acute dose-response values are
developed for the same purpose, and
care must be taken when interpreting
the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the
dose-response value or values being
exceeded. Where relevant to the
estimated exposures, the lack of acute
dose-response values at different levels
of severity should be factored into the
risk characterization as potential
uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the
selection of ecological benchmarks for
the environmental risk screening
assessment. We established a hierarchy
of preferred benchmark sources to allow
selection of benchmarks for each
environmental HAP at each ecological
assessment endpoint. We searched for
benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e.,
no-effects level, threshold-effect level,
and probable effect level), but not all
combinations of ecological assessment/
environmental HAP had benchmarks for
all three effect levels. Where multiple
effect levels were available for a
particular HAP and assessment
endpoint, we used all of the available
effect levels to help us determine
whether risk exists and whether the risk
22 An exception to this is the URE for benzene,
which is considered to cover a range of values, each
end of which is considered to be equally plausible,
and which is based on maximum likelihood
estimates.
23 See A Review of the Reference Dose and
Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA,
December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of
Inhalation Reference Concentrations and
Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA,
1994.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to
identify appropriate human health effect
dose-response values for all pollutants
emitted by the sources in this risk
assessment, some HAP emitted by the
source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly,
these pollutants cannot be included in
the quantitative risk assessment, which
could result in quantitative estimates
understating HAP risk. To help to
alleviate this potential underestimate,
where we conclude similarity with a
HAP for which a dose-response value is
available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP
for which no value is available. To the
extent use of surrogates indicates
appreciable risk, we may identify a need
to increase priority for an IRIS
assessment for that substance. We
additionally note that, generally
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due
to environmental exposures and hazard
are those for which dose-response
assessments have been performed,
reducing the likelihood of understating
risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed
qualitatively and considered in the risk
characterization that informs the risk
management decisions, including
consideration of HAP reductions
achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are
unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we
conservatively use the most protective
dose-response value of an individual
compound in that group to estimate
risk. Similarly, for an individual
compound in a group (e.g., ethylene
glycol diethyl ether) that does not have
a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response
value from the other compounds in the
group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation
Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties
highlighted above, there are several
factors specific to the acute exposure
assessment that the EPA conducts as
part of the risk review under section 112
of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute
inhalation exposure assessment
depends on the simultaneous
occurrence of independent factors that
may vary greatly, such as hourly
emissions rates, meteorology, and the
presence of a person. In the acute
screening assessment that we conduct
under the RTR program, we assume that
peak emissions from the source category
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion
conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
assumption that a person is located at
this point at the same time. Together,
these assumptions represent a
reasonable worst-case actual exposure
scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely
that a person would be located at the
point of maximum exposure during the
time when peak emissions and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion
conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway
and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we
generally rely on site-specific levels of
PB–HAP or environmental HAP
emissions to determine whether a
refined assessment of the impacts from
multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an
environmental screening assessment.
This determination is based on the
results of a three-tiered screening
assessment that relies on the outputs
from models—TRIM.FaTE and
AERMOD—that estimate environmental
pollutant concentrations and human
exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins,
POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic)
and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine
ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary
NAAQS standard for lead. Two
important types of uncertainty
associated with the use of these models
in RTR risk assessments and inherent to
any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model
uncertainty and input uncertainty.24
Model uncertainty concerns whether
the model adequately represents the
actual processes (e.g., movement and
accumulation) that might occur in the
environment. For example, does the
model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the
soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult
to quantify. However, based on feedback
received from previous EPA SAB
reviews and other reviews, we are
confident that the models used in the
screening assessments are appropriate
and state-of-the-art for the multipathway
and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of
RTRs.
Input uncertainty is concerned with
how accurately the models have been
configured and parameterized for the
assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the
24 In the context of this discussion, the term
‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk
encompasses both variability in the range of
expected inputs and screening results due to
existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well
as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate
the true result.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55875
multipathway and environmental
screening assessments, we configured
the models to avoid underestimating
exposure and risk. This was
accomplished by selecting upper-end
values from nationally representative
datasets for the more influential
parameters in the environmental model,
including selection and spatial
configuration of the area of interest, lake
location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure
of the aquatic food web. We also assume
an ingestion exposure scenario and
values for human exposure factors that
represent reasonable maximum
exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and
environmental screening assessments,
we refine the model inputs to account
for meteorological patterns in the
vicinity of the facility versus using
upper-end national values, and we
identify the actual location of lakes near
the facility rather than the default lake
location that we apply in Tier 1. By
refining the screening approach in Tier
2 to account for local geographical and
meteorological data, we decrease the
likelihood that concentrations in
environmental media are overestimated,
thereby increasing the usefulness of the
screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the
model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume-rise and the height of the
mixing layer. We can also use those
hour-by-hour meteorological data in a
TRIM.FaTE run using the screening
configuration corresponding to the lake
location. These refinements produce a
more accurate estimate of chemical
concentrations in the media of interest,
thereby reducing the uncertainty with
those estimates. The assumptions and
the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario
are the same for all three tiers.
For the environmental screening
assessment for acid gases, we employ a
single-tiered approach. We use the
modeled air concentrations and
compare those with ecological
benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and
environmental screening assessments,
our approach to addressing model input
uncertainty is generally cautious. We
choose model inputs from the upper
end of the range of possible values for
the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the
exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total
exposure. This approach reduces the
likelihood of not identifying high risks
for adverse impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when
individual pollutants or facilities do not
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55876
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
exceed screening threshold emission
rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident
that the potential for adverse
multipathway impacts on human health
is very low. On the other hand, when
individual pollutants or facilities do
exceed screening threshold emission
rates, it does not mean that impacts are
significant, only that we cannot rule out
that possibility and that a refined
assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk
characterization for the source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP
in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening
assessments, where applicable: arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury
(both inorganic and methyl mercury),
POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP
represent pollutants that can cause
adverse impacts either through direct
exposure to HAP in the air or through
exposure to HAP that are deposited
from the air onto soils and surface
waters and then through the
environment into the food web. These
HAP represent those HAP for which we
can conduct a meaningful multipathway
or environmental screening risk
assessment. For other HAP not included
in our screening assessments, the model
has not been parameterized such that it
can be used for that purpose. In some
cases, depending on the HAP, we may
not have appropriate multipathway
models that allow us to predict the
concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond
these that we are evaluating may have
the potential to cause adverse effects
and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate
other relevant HAP in the future, as
modeling science and resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3)?
We are proposing the following
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3): 25 MACT standards for acid gases,
hydrogen cyanide (HCN), mercury, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) from pushing operations for
existing and new sources; MACT
standards for acid gases, HCN, mercury,
and PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury
HAP metals 26) from battery stacks for
existing and new sources; and MACT
standards for acid gases, mercury, PAH,
and PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury
HAP metals) from HNR HRSG control
device main stacks for existing and new
sources.
To determine the proposed MACT
standards, we first calculated the MACT
floor limits. The MACT floor limits were
calculated by ranking the data for each
emission point per HAP and
determining the top 5 sources with
emissions information, as per CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for existing
sources and the best performing source
for new sources. These sources are
referred to as the ‘‘MACT floor pool.’’
However, for two of the emissions
points, ByP battery combustion and ByP
and HNR pushing, we only had data
from four facilities, so the MACT floor
limits were based on data from the four
facilities (except for mercury for
pushing, we had data from five
facilities); and for two other point
sources, HNR Main stack and HNR
bypass/waste stacks, we only had data
from two facilities, so the MACT floor
was based on data from the two
facilities for these two emissions points.
The existing and new source MACT
floor pool datasets were evaluated
statistically to determine the
distributions for both existing and new
sources, by process type and by HAP.
After determining the type of data
distribution for the dataset, the upper
predictive limit (UPL) was calculated
using the corresponding equation for the
distribution for that dataset and
groupings of emission points. The UPL
represents the value which one can
expect the mean of a specified number
of future observations (e.g., 3-run
average) to fall below for the specified
level of confidence (99 percent), based
upon the results from the same
population. The UPL approach
encompasses all the data point-to-data
point variability in the collected data, as
derived from the dataset to which it is
applied. The UPL was then compared to
3 times the representative detection
limit (RDL) to ensure that data
measurement variability is addressed
and the higher value used as the MACT
limit. The EPA also considered BTF
options for each of the HAP emitted
from pushing operations, battery stacks
and HNR HRSG control device main
stacks for existing and new sources. The
EPA did not identify any cost-effective
BTF options for HAP from these three
sources; therefore, the EPA is proposing
MACT floor limits for the HAP from
pushing, battery stacks and HNR HRSG
control device main stacks. For details
on the MACT floor limits and BTF
options see the memorandum titled
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Standard
Calculations, MACT Cost Impacts, and
Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for Coke
Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCC 27 (hereafter referred to
as the ‘‘MACT/BTF Memorandum’’),
located in the docket for the proposed
rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085). The
results and proposed decisions based on
the analyses performed pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) are
presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5—PROPOSED MACT STANDARDS FOR UNREGULATED HAP OR SOURCES DEVELOPED UNDER CAA SECTION
112(d)(2) AND (d)(3) FOR THE NESHAP FOR COKE OVENS: PUSHING, QUENCHING, BATTERY STACKS
[Subpart CCCCC]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Source or process
Type of affected source
(new or existing)
Pollutant
Existing
New
0.0052 lb/ton coke [UPL] ....................
0.0011 lb/ton coke [UPL] ....................
8.9E–07 lb/ton coke [UPL] ..................
5.1E–04 lb/ton coke [UPL].
3.8E–05 lb/ton coke [UPL].
3.4E–07 lb mercury/ton coke [3xRDL].
Pushing .............................................................
acid gases .....
HCN ...............
mercury ..........
25 The EPA not only has authority under CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3) to set MACT standards for
previously unregulated HAP emissions at any time,
but is required to address any previously
unregulated HAP emissions as part of its periodic
review of MACT standards under CAA section
112(d)(6). LEAN v. EPA, 955 F3d at 1091–1099.
26 Nonmercury HAP metals include the following
compounds: antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese,
nickel, and selenium.
27 Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Standard Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyondthe-Floor Cost Impacts for Coke Ovens Facilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC. 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 No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2002–0085.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55877
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—PROPOSED MACT STANDARDS FOR UNREGULATED HAP OR SOURCES DEVELOPED UNDER CAA SECTION
112(d)(2) AND (d)(3) FOR THE NESHAP FOR COKE OVENS: PUSHING, QUENCHING, BATTERY STACKS—Continued
[Subpart CCCCC]
Source or process
Type of affected source
(new or existing)
Pollutant
Existing
Battery Stack ....................................................
HNR HRSG Control Device Main Stack ..........
PAH ...............
acid gases .....
HCN ...............
mercury ..........
PM 28 ..............
acid gases .....
mercury ..........
PAH ...............
PM 28 ..............
New
3.4E–04 lb/ton coke [UPL] ..................
0.083 lb/ton coke [UPL] ......................
0.0039 lb/ton coke [UPL] ....................
5.8E–05 lb/ton coke [UPL] ..................
0.10 PM gr/dscf [UPL] ........................
0.038 gr/dscf [UPL] .............................
2.4E–06 gr/dscf [UPL] .........................
4.7E–07 gr/dscf [UPL] .........................
0.0065 gr/dscf [UPL] ...........................
1.4E–05 lb/ton coke [UPL].
0.013 lb/ton coke [UPL].
7.4E–04 lb/ton coke [UPL].
7.1E–06 lb/ton coke [UPL].
0.014 gr/dscf [UPL].
0.0029 gr/dscf [UPL].
1.5E–06 gr/dscf [UPL].
3.7E–07 gr/dscf [UPL].
7.5E–04 gr/dscf [UPL].
Note: gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic feet. RDL = representative detection level. UPL = upper prediction limit.
For HNR bypass/waste heat stacks,
there is one HNR facility without
HRSGs that sends COE directly to the
atmosphere via waste heat stacks, 24
hours per day, 7 days per week. The
other four heat recovery facilities utilize
HRSGs most of the time (i.e., process
COE through the HRSG units) but send
COE via ductwork to a bypass stack
periodically to conduct maintenance on
the HRSGs or because of other
operational issues. All four heat
recovery facilities with HRSGs have
limits in their permits prepared under
CAA title V requirements that limit the
number of hours per year that they are
allowed to use the bypass stacks. We are
proposing to establish two subcategories
with regard to the HNR bypass/waste
stacks based on whether or not they
process COE through an HRSG, as
follows: (1) HNR facilities that have
HRSGs; and (2) HNR facilities that do
not have HRSGs. We only received CAA
section 114 request test data (in 2016
and 2022) for bypass/waste stacks from
two HNR facilities that have HRSGs
(SunCoke’s Granite City, Illinois, and
Franklin Furnace, Ohio facilities). We
did not receive bypass/waste stacks test
data from the one HNR facility without
HRSGs (SunCoke’s Vansant, Virginia)
nor for bypass/waste stacks at the other
two HNR facilities with HRSGs
(SunCoke’s East Chicago, Indiana, and
Middletown, Ohio, facilities). However,
we concluded that the COE data from
SunCoke’s Granite City, Illinois, and
SunCoke Franklin Furnace, Ohio,
facilities (in units of gr/dscf by
individual HAP tested) are
representative of emissions from
bypass/waste heat stacks for all 5 HNR
facilities (including SunCoke’s Vansant,
Virginia, facility) due to the nearly
identical conditions in the ovens at all
the HNR facilities. The MACT floor
limit, which is determined from the
average of the lowest-emitting top 5
facilities, as stated in CAA section
112(d)(2), is therefore equal to the
average emissions from SunCoke’s
Granite City, Illinois, and SunCoke
Franklin Furnace, Ohio, facilities, where
the COE from bypass/waste heat stacks
are reported as the individual HAP
emissions able to be tested with EPA
test methods (in units of gr/dscf).
To determine whether or not more
stringent MACT limits should be
proposed as BTF standards for the two
subcategories described above, we
initially evaluated potential additional
control options to lower the MACT
limits for five HAP (referred to as ‘‘BTF
Approach 1’’) as follows: activated
carbon injection (ACI) with 95 percent
control efficiency for mercury; wet
alkaline scrubber (WAS) with 95
percent control efficiency for PM as a
surrogate for nonmercury HAP
metals; 26 WAS with 99.9 percent
control efficiency for acid gases (HCl
and HF); regenerative thermal oxidizer
(RTO) with 98 percent control efficiency
for PAH; and RTO with 98 percent
control efficiency for formaldehyde.
Next, we evaluated the BTF costs to
control two HAP (mercury and
nonmercury HAP metals) (referred to as
‘‘BTF Approach 2’’) as follows: a
baghouse with 99.9 percent control
efficiency for PM as a surrogate for HAP
metals; and ACI with 90 percent control
efficiency for mercury. Table 6 shows
the estimated capital and annualized
costs, emission reductions, and cost
effectiveness of the BTF controls for
mercury, PM, acid gases, PAH, and
formaldehyde at all five HNR facilities
for BTF Approach 1. Table 6 shows the
estimated capital and annualized costs,
emission reductions, and costeffectiveness of the BTF controls for
mercury and PM (as a surrogate for
nonmercury HAP metals) for BTF
Approach 2.
TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF CONTROLS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR POTENTIAL BTF MACT
STANDARDS FOR HNR COKE FACILITIES FOR MERCURY AND NONMERCURY METALS FOR B/W STACKS UNDER BTF
APPROACHES 1 AND 2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Approach 1
HNR facilities
with HRSGs
(includes 4
facilities)
Cost item a
Approach 2
HNR facilities
without HRSGs
(includes one
facility)
HNR facilities
with HRSGs
(includes 4
facilities)
HNR facilities
without HRSGs
(includes one
facility)
Capital Cost
Ductwork ..........................................................................................
28 PM
$1,249K
$540K
$1,249K
as a surrogate for HAP metals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
$540K
55878
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF CONTROLS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR POTENTIAL BTF MACT
STANDARDS FOR HNR COKE FACILITIES FOR MERCURY AND NONMERCURY METALS FOR B/W STACKS UNDER BTF
APPROACHES 1 AND 2—Continued
Approach 1
HNR facilities
with HRSGs
(includes 4
facilities)
Cost item a
Approach 2
HNR facilities
without HRSGs
(includes one
facility)
HNR facilities
with HRSGs
(includes 4
facilities)
HNR facilities
without HRSGs
(includes one
facility)
ACI ...................................................................................................
BH ....................................................................................................
WAS .................................................................................................
RTO .................................................................................................
$1,299K
n/a
$225M
$150M
$314K
n/a
$54M
$36M
$1,299K
$30M
n/a
n/a
$314K
$6.6M
n/a
n/a
Total Capital Cost .....................................................................
$378M
$91M
$33M
$7.5M
Annual Cost
Ductwork ..........................................................................................
ACI ...................................................................................................
BH ....................................................................................................
WAS .................................................................................................
RTO .................................................................................................
$315K
$6.7M
n/a
$32M
$57M
$426K
$1.6M
n/a
$7.7M
$13M
$315K
$6.7M
$5.7M
n/a
n/a
$426K
$1.6M
$2.6M
n/a
n/a
Total Annual Cost .....................................................................
$95M
$22M
$13M
$4.7M
60
1.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
160
4.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
54 [90%]
1.5 [99.9%]
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
144 [90%]
4.0 [99.9%]
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$123K
$4.0M
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$11K
$756K
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Uncontrolled Emissions (ton/yr, unless otherwise indicated) b
Mercury (lbs/yr) ................................................................................
Nonmercury metal HAP ...................................................................
Acid Gases ......................................................................................
PAH ..................................................................................................
Formaldehyde ..................................................................................
60
1.5
360
0.0034
0.28
160
4.0
956
0.0091
0.74
Emission Reductions (ton/yr, unless otherwise indicated) b
Mercury w/ACI (lb/yr) [CE% c] .........................................................
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/BH [CE%] ..............................................
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/WAS [CE%] ...........................................
Acid Gases w/WAS [CE%] ..............................................................
PAH w/RTO [CE%] ..........................................................................
Formaldehyde w/RTO [CE%] ..........................................................
57 [95%]
n/a
1.4 [95%]
359 [99.9%]
0.0034 [98%]
0.27 [98%]
152 [95%]
n/a
3.8 [95%]
955 [99.9%]
0.0089 [98%]
0.72 [98%]
Pollutant Cost Effectiveness ($/ton, unless otherwise indicated)
Mercury w/ACI ($/lb) ........................................................................
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/BH .........................................................
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/WAS ......................................................
Acid Gases w/WAS .........................................................................
PAH w/RTO .....................................................................................
Formaldehyde w/RTO ......................................................................
$117K
n/a
$22M
$88K
$17B
$209M
$11K
n/a
$2.0M
$8.1K
$1.4B
$18M
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a Acid gases = HCl and HF; activated carbon injection = ACI; control efficiency = CE; baghouse = BH; not applicable to Approach 2 = n/a; regenerative thermal oxidizer = RTO; wet alkaline scrubber = WAS.
b The COE from bypass/waste heat stacks are broken down into the individual HAP that are able to be tested with EPA test methods. Once
the COE pass through control devices, the emissions are no longer considered COE.
c Typically, ACI achieves about 90 percent mercury control, which is reflected in Approach 2. For Approach 1, the facility also would need to install a WAS for acid gas control. Because there is a small amount of Hg control from the WAS, incorporating the WAS control with the ACI control results in an estimated overall Hg of 95 percent.
Based on consideration of the
estimated capital costs, annualized
costs, reductions and cost effectiveness
of the two approaches described above,
we are proposing BTF emissions limits
for the individual COE HAP, as
nonmercury metals and mercury from
B/W stacks, consistent with BTF
Approach 2 for the subcategory that
includes HNR facilities without HRSGs,
which includes one facility (Vansant).
We are proposing this option because
we estimate that BTF Approach 2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
achieves similar reductions of mercury.
Mercury reduction under Approach 1 is
57 lb/yr for HNR facilities with HRSGs
and 152 lb/yr for HNR facilities without
HRSGs, while mercury reduction under
Approach 2 is 54 lb/yr for HNR facilities
with HRSGs and 144 lb/yr for HNR
facilities without HRSGs. Nonmercury
metal reduction under Approach 1 is 1.4
tpy for HNR facilities with HRSGs and
3.8 tpy for HNR facilities without
HRSGs, while nonmercury metal
reduction under Approach 2 is 1.5 tpy
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for HNR facilities with HRSGs and 4.0
tpy for HNR facilities without HRSGs.
The BTF Approach 2 achieves similar
(although slightly lower) reductions of
mercury compared to Approach 1 at
similar cost effectiveness (slightly
higher $/lb for HNR with HRSG but
same $/lb value for HNR without
HRSGs). However, Approach 2 includes
much more cost-effective controls for
nonmercury HAP (COE) metals and
slightly more reductions.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55879
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
We conclude that both approaches are
cost-effective for mercury. Regarding
nonmercury metals, the BTF Approach
2 is clearly cost-effective based on
historical decisions regarding
nonmercury HAP metals (for example,
the EPA accepted cost effectiveness of
$1.3 million per ton HAP metals in the
2012 Secondary Lead Smelters RTR
final rule based on 2009 dollars). BTF
Approach 1 also could potentially be
considered cost-effective for
nonmercury metals. However, we
conclude it is appropriate to propose the
more cost-effective approach because it
achieves similar reductions of the COE
HAP metals at lower cost. With regard
to the other three COE HAP from HNR
without a HRSG subcategory (acid gases,
formaldehyde and PAHs), based on
consideration of capital costs, annual
costs and cost effectiveness, we are
proposing MACT floor limits (not BTF
limits).
For the nonrecovery facility without
HRSGs subcategory, the potential BTF
limits for COE HAP emitted as
nonmercury HAP metals and mercury
were calculated by assuming the
addition of a baghouse (with estimated
99.9 percent reduction for metals) and
ACI (with 90 percent reduction for
mercury). We then compared the limits
to the applicable 3xRDL value to ensure
a measurable standard. For HAP metals,
the 3xRDL value was greater than the
BTF limit, and thus the proposed BTF
standard was set at the 3xRDL value (a
measurable value), which is 2 percent of
the level of the MACT floor standard.
For mercury, the 3xRDL value was less
than the BTF UPL limit, and thus the
proposed BTF standard was set at the
BTF UPL limit. The results and
proposed decisions based on the
analyses performed pursuant to CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for HNR
bypass/waste heats stacks are presented
in Table 7.
TABLE 7—MACT FLOOR AND BTF STANDARDS DEVELOPED FOR EMISSIONS FROM COKE OVENS HNR HRSG BYPASS/
WASTE HEAT STACKS SOURCES
Type of MACT standard a
Pollutant a b
Source or process
Existing
HNR bypass/waste heat stack for 2 subcategories
(for all 5 HNR facilities).
Heat recovery facilities (only) bypass/waste heat
stack (with HRSGs) subcategory.
Nonrecovery facilities (only) waste heat stack
(without HRSGs) (BTF) subcategory.
acid gases .........................................
Formaldehyde ....................................
PAH ...................................................
Mercury ..............................................
PM 28 .................................................
Mercury ..............................................
PM 28 .................................................
0.13 gr/dscf [UPL] .........
0.0011 gr/dscf ................
2.4E–06 gr/dscf [UPL] ...
1.7E–05 gr/dscf [UPL] ...
0.034 gr/dscf [UPL] .......
BTF 1.7E–06 gr/dscf .....
BTF 6.6E–04 gr/dscf .....
New
0.070 gr/dscf [UPL].
1.9E–05 gr/dscf.
2.4E–06 gr/dscf [UPL].
7.8E–06 gr/dscf [UPL].
0.025 gr/dscf [UPL].
BTF 7.8E–07 gr/dscf.
BTF 6.6E–04 gr/dscf.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic feet. RDL = representative detection level. UPL is the upper performance limit. PM is a surrogate for
nonmercury metal HAP.
b Once the bypass/waste heat stacks COE pass through control devices, the emissions are no longer considered COE.
We are proposing that testing for
compliance with these proposed MACT
and BTF limits be performed every 5
years. Annualized costs for testing,
including recordkeeping and reporting,
are estimated to be $3.2 million/year for
the 11 operating facilities in the source
category, or an average of $290,000 per
year per facility.
We are soliciting comments regarding
other potential approaches to establish
emissions standards for the HRSG main
stacks and bypass stacks, including: (1)
whether the EPA should consider the
emission points all together (i.e., HRSG
main stack plus HRSG bypass stack
emissions) and establish standards
based on the best five units or best five
facilities including emissions from the
HRSGs and their control devices, and
emissions from the bypass over a period
of time (e.g., per year or per month); or
(2) a standard that is based in part on
limiting the number of hours per year or
per month that bypass stacks can be
used.
We are also soliciting comments
regarding the use of bypass stacks. For
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks source category, we
understand that bypass of HRSGs is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
needed for maintenance and repair of
HRSGs or their control devices.
Furthermore, the facilities recover heat
from coke oven exhaust and sell or
produce power for sale, so they lose
revenue when bypass is used; therefore,
it is in the facilities’ interest to not
bypass HRSGs. For this source
category’s HNR subcategory, we have
emissions tests data and, therefore, are
able to propose numeric emissions
limits for these emissions sources. We
solicit comments regarding whether the
EPA should consider other approaches
to regulate bypass stacks.
For details of how these MACT and
BTF standards were developed and
other BTF options that were considered
see the MACT/BTF memorandum,27
located in the docket for the proposed
rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085).
B. What are the results of the risk
assessment and analyses for the coke
ovens: pushing, quenching, and battery
stacks source category?
indicate that, based on estimates of
current actual emissions, the MIR posed
by the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category is 9-in-1 million driven by
arsenic emissions primarily from
bypass/waste heat stacks. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on
actual emission levels is 0.02 excess
cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 50
years. No people are estimated to have
inhalation cancer risks above 100-in-1
million due to actual emissions, and the
population exposed to cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is
approximately 2,900 (see Table 8 of this
preamble). In addition, the maximum
modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for
the source category based on actual
emissions is estimated to be 0.1 (for
developmental effects from arsenic
emissions).
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment
Results
The results of the chronic baseline
inhalation cancer risk assessment
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55880
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—COKE OVEN PUSHING, QUENCHING, AND BATTERY STACKS SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
Number of
facilities
Risk assessment
Maximum
individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million) a
Estimated
annual
cancer
incidence
(cases per
year)
Estimated
population at
increased risk
of cancer
≥1-in-1 million
Maximum
chronic
noncancer TOSHI
Maximum screening
acute noncancer HQ
0.02
0.2
0.1 (arsenic) ................
2 (hydrogen cyanide) ..
HQREL = 0.6 (arsenic).
HQREL = 0.6 (arsenic).
0.05
0.2 (arsenic).
Based on Actual Emissions Level
Source Category Emissions ...........
Facility-Wide b ..................................
14
14
9
50
2,900 ............................
2.7 million ....................
Based on Allowable Emissions Level
Source Category Emissions ...........
14
10
440,000 ........................
a Maximum
individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emission.
b See ‘‘Facility-Wide Risk Results’’ in section III.C.6. of this preamble for more detail on this risk assessment.
Considering MACT-allowable
emissions, results of the inhalation risk
assessment indicate that the cancer MIR
is 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 is 0.05 excess cancer cases
per year, or one excess case every 20
years. No people are 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 is
approximately 440,000. In addition, the
maximum modeled chronic noncancer
TOSHI for the source category based on
allowable emissions is estimated to be
0.2 (for developmental effects from
arsenic emissions).
2. Screening Level Acute Risk
Assessment Results
As presented in Table 8 of this
preamble, the estimated worst-case offsite acute exposures to emissions from
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category
result in a maximum modeled acute HQ
of 0.6 based on the REL for arsenic.
Detailed information about the
assessment is provided in 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 available in the docket for this
action.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Of the 14 facilities in the source
category, all 14 emit PB–HAP, including
arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, mercury,
and POMs. Emissions of these PB–HAP
from each facility were compared to the
respective pollutant-specific Tier 1
screening emission thresholds. The Tier
1 screening analysis indicated 14
facilities exceeded the Tier 1 emission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
threshold for arsenic, dioxins, mercury,
and POM; and two facilities exceeded
for cadmium.
For facilities that exceeded the Tier 1
multipathway screening threshold
emission rate for one or more PB–HAP,
we used additional facility site-specific
information to perform a Tier 2
multipathway risk screening
assessment. The multipathway risk
screening assessment based on the Tier
2 gardener scenario resulted in a
maximum cancer Tier 2 cancer
screening value (SV) equal to 400 driven
by arsenic emissions. Individual Tier 2
cancer screening values for dioxin and
POM emissions were less than 1 for the
gardener scenario. The maximum Tier 2
cancer SV, based on the fisher scenario,
is equal to 10, with arsenic and dioxin
emissions contributing to the SV, with
a maximum individual Tier 2 SV of 10
for arsenic and a maximum Tier 2 SV
of 5 for dioxin emissions. The maximum
POM SV was less than 1. The
multipathway risk screening assessment
based on the Tier 2 fisher scenario
resulted in a maximum noncancer Tier
2 SV equal to 6 for methyl mercury and
less than 1 for cadmium emissions.
A Tier 3 cancer screening assessment
was performed for arsenic based on the
gardener scenario as well as a Tier 3
noncancer screening assessment for
methyl mercury based on the fisher
scenario. The Tier 3 gardener scenario
was refined by identifying the location
of the residence most impacted by
arsenic emissions from the facility as
opposed to the worst-case near-field
location used in the Tier 2 assessment.
Based on these Tier 3 refinements to the
gardener scenario, the maximum Tier 3
cancer screening value for arsenic was
adjusted from 400 to 300. For the fisher
scenario, we evaluated the Tier 2
noncancer SV for methyl mercury, to
determine whether the results would
change based on a review of the lakes,
to determine if they were fishable. This
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
review resulted in no change to the Tier
2 noncancer SV of 6 for methyl mercury.
An exceedance of a screening
threshold emission rate or SV in any of
the tiers cannot be equated with a risk
value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it
represents a high-end estimate of what
the risk or hazard may be. For example,
an SV of 6 for a noncarcinogen can be
interpreted to mean that the Agency is
confident that the HQ would be lower
than 6. Similarly, a Tier 2 cancer SV of
300 means that we are confident that the
cancer risk is lower than 300-in-1
million. Our confidence comes from the
conservative, or health-protective,
assumptions encompassed in the
screening tiers. The Agency chooses
inputs from the upper end of the range
of possible values for the influential
parameters used in the screening tiers,
and the Agency assumes that the
exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total
exposure.
The EPA determined that it is not
necessary to go beyond the Tier 3
gardener or Tier 2 fisher scenario and
conduct a site-specific assessment for
arsenic and mercury. The EPA
compared the Tier 2 and 3 screening
results to site-specific risk estimates for
five previously assessed source
categories. These are the five source
categories, assessed over the past 4
years, which had characteristics that
make them most useful for interpreting
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks screening results. For
these source categories, the EPA
assessed fisher and/or gardener risks for
arsenic, cadmium, and/or mercury by
conducting site-specific assessments.
The EPA used AERMOD for air
dispersion and Tier 2 screens that used
multi-facility aggregation of chemical
loading to lakes where appropriate.
These assessments indicated that cancer
and noncancer site-specific risk values
were at least 50 times lower than the
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
respective Tier 2 screening values for
the assessed facilities, with the
exception of noncancer risks for
cadmium for the gardener scenario,
where the reduction was at least 10
times (refer to EPA Docket ID: EPA–HQ–
OAR–2017–0015 and EPA–HQ–OAR–
2019–0373 for a copy of these reports).29
Based on our review of these analyses,
if the Agency was to perform a sitespecific assessment for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category, the Agency would
expect similar magnitudes of decreases
from the Tier 2 and 3 SV. As such,
based on the conservative nature of the
screens and the level of additional
refinements that would go into a sitespecific multipathway assessment, were
one to be conducted, we are confident
that the HQ for ingestion exposure,
specifically mercury through fish
ingestion, is less than 1. For arsenic,
maximum cancer risk posed by fish
ingestion would also be reduced to
levels below 1-in-1 million, and
maximum cancer risk under the rural
gardener scenario would decrease to 5in-1 million or less at the MIR location.
Further details on the Tier 3 screening
assessment can be found in the 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.
In evaluating the potential for
multipathway risk from emissions of
lead, we compared modeled annual lead
concentrations to the primary NAAQS
for lead (0.15 microgram per cubic
meter (mg/m3)). The highest annual lead
concentration of 0.014 mg/m3 is well
below the NAAQS for lead, indicating
low potential for multipathway risk of
concern due to lead emissions.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A. of this
preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening
assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
29 EPA Docket records (EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–
0015): Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron
and Steel Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule;
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for
the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule; Appendix 11 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and OilFired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule; and
EPA Docket: (EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0373):
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for
Iron and Steel Foundries Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category for the following pollutants:
arsenic, cadmium, dioxin, HCl, HF,
lead, mercury (methyl mercury and
divalent mercury), and POMs.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for
PB–HAP (other than lead, which was
evaluated differently), the maximum
screening value was 80 for methyl
mercury emissions for the surface soil
No Observed Adverse Effects Level
(NOAEL) avian ground insectivores
benchmark. The other pollutants
(arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, POMs,
divalent mercury, methyl mercury) had
Tier 1 screening values above various
benchmarks. Therefore, a Tier 2
screening assessment was performed for
arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, POMs,
divalent mercury, and methyl mercury
emissions. In the Tier 2 screen no PB–
HAP emissions exceeded any ecological
benchmark.
In evaluating the potential for
multipathway risk from emissions of
lead, we compared modeled annual lead
concentrations to the primary NAAQS
for lead (0.15 mg/m3). The highest
annual lead concentration is well below
the NAAQS for lead, indicating low
potential for multipathway risk of
concern due to lead emissions. We did
not estimate any exceedances of the
secondary lead NAAQS.
For HCl and HF, the average modeled
concentration around each facility (i.e.,
the average concentration of all off-site
data points in the modeling domain) did
not exceed any ecological benchmark. In
addition, each individual modeled
concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each
off-site data point in the modeling
domain) was below the ecological
benchmarks for all facilities.
Based on the results of the
environmental risk screening analysis,
we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of facility-wide (or
‘‘whole facility’’) risks was performed as
described above to characterize the
source category risk in the context of
whole facility risks. Whole facility risks
were estimated using the data described
in section III.C. of this preamble. The
maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk posed by the 14 modeled facilities,
based on whole facility emissions is 50in-1 million, with COE from coke oven
doors (a regulated source in the Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAP source
category), driving the whole facility risk.
The total estimated cancer incidence
based on facility-wide emission levels is
0.2 excess cancer cases per year. No
people are estimated to have inhalation
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55881
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 2.7 million people. These
facility-wide estimated cancer risks are
substantially lower than the estimated
risks in the 2005 Coke Ovens RTR
rulemaking (see 70 FR 1992, April 15,
2005). For example, the facility-wide
MIR in the 2005 final rule (based on
estimated actual emissions) was at least
500-in-1 million. The facility-wide MIRs
in 2005 also were driven by estimated
COE from coke oven doors. The
estimated cancer risks are lower in this
current action largely due to the
following: (1) the COE from coke oven
doors in 2005 were based on an older
equation and the current COE have been
estimated using a revised equation (as
described in section IV.D.6. of this
preamble); and (2) the facility driving
the risks in 2005 was a MACT track
facility that is no longer operating.
Regarding the noncancer risk
assessment, the maximum chronic
noncancer HI posed by whole facility
emissions is estimated to be 2 (for the
neurological and thyroid systems as the
target organs) driven by emissions of
hydrogen cyanide from CBRPs, which
are emissions sources not included
within the source category addressed in
the risk assessment in this proposed
rule. Approximately 60 people are
estimated to be exposed to a TOSHI
greater than 1 due to whole facility
emissions. The results of the analysis
are summarized in Table 8 above.
6. Community-Based Risk Assessment
We also conducted a communitybased risk assessment for the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category. The goal of this
assessment is to estimate cancer risk
from HAP emitted from all local
stationary point sources for which we
have emissions data. We estimated the
overall inhalation cancer risk due to
emissions from all stationary point
sources impacting census blocks within
10 km of the 14 coke oven facilities.
Specifically, we combined the modeled
impacts from category and non-category
HAP sources at coke oven facilities, as
well as other stationary point source
HAP emissions. Within 10 km of coke
oven facilities, we identified 583
facilities not in the source category that
could potentially also contribute to HAP
inhalation exposures.
The results indicate that the
community-level maximum individual
cancer risk is 100-in-1 million with 99
percent of the risk coming from a source
outside the source category.
Furthermore, there are no people
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55882
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
exposed to cancer risks greater than 100in-1 million. The population exposed to
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1in-1 million in the community-based
assessment is approximately 1.1 million
people. For comparison, approximately
2,900 people have cancer risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to
the process emissions from the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category, and
approximately 440,000 people have
cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million
due to facility-wide emissions (see
Table 8 of this preamble). The overall
cancer incidence for this exposed
population (i.e., people with risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
and living within 10 km of coke oven
facilities) is 0.07, with 4 percent of the
incidence due to emissions from Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks NESHAP processes, 59 percent
from emissions of non-category
processes at coke oven facilities (that is,
a total of 63 percent from emissions
from coke oven facilities) and 37
percent from emissions from other
nearby stationary sources that are not
coke oven facilities.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
C. What are our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.A. of this
preamble, we weigh a wide 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 Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category, the 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 0.02 excess cancer case per
year. No people are estimated to have
inhalation cancer risks greater than 100in-1 million, and the population
estimated to be exposed to cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is
approximately 2,900. 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Considering all of the health risk
information and factors discussed
above, including the uncertainties
discussed in section III. of this
preamble, the EPA proposes that the
risks for this source category under the
current NESHAP provisions are
acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and
Proposed Controls
The second step in the residual risk
decision framework is a determination
of whether more stringent emission
standards are required to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. In making this determination,
we considered the health risk and other
health information considered in our
acceptability determination, along with
additional factors not considered in the
risk acceptability step, including costs
and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties,
and other relevant factors, consistent
with the approach of the 1989 Benzene
NESHAP.
The proposed BTF limit for PM, as a
surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals,
which we are proposing pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
HRSG waste heat stacks in the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stack source category, described in
section IV.A. above, would achieve a
reduction of the metal HAP emissions
(e.g., arsenic and lead). This reduction
in emissions also would reduce the
estimated MIR due to arsenic from these
units from 9-in-1 million to less than 1in-1 million at a cost of $756,000 per ton
nonmercury metals. The overall MIR for
this source category would be reduced
from a 9-in-1 million to 2-in-1 million,
where the 2-in-1 million is due to
arsenic emissions from the quench
tower at U.S. Steel Clairton. We
evaluated the potential to propose this
same PM emission limit for the HNR
waste heat stacks under CAA section
112(f); however, because the control
technology would be infeasible to
install, operate and implement within
the maximum time allowed under CAA
section 112(f),30 we are proposing the
30 The facility that is affected by the new BTF PM
limit is located between three rivers, a state road,
and a railroad track. Therefore, due to the unique
configuration of facility, the resulting lack of space
available to construct control devices and ductwork
to reduce arsenic emissions from bypass stacks
creates an impediment to a typical construction
schedule. We estimate that the facility will need 3
years to complete all this work and comply with the
new PM limit. Consequently, we are proposing this
standard under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and
proposing the maximum amount of time allowed
under CAA section 112(d) be provided (3 years) to
comply. See section IV.F of this preamble for
further explanation of why we are proposing 3 years
to comply with the BTF limit.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emission limit as a BTF standard under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) only.
We did not identify any other
potential cost-effective controls to
reduce the remaining risk (2-in-1
million) from quench towers (or from
any other emission source). Therefore,
based on all of the information
discussed earlier in this section, we
conclude that the current standards in
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
Although we are not proposing the
BTF PM limit for waste stacks as part of
our ample margin of safety analysis, as
described earlier in this section, we note
that once the proposed rule for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP is fully implemented
(within 3 years), the MIR would be
reduced from 9-in-1 million to 2-in-1
million and the total population living
within 50 km of a facility with risk
levels greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million due to emissions from the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category would be
reduced from 2,900 to 390 people due
to the BTF PM limit. However, the total
estimated cancer incidence would
remain unchanged at 0.02 excess cancer
cases per year, and the maximum
modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for
the source category would remain
unchanged at 0.1 (for respiratory effects
from hydrochloric acid emissions). The
estimated worst-case acute exposures to
emissions from the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category would be reduced from
a maximum acute HQ of 0.6 to 0.3,
based on the REL for arsenic.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
Based on our screening assessment of
environmental risk presented in section
IV.B.4. of this preamble, we have
determined that HAP emissions from
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category do
not result in an adverse environmental
effect, and we are proposing that it is
not necessary to set a more stringent
standard to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect.
D. What are the results and proposed
decisions based on our technology
review?
We have reviewed the standards
under the two rules, Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
and Coke Oven Batteries, and
considered whether revising the
standards is necessary based on
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies. For the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stack source category, we did not
identify developments in practices,
processes, or technologies to further
reduce HAP emissions from pushing
coke from ovens and from quench tower
sources in the source category. The
pushing sources already are equipped
with capture and control devices, and
quench tower emissions are controlled
by baffles inside of the quench towers
and with limits on quench water
dissolved solids. However, we are
seeking information on emissions and
on control options and work practice
standards to reduce ByP battery stack
emissions and to reduce soaking
emissions from HNR ovens. These
subjects are discussed in sections 1. and
2. below.
For the Coke Oven Batteries source
category, we did not identify any
developments in practices, processes, or
controls that would reduce charging
emissions from ByP or HNR facilities
regulated under the source category.
The current rule requires the use of
baghouses and scrubbers to minimize
emissions from charging and to limit
opacity from control devices used for
charging emissions at HNR facilities.
However, we identified improvements
in control of ByP battery leaks, and we
are proposing reduced allowable leak
limits for leaks from doors, lids, and
offtakes at ByP facilities that range from
a 10 to 70 percent reduction in
allowable door leak rate, depending on
the size of the facility and oven door
height, and a 50 percent reduction in
allowable leak rates for lids and offtakes
for all sizes of facilities and ovens. The
current leak limits and proposed revised
leak limits are described in detail in
section IV.D.3. of this preamble. Also,
we are asking for comments on the
proposed revised monitoring techniques
for leaks from HNR ovens. These
proposed changes are discussed in
sections 3. and 4. below. To further
address fugitive emissions at the Coke
Oven Batteries facilities, we are
proposing a requirement for fenceline
monitoring for benzene along with an
action level for benzene (as a surrogate
for coke oven emissions (COE)) and a
requirement for root cause analysis and
corrective actions if the action level is
exceeded. These proposed requirements
are discussed in section 5. below.
Lastly, we are proposing a revised
equation for estimating leaks from ByP
coke oven doors based on evaluating the
historic equation developed from 1981
coke oven data. The discussion of this
issue is in section 6. below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
1. ByP Battery Stack 1-Hour Standards
We are considering whether an
additional 1-hour battery stack standard
is warranted to support the current 24hour average ByP battery stack standard
in Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP so as to
identify short-term periods of high
opacity that are not identified from the
current rule’s requirement for a 24-hour
opacity average. Battery stack opacity is
perhaps the best single indicator of the
maintenance status of coke ovens and
could be considered as an indicator of
fugitive and excess HAP emissions from
coke oven batteries.
We acquired 1-hour battery stack
opacity data as part of the 2022 CAA
section 114 test request and also
obtained information about work
practices that are performed on ovens to
maintain oven integrity, which
minimizes battery stack opacity, in
general. We are not proposing a 1-hour
limit in this proposed action because of
the processing of large quantities of data
that would be needed to develop a 1hour emissions limit for all coke
facilities and also to analyze oven wall
work practices reported by coke
facilities in the CAA section 114 request
responses to see if there is a correlation
between the work practices and lower
opacities in the 1-hour time data.
Therefore, we are soliciting comment
and information regarding these issues,
including comments regarding whether
or not the EPA should finalize a 1-hour
battery stack opacity standard in the
NESHAP in addition to or in lieu of the
current standard that is a 24-hour
average, and an explanation as to why
or why not; and what work practices
would reduce high opacity on an hourly
basis. The 1-hour opacity and work
practice data collected as part of the
2022 CAA section 114 request are
summarized in a memorandum titled
Preliminary Analysis and
Recommendations for Coke Oven
Combustion Stacks, Technology Review
for NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCCC) 31 that
graphically shows the 1-hour data,
located in the docket to this rule.
31 Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations
for Coke Oven Combustion Stacks, Technology
Review for NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCC). J. Carpenter, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA; K. Healy,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V;
D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and
G.E. Raymond, RTI International. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55883
2. Soaking Emissions From ByP Coke
Ovens
The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP regulates
soaking COE from coke ovens via work
practice standards. Under 40 CFR
63.7294, coke oven facilities must
prepare and operate according to a
written work practice plan for soaking
emissions. The plan must include
measures and procedures to identify
soaking COE that require corrective
actions, such as procedure for
dampering off ovens; determining why
soaking COE emissions do not ignite
automatically and, if not, then to
manually do so; determining whether
COE which are not fully processed in
the ovens are leaking into the collecting
main and if there is incomplete coking;
and determining whether the oven
damper needs to be reseated or other
equipment needs to be cleaned.
Soaking, for the purposes of the
NESHAP, means the period in the
coking cycle that starts when an oven is
dampered off the collecting main and
vented to the atmosphere through an
open standpipe prior to pushing, and
ends when the coke begins to be pushed
from the oven. Visible soaking COE
occur from the discharge of COE via
open standpipes during the soaking
period due to either incomplete coking
or leakage into the standpipe from the
collecting main.
We are asking for comments on the
feasibility of capturing and controlling
soaking COE. Soaking COE are most
pronounced with ‘‘green’’ coke, i.e.,
coke that has not completed the coking
process. Work practice standards for
soaking, covered in 40 CFR 63.7294, do
not include opacity limits or control
device requirements and rely on
subjective observations from facility
personnel. Furthermore, operational
practices may prevent topside workers
from seeing soaking COE, which is a
prerequisite for the current soaking
work practice standards to apply.
Currently, EPA Method 303A
observations do not consider soaking
COE because intentional standpipe cap
opening during pushing is not
considered a leak from the oven and,
therefore, is not included in the visible
emissions observation field for oven
testing.
We are asking for estimates of COE
from soaking to better understand the
scope and scale of these emissions. In
addition, we are asking for comments on
options for capturing and controlling
the soaking COE using a secondary
collecting main that routes standpipe
COE exhaust to a control device with or
without an associated VE, opacity, or
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55884
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
emissions limit. We are not proposing
controls or an opacity limit in this
current action; however, we solicit
comment and information regarding
soaking COE, including comments as to
whether or not the EPA should include
such a standard in the NESHAP in the
final rule and an explanation as to why
or why not. We also solicit comments
on changes to the soaking work practice
requirements currently in the rule.
3. ByP Door, Lids, and Offtakes Leak
Limits
Due to improvements in leak control
at coke oven facilities, we are proposing
to lower the door leak limits in the
NESHAP under the technology review
for the Coke Oven Batteries source
category for both MACT track and LAER
track ByP coke facilities. We are
proposing for facilities with coke
production capacity of more than 3
million tpy coke to lower the allowable
leaking door limit from the current limit
of 4 percent to 1.5 percent for tall
leaking doors (63 percent reduction) and
from 3.3 percent to 1.0 percent for ‘‘not
tall’’ leaking doors (70 percent
reduction), in leaks as observed from the
yard. These proposed standards would
currently only apply to the U.S. Steel
Clairton facility. For Coke Oven
Batteries facilities that have coke
production capacity less than 3 million
tpy coke, we are proposing an allowable
leaking door limit of 3.0 percent leaking
doors observed from the yard for all
sizes of doors (currently the NESHAP
includes limits of 4.0 and 3.3 percent
allowable leaking doors for tall and not
tall doors, respectively, as described
earlier in this preamble), a 25 and 9
percent reduction, respectively. Both
proposed changes to the allowable
limits would ensure continued low
emissions from leaking doors. These
reduced levels reflect improvements in
performance of the facilities to
minimize leaks from doors.
Due to improvements in operation by
the coke facilities, where actual
emissions are much lower than
allowable limits in many cases, we also
are proposing to lower the lid and
offtake leak allowable limits in the
NESHAP under the technology review
for the Coke Oven Batteries source
category. The current NESHAP includes
limits of 0.4 percent leaking lids and 2.5
percent leaking offtakes. We are
proposing a revised leaking lid limit of
0.2 percent leaking lids and for offtakes
a limit of 1.2 percent leaking offtakes
(both an approximately 50 percent
reduction). Both proposed changes to
the limits would ensure continued low
emissions from leaking lids and
offtakes. These reduced levels reflect
improvements in performance of the
facilities to minimize leaks from lids
and offtakes.
Table 9 shows the estimated
allowable emissions (tpy) before and
after lowering the leak limits from
doors, lids, and offtakes for each of eight
ByP facilities.
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS BEFORE AND AFTER PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LEAK LIMITS FOR
LEAKING DOORS, LIDS, AND OFFTAKES AT BYPRODUCT COKE OVEN FACILITIES
[Coke oven batteries NESHAP]
Allowable emissions (tpy)
With current leak limits
Facility ID
Doors a b
Lids
(%)
(%)
With proposed leak limits
Offtakes
(%)
Doors c
Total
(tpy)
Lids
(%)
(%)
Offtakes
(%)
Total
(tpy)
ABC-Tarrant-AL .................
BLU-Birmingham-AL .........
CC-Follansbee-WV ...........
CC-Middletown-OH ...........
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN ...........
CC-Monessen-PA .............
CC-Warren-OH ..................
EES-RiverRouge-MI ..........
USS-Clairton-PA ...............
3.4
3.1
5.5
1.8
4.3
1.3
2.0
2.2
17
0.076
0.079
0.12
0.030
0.086
0.029
0.034
0.045
0.38
0.11
0.099
0.25
0.12
0.13
0.092
0.14
0.14
1.1
3.6
3.3
5.9
2.0
4.5
1.4
2.2
2.4
19
3.0
2.7
5.1
1.7
3.7
1.3
1.9
1.9
11
0.038
0.039
0.059
0.015
0.043
0.015
0.017
0.022
0.19
0.052
0.047
0.12
0.060
0.065
0.044
0.067
0.067
0.53
3.1
2.8
5.2
1.8
3.8
1.3
2.0
2.0
12
Total ...........................
41
0.88
2.2
44
33
0.44
1.0
34
a Door
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
emissions are calculated using the revised equation. See section IV.D.6. of this preamble.
b For doors, two limits apply in the current rule: 4 percent leaking doors for tall ovens (equal to or greater than 6 meters or 29 feet) and 3.3 percent leaking doors
for all other shorter ovens (less than 6 meters).
c For facilities with coke production capacity more than 3 million tpy coke, proposed limits from doors are 1.5 percent leaking doors for tall ovens and 1.0 percent
leaking doors for all other shorter ovens; for facilities with coke production capacity less than 3 million tpy coke, proposed limits from doors is 3.0 percent leaking
doors for all doors sizes.
We are asking for comment on these
proposed limits and whether there are
other methods available to reduce leaks
from doors, lids, and offtakes, and from
charging at coke oven batteries that are
not discussed here. Additional
information on the available methods is
included in the memorandum
Technology Review for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
and Coke Oven Batteries Source
Categories 32 (hereafter referred to as the
32 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Technology Review Memorandum),
located in the dockets for the rules.
4. HNR Oven Door Leaks
a. HNR Leak-Related Monitoring
We are revising the Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP for new and existing
HNR doors (40 CFR 63.303(a)(1) and
(b)(1)) to require both monitoring of
leaking doors at HNR facilities using
EPA Method 303A, which relies on
observing VE emanating from the ovens,
and monitoring pressure in the ovens
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2002–0085 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(and common tunnel), instead of
choosing one or the other, as the current
rule allows. We also are adding the
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 (but not necessarily
continuously throughout the oven
cycle). We are asking for comment on
these changes.
b. Alternative Monitoring Approaches—
HNR Oven Doors
The current method of assessing HNR
oven doors for leaks under the Coke
Oven Battery NESHAP (40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
63.303(b)) is through the use of EPA
Method 303 or 303A, methods based on
observing VE emanating from the ovens
and seen with the unaided eye,
excluding steam or condensing water,
by trained human observers. While VE
has been used as an effective surrogate
for monitoring door leaks in the past,
especially for ByP facilities, the EPA is
soliciting comments on whether there
are other surrogates or practices which
could be applied to HNR door leaks. For
those alternative techniques that could
be applied to measuring door leaks, the
EPA is soliciting information on
equivalency studies that have been
performed against Method 303 and/or
303A, and any potential training
requirements and/or associated
monitoring procedures for the
alternative techniques.
c. Use of Pressure Transducers—HNR
Ovens and Common Tunnels
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
monitoring pressure in the ovens and
common tunnel to establish negative
oven pressure and establish leaks of 0.0
for HNR doors currently is allowed as
an alternate method to observing leaks
with EPA Method 303A under 40 CFR
63.303(b). We are proposing to require
both methods, EPA Method 303A and
pressure monitoring, to establish
negative pressure in the ovens and 0.0
leaks. The current practice at HNR
facilities is to operate one pressure
monitor per common tunnel that may
connect to 15 to 20 ovens and is,
therefore, not very sensitive to pressure
loss at one oven. Despite leaking
emissions in one oven, a common
tunnel with one pressure transducer
may still show negative pressure within
the tunnel. Also, facilities often only
have one pressure transducer per oven,
which might not be sufficient to monitor
and establish negative pressure. We are
considering a requirement for HNR
facilities to develop and submit a
monitoring plan to their delegated
authority to ensure that there are
sufficient pressure monitors in the
ovens and common tunnels to be able to
determine that all ovens are operated
under negative pressure. We are not
proposing this requirement at this time,
however we are soliciting comment on
this potential requirement and whether
the EPA should allow each facility to
suggest a site-specific number of
monitors needed as part of the
monitoring plan that they submit to the
delegated authority for review and
approval or whether EPA should
establish a prescriptive minimum
number of pressure monitors for each of
the ovens and common tunnels in the
NESHAP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
5. Fenceline Monitoring
We are proposing a fenceline
monitoring work practice standard (for
benzene, as a surrogate for COE) under
the technology review for the Coke
Oven Batteries source category.
Fenceline monitoring refers to the
placement of monitors along the
perimeter of a facility to measure
fugitive pollutant concentrations. The
fenceline monitoring work practice
standard would require owners and
operators to monitor for benzene, as a
surrogate for COE, and conduct root
cause analysis and corrective action
upon exceeding an annual average
concentration action level of benzene.
Details regarding the proposed
requirements for fenceline monitoring,
the action level, and root cause analysis
and corrective action are discussed in
this section.
The EPA recognizes that, in many
cases, it is impractical to directly
measure emissions from fugitive
emission sources at coke manufacturing
facilities. Direct measurement of fugitive
emissions can be costly and difficult.
The EPA is concerned about the
potential magnitude of emissions from
fugitive sources and the difficulty in
monitoring actual fugitive emission
levels.
To improve our understanding of
fugitive emissions and to potentially
address fugitive emissions sources at
coke facilities, we required fenceline
monitoring for benzene and several
other HAP through the 2022 CAA
section 114 request that is described in
section II.C. of this preamble. In the
2022 CAA section 114 requests, five
selected facilities (four ByP facilities
and 1 HNR facility) were required to
perform sampling using EPA Methods
325A/B for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, and 1,3
butadiene and Compendium Methods
TO–13A and TO–15A for VOC and
PAHs to determine the facility fugitive
HAP concentrations at the fenceline and
interior on-site facility grounds.
At the fenceline, facilities were
required to sample for six months
(thirteen 14-day sampling periods) (24
hours per day) at monitoring locations
determined by EPA Method 325A, for a
combined total of 182 days of sampling
with analysis by EPA Method 325B.
Facilities were also required to collect
seven 24-hour samples at each fenceline
TO monitor location for a total of at
least 21 samples (3 × 7) for TO–13A and
at least 28 samples (4 × 7) of TO–15A.
In addition to fenceline monitoring,
facilities were required to sample
fugitive emissions within the interior
facility grounds using methods TO–13A
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55885
and 15A. Facility interior samples were
collected at one location at the HNR
facility and two locations at the ByP
facilities for seven 24-hour periods at
each location resulting in a total of 7
TO–13A and TO–15A samples at the
HNR facility and 14 (2 times 7) TO–13A
and TO–15A samples at each ByP
facility.
The requirements and decisions that
we are proposing in this action are
informed by the fenceline monitoring
results reported by facilities in response
to the 2022 Coke Ovens CAA section
114 request, consideration of dispersion
modeling results, and consideration of
the uncertainty with estimating
emissions from fugitive emission
sources. Based on the monitoring results
and the other considerations, we
determined that it is appropriate under
CAA section 112(d)(6) to require coke
oven facilities to monitor, and if
necessary, take corrective action to
minimize fugitive emissions, to ensure
that facilities appropriately limit
emissions of HAP from fugitive sources.
More specifically, in this action, we are
proposing that benzene concentrations
be monitored at the fenceline of each
coke oven facility using EPA Methods
325A/B. For each 2-week timeintegrated sampling period, the facility
would determine a delta c, calculated as
the lowest benzene sample value
subtracted from the highest benzene
sample value. This approach is intended
to subtract out the estimated
contribution from background emissions
that do not originate from the facility.
The delta c for the most recent year of
samples (26 sampling periods) would be
averaged to calculate an annual average
delta c. The annual average delta c
would be determined on a 12-month
rolling basis, meaning that it is updated
with every new sample (i.e., every 2
weeks a new annual average delta c is
determined from the most recent 26
sampling periods). This rolling annual
average delta c would be compared
against a benzene action level and
owners and operators would be required
to conduct root cause analysis and
corrective action upon exceeding the
benzene action level.
We are proposing an action level of 3
ug/m3 benzene. The proposed action
level was determined by modeling
fenceline benzene concentrations using
the benzene emissions inventories used
in the facility-wide risk assessment,
assuming that those reported emissions
represented full compliance with all
standards, adjusted for additional
control requirements we are proposing
in this action.
After modeling each facility, we then
selected the maximum annual average
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55886
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
benzene fenceline concentration
modeled at any facility as the benzene
action level. Thus, if the reported
inventories are accurate, all facilities
should be able to meet the benzene
fenceline concentration action level. We
note that this analysis does not correlate
to any particular metric related to risk.
This approach would provide the owner
or operator with the flexibility to
determine how best to reduce HAP
emissions to ensure the benzene levels
remain below the fenceline
concentration action level. The details
of this proposed approach are set forth
in more detail in this section.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a. Siting, Design, and Sampling
Requirements for Fenceline Monitors
The EPA is proposing that passive
fenceline monitors collecting 2-week
time-integrated samples be deployed to
measure fenceline benzene
concentrations at coke oven facilities.
We are proposing that coke oven
facilities deploy passive samplers at a
minimum of 12 points circling the coke
oven facility perimeter according to EPA
Method 325A.
Fenceline passive diffusive tube
monitoring networks employ a series of
diffusive tube samplers at set intervals
along the fenceline to measure a timeintegrated 33 ambient air concentration
at each sampling location. A diffusive
tube sampler consists of a small tube
filled with an adsorbent, selected based
on the pollutant(s) of interest, and
capped with a specially designed cover
with small holes that allow ambient air
to diffuse into the tube at a small, fixed
rate. Diffusive tube samplers have been
demonstrated to be a cost-effective,
accurate technique for measuring
concentrations of pollutants (e.g.,
benzene) resulting from fugitive
emissions in a number of studies 34 35 as
well as in the petroleum refining
sector.36 In addition, diffusive samplers
33 Time-integrated sampling refers to the
collection of a sample at a controlled rate over a
period of time. The sample then provides an
average concentration over the sample period. For
the diffusive tube samplers, the controlled sampling
rate is dictated by the uptake rate, which is the
amount of a compound that can be absorbed by a
particular sorbent over time during the sampling
period.
34 McKay, J., M. Molyneux, G. Pizzella, V.
Radojcic. Environmental Levels of Benzene at the
Boundaries of Three European Refineries, prepared
by the CONCAWE Air Quality Management Group’s
Special Task Force on Benzene Monitoring at
Refinery Fenceline (AQ/STF–45), Brussels, June
1999.
35 Thoma, E.D., M.C. Miller, K.C. Chung, N.L.
Parsons, B.C. Shine. 2011. Facility Fenceline
Monitoring using Passive Sampling, J. Air & Waste
Manage Assoc. 61: 834–842.
36 See EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682; fenceline
concentration data collected for the petroleum
refining sector rulemaking can be accessed via the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
are used in the European Union to
monitor and maintain air quality, as
described in European Union directives
2008/50/EC and Measurement Standard
EN 14662–4:2005 for benzene. The
International Organization for
Standardization developed a standard
method for diffusive sampling (ISO/
FDIS 16017–2).
We are proposing that the highest
concentration of benzene, as an annual
rolling average measured at any
individual monitor and adjusted for
background (see ‘‘Adjusting for
background benzene concentrations’’ in
this section), would be compared
against the concentration action level (of
3 ug/m3) in order to determine if there
are significant excess fugitive emissions
that need to be addressed. We are
proposing that existing sources would
need to deploy samplers no later than 1
year after the effective date of the final
rule which will enable facilities to begin
generating annual averages after 2 years,
and then within 3 years of the effective
date the facilities would need to
demonstrate that they meet the action
level or would need to conduct the root
cause analyses and corrective actions.
New facilities would be required to
deploy samplers by the effective date of
the final rule or startup, whichever is
later, and generate the first annual
average 1 year later. We are proposing
that coke oven facility owners and
operators would be required to
demonstrate compliance with the
concentration action level for the first
time 3 years following the date the final
rule is published in the Federal
Register, and thereafter on a 1-year
rolling annual average basis (i.e.,
considering results from the most recent
26 consecutive 2-week sampling
intervals and recalculating the average
every 2 weeks).
b. Benzene as an Appropriate Target
Analyte
Passive diffusive tube monitors can be
used to determine the ambient
concentration of a large number of
compounds. However, different sorbent
materials are typically needed to collect
compounds with significantly different
properties. Rather than require multiple
tubes per monitoring location and a full
analytical array of compounds to be
determined, which would significantly
increase the cost of the proposed
fenceline monitoring program, we are
proposing that the fenceline monitors be
analyzed specifically for benzene. Coke
Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Dashboard at
https://awsedap.epa.gov/public/extensions/
Fenceline_Monitoring/Fenceline_
Monitoring.html?sheet=MonitoringDashboard.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
oven facility owners or operators may
elect to do more detailed speciation of
the air at the fenceline, which could
help identify the process unit that may
be contributing to a high fenceline
concentration, but we are only
establishing monitoring requirements
and action level requirements for
benzene. We consider benzene to be a
surrogate for organic HAP from fugitive
sources at coke ovens facilities for
multiple reasons. First, benzene is
ubiquitous at coke oven facilities since
it accounts for about 70 percent of all
volatile compounds in the fenceline
volatile emissions. Benzene is also
present in emissions from CBRPs, where
benzene is recovered from coke oven gas
for sale along with other coke oven gas
components. Second, the primary
releases of benzene occur at ground
level as fugitive emissions and the
highest ambient benzene concentrations
outside the facility would likely occur
near the property boundary, also near
ground level, so fugitive releases of
benzene would be effectively detected at
the ground-level monitoring sites.
According to the emissions inventory
we have relied on for this proposed
action, 38 percent of benzene emissions
from coke oven facilities result from
fugitive emissions from coke batteries
and CBRP equipment. See the emission
inventory description in the document
Residual Risk Assessment for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks Source Category in Support of
the 2023 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule,8 and the memorandum
titled Fugitive Monitoring at Coke Oven
Facilities (hereafter referred to as the
Fugitive Monitoring memorandum),37
located in the dockets for the rules.
Lastly, benzene is present in nearly all
coke oven facility equipment exhaust.
Therefore, the presence of benzene at
the fenceline is also an indicator of
other HAP emitted as part of COE or gas
that is derivative of COE. For this reason
and the reasons discussed earlier in this
section, we believe that benzene is the
most appropriate pollutant to monitor.
We believe that other compounds,
such as naphthalene and other PAH,
would be less suitable indicators of total
fugitive HAP for a couple of reasons.
First, they are prevalent in stack
emissions as well as fugitive emissions,
so there is more potential for fenceline
monitors to pick up contributions from
nonfugitive sources. In contrast, almost
37 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 No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051).
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
all benzene comes from fugitive sources,
so monitoring for benzene increases our
confidence that the concentration
detected at the fenceline is from fugitive
emissions. Second, as compared to
benzene, these other compounds are
expected to be present at lower
concentrations and, therefore, would be
more difficult to measure accurately
using fenceline monitoring. We request
comments on the suitability of selecting
benzene or other HAP, including
naphthalene and other PAH, as the
indicator to be monitored by fenceline
samplers. We also request comment on
whether it would be appropriate to
require multiple HAP to be monitored at
the fenceline, considering the capital
and annual cost for additional monitors
that are not passive/diffusion type, and
if so, which pollutants should be
monitored.
c. Adjusting for Background Benzene
Concentrations
Under this proposed approach,
absolute measurements along a facility
fenceline cannot completely
characterize which emissions are
associated with the coke oven facility
and which are associated with other
background sources outside the facility
fenceline. The EPA recognizes that
sources outside the coke oven facility
boundaries may influence benzene
levels monitored at the fenceline.
Furthermore, background levels driven
by local upwind sources are spatially
variable. Both of these factors could
result in inaccurate estimates of the
actual contribution of fugitive emissions
from the facility itself to the
concentration measured at the fenceline.
Many coke oven facilities are located in
industrial areas that include facilities in
other industries that also may emit
benzene. With this spatial positioning,
there is a possibility that the local
upwind neighbors of a coke oven
facility could cause different
background levels on different sides of
the coke oven facility.
In this proposal, we are proposing to
allow the subtraction of offsite
interfering sources (because they are not
within the control of the owner or
operators of coke ovens facilities)
through site-specific monitoring plans,
but we are not providing this option for
onsite, non-source category emissions.
The action levels described in this
section are based on facility-wide
emissions, and therefore these
nonsource category sources have been
considered in their development. We
solicit comment on alternative
approaches for making these
adjustments for off-site contributions to
the fenceline concentration of benzene.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
d. Concentration Action Level
As mentioned above, the EPA is
proposing to require coke oven facilities
to take corrective action to reduce
fugitive emissions if monitored
fenceline concentrations exceed a
specific concentration action level on a
rolling annual average basis
(recalculated every two weeks). We
selected this proposed fenceline action
level by modeling fenceline benzene
concentrations using the benzene
emissions estimates reported in
response to the 2016 and 2022 CAA
section 114 requests and estimated
benzene emissions in the 2017 NEI for
the CRBPs (see the model file
description in Residual Risk Assessment
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks Source Category in
Support of the 2023 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule). We
estimated the long-term ambient
benzene concentrations at each coke
oven facility using the emission
inventory and the EPA’s American
Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory
Model dispersion modeling system
(AERMOD). Concentrations were
estimated by the model at a set of polar
grid receptors centered on each facility,
as well as surrounding census block
centroid receptors extending from the
facility outward to 50 km. For purposes
of this modeling analysis, we assumed
that the nearest off-site polar grid
receptor was the best representation of
each facility’s fenceline concentration,
unless there was a census block centroid
nearer to the fenceline than the nearest
off-site polar grid receptor or an actual
receptor was identified from review of
the site map. In those instances, we
estimated the fenceline concentration as
the concentration at the census block
centroid. Only receptors (either the
polar or census block) that were
estimated to be outside the facility
fenceline were considered in
determining the maximum benzene
level for each facility. The maximum
benzene concentration modeled at the
fenceline for any coke oven facility is 3
mg/m3 (annual average). For additional
details of the analysis, see the Fugitive
Monitoring memorandum.37
Due to differences in short-term
meteorological conditions, short-term
(i.e., 2-week average) concentrations at
the fenceline can vary greatly. Given the
high variability in short-term fenceline
concentrations and the difficulties and
uncertainties associated with estimating
a maximum 2-week fenceline
concentration given a limited time
period of meteorological data (one year)
typically used in the modeling exercise,
we determined that it would be
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55887
inappropriate and ineffective to propose
a short-term concentration action level
that would trigger corrective action
based on a single 2-week sampling
event.
One objective for this monitoring
program is to identify fugitive emission
releases more quickly, so that corrective
action can be implemented in a timelier
fashion than might otherwise occur
without the fenceline monitoring
requirement. We conclude the proposed
fenceline monitoring approach and a
rolling annual average concentration
action limit (i.e., using results from the
most recent 26 consecutive 2-week
samples and recalculating the average
every 2 weeks) would achieve this
objective. The proposed fenceline
monitoring would provide the coke
oven facility owner or operator with
fenceline concentration information
once every 2 weeks. Therefore, the coke
oven facility owner or operator would
be able to timely identify emissions
leading to elevated fenceline
concentrations. We anticipate that the
coke oven facility owners or operators
would elect to identify and correct these
sources early in efforts to avoid
exceeding the annual benzene
concentration action level.
An ‘‘exceedance’’ of the benzene
concentration action level would occur
when the rolling annual average delta c,
exceeds 3 mg/m3. Upon exceeding the
concentration action level, we propose
that coke oven facility owners or
operators would be required to conduct
analyses to identify sources contributing
to fenceline concentrations and take
corrective action to reduce fugitive
emissions to ensure fenceline benzene
concentrations remain at or below 3 mg/
m3 (rolling annual average).
e. Corrective Action Requirements
As described previously, the EPA is
proposing that coke oven facility owners
or operators analyze the fenceline
samples and compare the rolling annual
average delta c to the concentration
action level. This section summarizes
the root cause and corrective action
requirements in this proposed rule.
First, we are proposing that the
calculation of the rolling annual average
delta c must be completed within 30
days after the completion of each
sampling episode. If the rolling annual
average benzene delta c exceeds the
proposed concentration action level
(i.e., 3 μg/m3), the facility must, within
5 days of comparing the rolling annual
delta c to the concentration action level,
initiate a root cause analysis to
determine the primary cause, and any
other contributing cause(s), of the
exceedance. The facility must complete
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
55888
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the root cause analysis and implement
corrective action within 45 days of
initiating the root cause analysis. We are
not proposing specific controls or
corrections that would be required
when the concentration action level is
exceeded because the cause of an
exceedance could vary greatly from
facility to facility and episode to
episode since many different sources
emit fugitive emissions. Rather, we are
proposing to allow facilities to
determine, based on their own analysis
of their operations, the action that must
be taken to reduce air concentrations at
the fenceline to levels at or below the
concentration action level, representing
full compliance with Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP requirements for
fenceline emissions until the next
fenceline measurement.
If, upon completion of the root cause
analysis and corrective actions
described above, the coke oven facility
subsequently exceeds the action level
for the next two-week sampling episode
following the earlier of the completion
of a first set of corrective actions or the
45-day period commencing at initiation
of root cause analysis (‘‘subsequent
exceedance’’), the owner or operator
would be required to develop and
submit to the EPA a corrective action
plan that would describe the corrective
actions completed to date. This plan
would include a schedule for
implementation of additional emission
reduction measures that the owner or
operator can demonstrate as soon as
practical. This plan would be submitted
to the Administrator within 60 days
after receiving the analytical results
indicating that the delta c value for the
14-day sampling period following the
completion of the initial corrective
action is greater 3 mg/m3, or if any
corrective action measures identified
require more than 45 days to
implement, or, if no initial corrective
actions were identified, no later than 60
days following the completion of the
corrective action analysis.
The coke oven facility owner or
operator is not deemed out of
compliance with the proposed
concentration action level at the time of
the fenceline concentration
determination provided that the
appropriate corrective action measures
are taken according to the timeframe
detailed in an approved corrective
action plan.
The EPA requests comment on
whether it is appropriate to establish a
standard time frame for compliance
with actions listed in a corrective action
plan.
We expect that facilities may identify
‘‘poor-performing’’ sources (e.g., due to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
unusual or excessive leaks) using the
fenceline monitoring data and, based on
this additional information, would take
action to reduce HAP emissions before
they would have otherwise been aware
of the issue through existing inspection
and enforcement measures. By selecting
a fenceline monitoring approach and by
selecting benzene as the surrogate for
COE, we believe that the proposed
monitoring approach would effectively
provide emissions information for all
coke oven facility fugitive emission
sources.
f. Additional Requirements of the
Fenceline Monitoring Program
We are proposing that fenceline data
at each monitor location be reported
electronically for each quarterly period’s
worth of sampling periods (i.e., each
report would contain data for at least six
2-week sampling periods per quarterly
period). These data would be reported
electronically to the EPA within 45 days
of the end of each quarterly period and
would be made available to the public
through the EPA’s electronic reporting
and data retrieval portal, in keeping
with the EPA’s efforts to streamline and
reduce reporting burden and to move
away from hard copy submittals of data
where feasible. We are proposing that
facilities be required to conduct
fenceline monitoring on a continuous
basis at all monitors, in accordance with
the specific methods described above.
In light of the low annual monitoring
and reporting costs associated with the
fenceline monitors (as described in the
next section), and the importance of the
fenceline monitors as a means of
ensuring the control of fugitives
achieves the expected emission levels,
we believe it is appropriate to require
collection of fenceline monitoring data
on a continuous basis. However, the
EPA recognizes that fugitive benzene
emissions at some monitors may be so
low as to make it improbable that
exceedances of the concentration action
level would ever occur. In the interest
of reducing the cost burden on facilities
to comply with this rule, if a coke oven
facility maintains the fenceline
concentration below 0.3 ug/m3 (a
concentration that is 10 percent of the
benzene action level) at any individual
monitor for 2 years, the sampling
frequency at that monitor can be
reduced by 50 percent (e.g., 2 weeks of
sampling for every 4-week period). For
each sample location and monitor that
continues to register below 0.3 ug/m3
for an additional 2 years, the sampling
may be reduced further to
approximately once per quarter, with
sampling occuring every sixth two-week
period (i.e., five two-week periods are
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
skipped between active sampling
periods). If a monitor at the quarterly
frequency continues to maintain a
concentration of 0.3 ug/m3 for an
additional 2 years, sampling at that
monitor may be reduced further to
annual sampling. However, if the
concentration at any sample location
that is allowed a reduced frequency of
testing increases above 0.3 ug/m3 at any
time, sampling would need to
immediately return to the original
continuous sampling requirement.
The EPA solicits comment on the
proposed approach for reducing
fenceline monitoring requirements for
facilities that consistently measure
fenceline concentrations below the
concentration action level, and the
measurement level that should be used
to provide such relief. The proposed
approach would be consistent with the
fenceline alternate sampling frequency
for burden reduction (40 CFR
63.658(e)(3)) as well as the graduated
requirements for valve leak monitoring
in Refinery MACT 1 38 and other
equipment leak standards, where the
frequency of required monitoring varies
depending on the percent of leaking
valves identified during the previous
monitoring period (See e.g., 40 CFR
63.648(c). The EPA requests comment
on the minimum time period facilities
should be required to conduct fenceline
monitoring; and the level of
performance, in terms of monitored
fenceline concentrations, that would
enable a facility to reduce the frequency
of data collection and reporting.
Total costs for fenceline monitoring
are estimated to be $116,000 per year
per facility including reporting and
recordkeeping and $1.3M annually for
the industry including reporting and
recordkeeping (11 affected facilities).
The EPA requests comment on these
cost estimates.
6. Revised Emissions Equation for
Leaking Doors
As part of the technology review
under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are
proposing to use an updated, revised
version of the equation than that which
has historically been used to estimate
COE from leaking oven doors. The
revised equation would provide more
accurate estimates of COE from doors
that reflects 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
38 Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and
Technology Review and New Source Performance
Standards Final Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 80 FR 75178. December 1, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
have occurred since 1981, which is
when the equation was first developed.
A summary of the revised equation
and the rationale for its development
follows here. A more detailed
explanation can be found in the
memorandum Revised Equation to
Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from
Oven Doors,39 located in the dockets for
these rules. We are asking for comment
on the revised equation to estimate coke
oven door leaks.
In the 2005 RTR for Coke Oven
Batteries, COE from leaking oven doors
were estimated using the following
equation taken from the estimating
procedures in AP–42 (section 12.2: Coke
Production, revised draft, July 2001).40
COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND × (PLDyard/100)
× (0.04 lb/hr 41) + ND × (PLDbench/
100) × (0.023 lb/hr 41)
Where:
ND = number of doors
PLD = percent leaking doors
Bench = walking platform running next to
the ovens (and doors)
Yard = 50 to 100 feet from the oven doors
PLDyard = percent of doors with visible leaks
observed from the yard
PLDbench= percent of doors with visible leaks
only observable from the bench.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Because of safety concerns,
observations are not typically taken
from bench and, therefore, this equation
has historically included a default value
of 6 percent for the percent leaking
doors only able to be observed from the
bench. As reported in the July 2008
update to AP–42 Chapter 12.2,42 this
default value was derived from 1981
data, where the percent leaking doors
from the yard was 6.4 percent and the
total percent leaking doors visible from
the bench was 12.4 percent, which
included both leaks visible from yard
and leaks visible only from the bench.
The difference between 12.4 and 6.4
percent, equal to 6 percent, represented
the percent leaking doors only able to be
observed from the bench.
In the current coke industry, the
percent leaking doors measured from
39 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.
40 Compilation of Emission Factors (AP–42).
Section 12.2, Coke Production. See https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/old/ap42/ch12/s02/final/
c12s02.pdf.
41 Emission factors for leaks from yard (0.04 lb/
hr) and bench (0.023 lb/hr) developed from 1981
coke facility data and reported in AP–42.40
42 See Emission Factor Documentation for AP–42,
Section 12.2 Coke Production Final Report, May
2008. Chapter 6, Summary of Comments and
Response for the July 2001 Draft. Response A–3. pg.
6–5. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch12/
bgdocs/b12s02_may08.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
the yard is much lower, 2.5 percent or
less, based on 2016 and 2022 source
tests performed for the CAA section 114
request. The facility that was used in
1981 to establish the 6 percent leaking
doors that were visible only from the
bench was U.S. Steel Clairton-PA,
which had 6.4 percent leaking doors
visible from the yard at that time but
now has a facility average of 0.54
percent leaking doors visible from the
yard based on 2016 data and facility
average of 0.46 percent leaking doors
visible from the yard based on 2021
data. The default fixed value of 6
percent leaking doors visible only from
the bench obviously does not reflect
changes in practices for door leaks in
the years since 1981 and should be
reevaluated so that the total emissions
from doors are not overestimated.
Consequently, for the analyses
conducted for this proposed rule, we
revised the equation to include a benchto-yard ‘‘ratio’’ instead of the 6 percent
default value for doors seen leaking
from the bench in the door leak
emissions equation. The revised value
in the equation (i.e., adjustment ratio) is
still based on the historic values
measured in 1981 but instead of using
the 6 percent default value, the equation
includes the ratio of the 1981 value for
percent leaking doors visible only from
the bench to the 1981 value for percent
leaking doors visible from the yard. This
adjustment ratio was used with current
measured percent leaking doors from
the yard to estimate the current percent
leaking doors visible only from the
bench. The ratio of bench-only
emissions to yard emissions from 1981
is ((12.4¥6.4)/6.4), equal to 6.0/6.4 or
0.94. The adjustment ratio (0.94) was
multiplied by measured data for percent
leaking doors measured from the yard to
estimate the bench-only component of
door emissions in the equation for COE
for doors. Use of this adjustment ratio in
the revised equation below is being
proposed to better reflect operation of
all coke ovens:
COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND × (PLDyard/100)
× (0.04 lb/hr) + ND × (PLDyard ×
0.94)/100) × (0.023 lb/hr)
As part of the 2022 CAA section 114
request, we requested two coke oven
facilities to perform EPA Method 303
tests simultaneously from both the
bench and the yard at two batteries at
each facility. However, we did not
receive the data until after preparation
of this proposal preamble (data received
on June 27, 2023). The EPA intends to
complete analysis of these data in time
to address in the final rule. The facility
test reports from the recent method 303
door leak testing are included in the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55889
docket for the proposed rule. We solicit
comments regarding the results of these
method 303 tests and how those results
could affect the door leak equation
discussed in this section.
E. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions
described above, we are proposing
additional revisions to these NESHAP.
We are proposing revisions to the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) provisions of these rules in order
to ensure that they are consistent with
the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in which the
court vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement
to comply with otherwise applicable
CAA section 112(d) emission standards
during periods of SSM. We also are
proposing electronic reporting. Our
analyses and proposed changes related
to these issues are discussed as follows.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (the court)
vacated portions of two provisions in
the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the court
vacated the SSM exemption contained
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards
or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA’s requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
With the issuance of the mandate in
Sierra Club v. EPA, the exemptions that
were in 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) are null and
void. The EPA amended 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1)) on March 11, 2021,
to reflect the court order and correct the
CFR to remove the SSM exemption.43 In
this action, we are eliminating any
cross-reference to the vacated provisions
in the regulatory text including 40 CFR
63.7310(a) and Table 1 of the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP and 40 CFR 63.300(e)
and 63.310 for the Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP. Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing standards in
these rules that apply at all times. We
are also proposing several revisions to
Table 1 of the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP (the
General Provisions applicability table)
as is explained in more detail below.
43 U.S. EPA, Court Vacatur of Exemption From
Emission Standards During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunction. (86 FR 13819, March
11, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55890
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the
General Provisions’ requirement that the
source develop an SSM plan. We also
are proposing to eliminate and revise
certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM
exemption as further described as
follows.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that
the provisions we are proposing to
eliminate are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the
absence of the SSM exemption. We are
specifically seeking comment on
whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account SS
periods and, for the reasons explained
as follows, has not proposed alternate
standards for those periods. The coke
oven industry has not identified (and
there are no data indicating) any
specific problems with removing the
SSM provisions due to the nature of the
coke process to operate continuously. If
an oven is shut down, it has to be
rebuilt before starting back up, which is
the reason why coke ovens are put in
idle mode when not operating.
However, we solicit comment on
whether any situations exist where
separate standards, such as work
practices, would be more appropriate
during periods of startup and shutdown
rather than the current standard.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither
predictable nor routine. Instead they
are, by definition, sudden infrequent
and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or
monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored
into development of CAA section 112
standards and this reading has been
upheld as reasonable by the court in
U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
606–610 (2016). Therefore, the
standards that apply during normal
operation apply during periods of
malfunction.
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3 and
revising 40 CFR 63.7310(c) text. In 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), the general duty to
minimize emissions is described. Some
of the language in that section is no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
longer necessary or appropriate in light
of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. With the elimination of the
SSM exemption, there is no need to
differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction
events. Therefore, the language the EPA
is proposing to revise for 40 CFR
63.7310(c) does not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). The
EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.300(e) in the Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP to reflect the elimination of
the SSM exemption.
We are also proposing to revise the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General
Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in
column 3. In 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii),
requirements are imposed that are not
necessary with the elimination of the
SSM exemption or are redundant with
the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.7310(a). The EPA is
also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.300(e) in Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP to reflect the elimination of
the SSM exemption.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3.
Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3) require development of an
SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan.
The EPA is also proposing to revise 40
CFR 63.310(b) in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart L to reflect the elimination of
the SSM plan requirements. With the
elimination of the SSM exemptions,
affected units would be subject to an
emission standard during such events.
The applicability of a standard during
such events would ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and
achieve compliance and thus, the SSM
plan requirements are no longer
necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3.
Consistent with Sierra Club, EPA
amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) on
March 11, 2021, to reflect the court
order and correct the CFR to remove the
SSM exemption. However, the second
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains
language that is premised on the
existence of an exemption and is
inappropriate in the absence of the
exemption. Thus, rather than crossreferencing 63.6(f)(1), we are adding the
language of 63.6(f)(1) that requires
compliance with standards at all times
to the regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.7310(a). The EPA is also proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.300(e) in Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP: to reflect that
standards apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3.
Consistent with Sierra Club, EPA
amended 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) on March
11, 2021, to reflect the court order and
correct the CFR to remove the SSM
exemption. However, the second
sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains
language that is premised on the
existence of an exemption and is
inappropriate in the absence of the
exemption. Thus, rather than crossreferencing 63.6(f)(1), we are adding the
language of 63.6(f)(1) that requires
compliance with standards at all times
to the regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.7310(a). The EPA is also proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.300(e) in Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP to reflect that
standards apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3 and
revising 40 CFR 63.7336(b) text. In 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1) performance testing is
required. The EPA is instead proposing
to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.7322(a),
63.7324(a), and 63.7325(a). In addition,
we are revising 40 CFR 63.309(a) and
removing the citation to 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) from 40 CFR 63.309(k). The
performance testing requirements we
are proposing to add differ from the
General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The
regulatory text does not include the
language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being
considered ‘‘representative’’ for
purposes of performance testing. The
revised performance testing provisions
require testing under representative
operating conditions and exclude
periods of startup and shutdown.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance
tests conducted under these subparts
should not be conducted during
malfunctions because conditions during
malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add
language that requires the owner or
operator to record the process
information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation.
In 40 CFR 63.7(e), the owner or operator
is required to make available to the
Administrator such records ‘‘as may be
necessary to determine the condition of
the performance test’’ available to the
Administrator upon request but does
not specifically require the information
to be recorded. The regulatory text the
EPA is proposing to add to this
provision builds on that requirement
and makes explicit the requirement to
record the information.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii)
and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The
cross-references to the general duty and
SSM plan requirements in those
subparagraphs are not necessary in light
of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8
that require good air pollution control
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set
out the requirements of a quality control
program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)). In addition, the EPA is
proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.305(f)(4)(i) in Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP to reflect changes to General
Provisions due to general duty and
SSM.
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The final
sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to
the General Provisions’ SSM plan
requirement which is no longer
applicable. The EPA is proposing to add
to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP at 40 CFR
63.7342(b)(3) text that is identical to 40
CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final
sentence is replaced with the following
sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective
action should be included in the plan
required under § 63.8(d)(2).’’ We note
that the revisions to 40 CFR
63.305(f)(4)(i) in Coke Oven Batteries
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
NESHAP will also comport to this
change.
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP Applicability table
(Table 1) by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ‘‘no’’ in
column 3. In 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), the
recordkeeping requirements during
startup and shutdown are described. In
addition, the EPA is proposing to revise
40 CFR 63.311(f) in Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP. These recording provisions
are no longer necessary because the EPA
is proposing that recordkeeping and
reporting applicable to normal
operations would apply to startup and
shutdown. In the absence of special
provisions applicable to startup and
shutdown, such as a startup and
shutdown plan, there is no reason to
retain additional recordkeeping for
startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise Table 1 of
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP by adding an
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. In 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii), the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction are
described. The EPA is proposing to
revise and add such requirements to 40
CFR 63.7342(a)(2)–(4). We are also
revising the 40 CFR 63.311(f) to update
the recordkeeping requirements in Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAP. The regulatory
text we are proposing to add differs
from the General Provisions and other
regulatory text it is replacing in that
these provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The
EPA is proposing that this requirement
apply to all malfunction events
requiring that the source record the
date, time, cause, and duration of the
malfunction and report any failure to
meet the standard. The EPA is also
proposing to add to 40 CFR
63.7342(a)(3) and 40 CFR
63.311(f)(1)(iv) a requirement that
sources keep records that include a list
of the affected source or equipment and
actions taken to minimize emissions,
whether the failure occurred during a
period of SSM, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the standard for which the
source failed to meet the standard, and
a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55891
based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information
to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to
determine the severity of any failure to
meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met
the general duty to minimize emissions
when the source has failed to meet an
applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The EPA
is proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(f)
in the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP.
When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during
SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate
because SSM plans would no longer be
required. The requirement previously
applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to
minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by
reference to 40 CFR 63.7342(a)(4) and 40
CFR 63.311(f)1(iv).
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The EPA
is also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.311(f) in Coke oven Batteries
NESHAP. When applicable, the
provision requires sources to record
actions taken during SSM events to
show that actions taken were consistent
with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM
plans would no longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The EPA
is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer apply. When applicable, the
provision allows an owner or operator
to use the affected source’s SSM plan or
records to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM plan specified
in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to
eliminate this requirement because SSM
plans would no longer be required, and,
therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
serves any useful purpose for affected
units. The EPA is also proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.311(f) in Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP for similar changes.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
55892
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
g. Reporting
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The EPA
is also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.311(b)(2), 63.311(b)(5), 63.311(d)(2),
in Coke oven Batteries NESHAP to
reflect similar changes. In 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i), the reporting
requirements for SSMs are described. To
replace the General Provisions reporting
requirement, the EPA is proposing to
add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.7341(d)(4) and 40 CFR
63.311(f)(1)(iv) and revise reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.311(b)(2),
(b)(5), and (d)(2). The replacement
language differs from the General
Provisions requirement in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. We are proposing
language that requires sources that fail
to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information
concerning such events in the
semiannual reporting period
compliance report already required
under this rule. We are proposing that
the report would contain the number,
date, time, duration, and the cause of
such events (including unknown cause,
if applicable), a list of the affected
source or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing this requirement
to ensure that there is adequate
information to determine compliance, to
allow the EPA to determine the severity
of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may
document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable
standard.
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3 and
revising the 40 CFR 63.7341(c)(4) text.
We would no longer require owners or
operators to determine whether actions
taken to correct a malfunction are
consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required. The
proposed amendments, therefore,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the
description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal
schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary
because the events would be reported in
otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to revise the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP General Provisions
Applicability table (Table 1) by adding
an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and
including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The EPA
is also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.311(b)(2), 63.311(b)(5), 63.311(d)(2),
in Coke Oven Batteries to reflect similar
changes. In 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and
63.311, an immediate report is
described for SSMs when a source failed
to meet an applicable standard but did
not follow the SSM plan. We would no
longer require owners and operators to
report when actions taken during a SSM
were not consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be
required.
2. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of coke oven facilities, under
rules for both Coke Ovens Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
and Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
source categories, 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 docket for this
action. The proposed rule requires that
performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the
EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
as listed on the ERT website 44 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.
For the quarterly and semiannual
compliance reports of the Coke Ovens:
44 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
NESHAP source category and the
semiannual compliance certification of
the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
source category, the proposed rule
requires that owners and operators use
the appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. A draft
version of the proposed templates for
these reports is included in the docket
for this action.45 The EPA specifically
requests comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the
templates.
The electronic submittal of the reports
addressed in this proposed rulemaking
would increase the usefulness of the
data contained in those reports, is in
keeping with current trends in data
availability and transparency, would
further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment, would
improve 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 would ultimately reduce 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 46 to
implement Executive Order 13563 and
is in keeping with the EPA’s agencywide policy 47 developed in response to
the White House’s Digital Government
Strategy.48 For more information on the
benefits of electronic reporting, see the
memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
45 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’s EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0085 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051.
46 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective
Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154.
47 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA
Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/
documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf.
48 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century
Platform to Better Serve the American People, May
2012. Available at: https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, referenced earlier in this section.
F. What compliance dates are we
proposing?
The proposed date for complying with
the proposed SSM changes is no later
than the effective date of the final rule
with the exception of recordkeeping
provisions. For recordkeeping under the
SSM, we are proposing that facilities
must comply with this requirement 180
days after the effective date of the final
rule. Recordkeeping provisions
associated with malfunction events
shall be effective no later than 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule.
The EPA is requiring additional
information for recordkeeping of
malfunction events, so the additional
time is necessary to permit sources to
read and understand the new
requirements and adjust record keeping
systems to comply. Reporting provisions
are in accordance with the reporting
requirements during normal operations
and the semi-annual report of excess
emissions.
The proposed date for complying with
the proposed ERT submission
requirements is 180 days after
publication of the final rule. The
proposed compliance date for the
revisions to the allowable limits for
leaking doors, lids, and offtakes under
the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP is 1
year after publication of the final rule.
The proposed compliance date to begin
fenceline monitoring is 1 year after the
publication date of the final rule;
facilities must perform root cause
analysis and apply corrective action
requirements upon exceedance of an
annual average concentration action
level starting 3 years after the
publication date of the final rule.
The proposed compliance date for the
15 new MACT limits (based on the
MACT floor, as described in section
IV.A. of this preamble), in the NESHAP
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching
and Battery Stacks is 1 year after
publication of the final rule. The
proposed compliance date for the two
new BTF emission limits for HNR waste
heat stacks in the NESHAP for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery
Stacks is 3 years after publication of the
final rule to allow time for the
installation of ductwork to capture large
volumes of battery COE and for
acquisition and installation of control
devices to treat the captured air. As
described earlier in this section, the
facility that is affected by the new BTF
PM limit is located between three rivers,
a state road, and a railroad track.
Therefore, due to the unique
configuration of facility, and the
resulting space available to construct
control devices and ductwork to reduce
arsenic emissions from bypass stacks
creates an impediment to a typical
construction schedule. We estimate that
the facility will need 3 years to
complete all this work and comply with
the new PM limit. Consequently, the
proposed compliance date for the BTF
PM limit for waste stacks in the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery
Stacks NESHAP is 3 years after
publication of the final rule.
G. Adding 1-bromopropane to List of
HAP
On January 5, 2022, the EPA
published a final rule amending the list
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) under
the CAA to add 1-bromopropane (1–BP)
55893
in response to public petitions
previously granted by the EPA. (87 FR
393). Consequently, as each NESHAP is
reviewed, we are evaluating whether the
addition of 1–BP to the CAA section 112
HAP list impacts the source category.
For the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and Coke
Oven Batteries source categories, we
conclude 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. As a result, no changes are
being proposed to the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks and
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAPs based on
the January 2022 rule adding 1–BP to
the list of HAP. Nevertheless, we are
requesting comments regarding the use
of 1–BP and any potential emissions of
1–BP from this source category.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts
Table 10 below summarizes the
proposed amendments for emission
sources at coke oven facilities. The
fenceline monitoring requirement under
40 CFR part 63, subpart L and the BTF
limit for mercury (Hg) and non-Hg
metals from HNR HRSG B/W heat stacks
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 5C are
expected to require facilities to incur
incremental costs relative to current
standards. The proposed lowering of
leak limits for coke oven doors, lids, and
offtake systems under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart L is not expected to achieve
actual emission reductions but would
reduce allowable emissions.
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPARTS CCCCC AND L
Emissions source
Current standard
Proposed standard
40 CFR part 63, subpart L (Coke Oven Batteries)
Facility-wide Fugitive Emissions .............
Leaking from Coke Oven
................................................................
no requirement
Fenceline monitoring work practice
standard for benzene.
Clairton facility ........................................
All other by-product facilities ..................
................................................................
................................................................
3.3–4% limit ......
3.3–4% limit ......
0.4% limit ..........
2.5% limit ..........
1–1.5% limit.
3% limit.
0.2% limit.
1.2% limit.
Doors a
Leaking Lids ............................................
Leaking Offtake Systems ........................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
40 CFR part 63, subpart 5C (Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks) Regulatory Gaps
HNR HRSG B/W Heat Stacks ................
Acid gases, formaldehyde, PAHs ..........
Hg and non-Hg metals ...........................
no requirement
no requirement
HNR HRSG Main Stack ..........................
Coke Pushing ..........................................
Acid gases, Hg, PM metals, PAHs ........
Acid gases, hydrogen cyanide, Hg,
PAHs.
Acid gases, hydrogen cyanide, Hg, PM
metals.
no requirement
no requirement
MACT floor limit.
BTF limit (one facility-Vansant, VA);
MACT limit (all remaining facilities).
MACT floor limit.
MACT floor limit.
no requirement
MACT floor limit.
By-product Recovery Battery Stack ........
a The
higher opacity limit applies to ‘‘tall’’ doors (equal to or greater than 6 meters); lower leak limit applies to other doors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55894
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
A. What are the affected sources?
These proposed amendments to the
NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching and Battery Stacks affect
sources of HAP emissions from pushing
coke out of ovens, quenching hot coke
with water in quench towers, battery
stacks of oven combustion gas at ByP
coke plants, and from HRSG and HNR
bypass/waste heat stacks at HNR
facilities. These proposed amendments
also apply to the NESHAP for Coke
Oven Batteries, where the affected
sources are the visible leaks from oven
doors, charging port lids, and offtake
ducts; and from emissions from
charging coal into the coke ovens.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The proposed BTF MACT standards
for waste heat stacks at nonrecovery
facilities in the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category would achieve an estimated
237 tpy reduction of PM emissions, 14
tpy reduction of PM2.5 emissions, 4.0
tpy reduction of nonmercury metal HAP
emissions, and 0.072 tpy (144 pounds
per year) reduction of mercury
emissions.
We expect that there will be no other
air quality impacts due to this proposed
rulemaking (e.g., from the proposed 15
MACT floor limits for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
NESHAP source category). However, the
15 proposed MACT floor standards
would ensure that air quality does not
degrade over time.
We also expect that there will be no
air quality impacts due to proposed
reduction in allowable emissions from
coke oven doors, lids and offtakes in the
Coke Oven Batteries source category,
but the proposed revised standards
would ensure that air quality does not
degrade over time.
C. What are the other environmental
impacts?
Baghouses and ACI that are used to
reduce air emissions of mercury and
nonmercury HAP metals from bypass
waste stacks at one HNR facility have
the following environmental impacts:
15.1 million kilowatt-hour increased
electricity use and 761 tons of
hazardous dust for disposal. Baghouses
and ACI are commonly used control
devices for air emissions of PM and
mercury. Consequently, there is a
reduction in air emissions of 4.0 tpy
nonmercury HAP metals and 144
pounds per year mercury.
D. What are the cost impacts?
Cost impacts would occur due to the
required source testing every 5 years to
demonstrate compliance with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
proposed MACT floor and BTF
standards for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks. Testing
costs are estimated to be $3.2 million
annualized costs including reporting
and recordkeeping for the 11 operating
facilities in the source category, with an
average of $290,000 per year per facility
including reporting and recordkeeping.
Cost impacts would occur due to the
control device needed to reduce HAP
emissions to meet the two BTF MACT
standards. For the ACI and baghouses
used to achieve the BTF standard for
mercury, capital costs would be
$314,000 for activated carbon and the
injection systems and $7.2M for the
baghouses along with necessary
ductwork; annual costs for activated
carbon and the injection systems would
be $1.6M/yr and $3.0M/yr for the
baghouses with necessary ductwork. For
nonmercury metal HAP control, capital
costs would be $7.2M for the baghouses
along with necessary ductwork and
annual costs would be $3.0M/yr. Total
estimated capital costs for the BTF limit
for waste heat stacks (nonmercury metal
HAP and mercury) are $7.5M, with
annualized costs of $4.7M (1 affected
facility).
Total costs for fenceline monitoring
are estimated to be $116,000 per year
per facility including reporting and
recordkeeping and $1.3M annually for
the industry including reporting and
recordkeeping (11 affected facilities).
Total capital costs for the industry (for
1 facility) are $7.5M and the estimated
annual costs for the industry for all
proposed requirements are about $9.1M/
yr (including reporting and
recordkeeping) for 11 affected facilities.
E. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA prepared an Economic
Impact Analysis (EIA) for the proposed
rule, which is available in the docket for
this action. This proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 section 3(f)(1), as
amended by Executive Order 14094,
since it is not likely to have an annual
effect on the economy of $200 million
or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, territorial, or tribal
governments or communities. The EIA
analyzes the cost and emissions impact
under the proposed requirements, and
the projected impacts are presented for
the 2025–2036 time period. The EIA
analyzes the projected impacts of the
proposed rule in order to better inform
the public about its potential effects.
If the compliance costs, which are key
inputs to an economic impact analysis,
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are small relative to the receipts of the
affected industries, then the impact
analysis may consist of a calculation of
annual (or annualized) costs as a
percent of sales for affected parent
companies. This type of analysis is often
applied when a partial equilibrium or
more complex economic impact
analysis approach is deemed
unnecessary given the expected size of
the impacts. The annualized cost per
sales for a company represents the
maximum price increase in the affected
product or service needed for the
company to completely recover the
annualized costs imposed by the
regulation. We conducted a cost-to-sales
analysis to estimate the economic
impacts of this proposal, given that the
equivalent annualized value (EAV),
which represents a flow of constant
annual values that would yield a sum
equivalent to the present value, of the
compliance costs over the period 2025–
2036 range from $8.9 million using a 7
percent discount rate to $9.6 million
using a 3 percent discount rate in 2022
dollars, which is small relative to the
revenues of the steel industry (of which
the coke industry is a part).
There are five parent companies that
operate active coke facilities: ClevelandCliffs, Inc. U.S. Steel, SunCoke Energy,
Inc., DTE Energy Company, and the
Drummond Company. Each reported
greater than $1 billion in revenue in
2021. The EPA estimated the annualized
compliance cost each firm is expected to
incur and determined the estimated
cost-to-sales ratio for each firm is less
than 0.5 percent. James C. Justice
Companies owns the idled Bluestone
Coke facility, and the EPA estimated the
compliance cost-to-sales ratio, if the
facility were to resume operations,
would be less than 0.1 percent.
Therefore, the projected economic
impacts of the expected compliance
costs of the proposal are likely to be
small. The EPA also conducted a small
business screening to determine the
possible impacts of the proposed rule on
small businesses. Based on the Small
Business Administration size standards
and business information gathered by
the EPA, this source category has one
small business, which would not be
subject to significant cost by the
proposed requirements.
Details of the EIA can be found in the
document prepared for this rule titled
Economic Impact Analysis for the
Proposed National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology
Review; National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Oven Batteries Technology Review 49
that is located in the dockets for these
rules.
F. What are the benefits?
The BTF MACT standards for waste
heat stacks at nonrecovery facilities are
expected to reduce HAP emissions (with
concurrent control of PM2.5) and could
improve air quality and the health of
persons living in surrounding
communities. These standards are
expected to reduce 4.0 tpy of
nonmercury HAP metal (including
arsenic and lead) and 144 lbs per year
of mercury. These standards are also
projected to reduce PM emissions by
237 tpy, of which 14 tpy is expected to
be PM2.5. The proposed amendments
also revise the standards such that they
apply at all times, which includes
periods of SSM, and may result in some
unquantified additional emissions
reductions compared to historic or
current emissions (i.e., before the SSM
exemptions were removed), and
improve accountability and compliance
assurance. In addition, we are also
proposing fenceline monitoring, which
would improve compliance assurance
and potentially result in some
unquantified additional emission
reductions. The risk assessment
(described in section IV.B.) quantifies
the estimated health risks associated
with the current emissions, although we
did not attempt to monetize the health
benefits of reductions in HAP in this
analysis. The EPA remains committed to
improving methods for monetizing HAP
benefits by continuing to explore
additional aspects of HAP-related risk,
including the distribution of that risk.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
G. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 directs EPA to
identify the populations of concern who
are most likely to experience unequal
burdens from environmental harms,
which are specifically minority
populations, low-income populations,
and Indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). Additionally,
Executive Order 14096 built upon and
supplemented that order (88 FR 25,251;
April 26, 2023). For this action,
pursuant to the Executive Orders, the
EPA conducted an assessment of the
49 Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology
Review; National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven Batteries,
Technology Review (EPA–452/R–23–005). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Research Triangle
Park, NC. May 2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
impacts that would result from the
proposed rule amendments, if
promulgated, on communities with
environmental justice concerns living
near coke oven facilities.
Consistent with the EPA’s
commitment to integrating
environmental justice in the Agency’s
actions, the Agency has carefully
considered the impacts of this action on
communities with environmental justice
concerns. The EPA defines
environmental justice as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ 50 The EPA
further defines fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’ In recognizing that
communities with environmental justice
concerns often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the
EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public
health and environmental effects of air
pollution. For purposes of analyzing
regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon
its June 2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for
Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis,’’ 51 which provides
recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality
analysis feasible, recognizing that data
limitations, time, resource constraints,
and analytical challenges will vary by
media and circumstance. The Technical
Guidance states that a regulatory action
may involve potential environmental
justice concerns if it could: (1) Create
new disproportionate impacts on
minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples;
(2) exacerbate existing disproportionate
impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or Indigenous
peoples; or (3) present opportunities to
address existing disproportionate
impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or Indigenous
peoples through an action under
development.
50 https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
51 See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
technical-guidance-assessing-environmentaljustice-regulatory-analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55895
1. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks Source Category
Demographics
The EPA examined the potential for
the 14 coke oven facilities to
disproportionately impact residents in
certain demographic groups in
proximity to the facilities, both in the
baseline and under the control options
considered in this proposal.
Specifically, the EPA analyzed how
demographics and risk are distributed
both pre- and post-control under the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stack NESHAP, enabling us to
address the core questions that are
posed in the EPA’s 2016 Technical
Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis. In
conducting this analysis, we considered
key variables highlighted in the
guidance including minority
populations (including Hispanic or
Latino), low-income populations, and/or
Indigenous peoples. The methodology
and detailed results of the demographic
analysis are presented in the document
titled Analysis of Demographic Factors
for Populations Living Near Coke Oven
Facilities,52 which is available in the
docket for this action.
To examine the potential for
disproportionate impacts on certain
population groups, the EPA conducted
a proximity analysis, baseline risk-based
analysis (i.e., before implementation of
any controls proposed in this action),
and post-control risk-based analysis
(i.e., after implementation of the
controls proposed in this action). The
proximity demographic analysis is an
assessment of individual demographic
groups in the total population living
within 10 km (∼6.2 miles) and 50 km
(∼31 miles) of the facilities. The baseline
risk-based demographic analysis is an
assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups in the population
living within 10 km and 50 km of the
facilities prior to the implementation of
any controls proposed by this action
(‘‘baseline’’). The post-control risk-based
demographic analysis is an assessment
of risks to individual demographic
groups in the population living within
10 km and 50 km of the facilities after
implementation of the controls
proposed by this action (‘‘post-control’’).
In this preamble, we focus on the 10 km
radius for the demographic analysis
because it encompasses all the facility
MIR locations and captures 99 percent
52 Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities. C.
Sarsony. 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.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55896
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
of the population with baseline cancer
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million from coke ovens source category
emissions. The results of the proximity
analysis for populations living within
50 km are included in the document
titled Analysis of Demographic Factors
for Populations Living Near Coke Oven
Facilities, which is available in the
docket for this action.
Under the risk-based demographic
analysis, the total population,
population percentages, and population
count for each demographic group for
the entire U.S. population is shown in
the column titled ‘‘Nationwide Average
for Reference’’ in Table 11 of this
preamble. These national data are
provided as a frame of reference to
compare the results of the baseline
proximity analysis, the baseline riskbased analyses, and the post-control
risk-based analyses.
The results of the category proximity
demographic analysis (see Table 11,
column titled ‘‘Baseline Proximity
Analysis for Pop. Living within 10 km
of Coke Oven Facilities’’) indicate that
a total of 1.3 million people live within
10 km of the 14 Coke Oven facilities.
The percent of the population that is
African American is more than double
the national average (27 percent versus
12 percent). The percent of people
living below the poverty level is almost
double the national average (22 percent
versus 13 percent).
The category baseline risk-based
demographic analysis (see Table 11,
column titled ‘‘Pre-Control Baseline’’),
which focuses on populations that have
higher cancer risks, indicates that the
population with cancer risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to
emissions from the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category is predominantly white
(86 percent versus 60 percent
nationally).53 The population with
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1in-1 million is above the national
average for percent of the population
living below poverty (17 percent versus
13 percent) and the percent of the
population that is over 25 without a
high school diploma is almost 2 times
the national average (21 percent versus
12 percent). The category post-control
risk-based demographic analysis (see
Table 11, column titled ‘‘Post-Control’’)
shows that the controls under
consideration in this proposal would
reduce the number of people who are
exposed to cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million resulting from
emissions from the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category by almost 90 percent,
from approximately 2,900 to 400 people.
The post-control population with risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
(approximately 400 people) live within
10 km of three facilities, two located in
Pennsylvania and one in Virginia.
However, over 90 percent of the 400
people with risks greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million are located around one
facility in Clairton, Pennsylvania. The
total post-control population with risks
equal to or greater than 1-in-1 million is
predominately white (96 percent). Note
that there are only 26 people with postcontrol risks greater than 1-in-1 million
(MIR of 2-in-1 million) due to emissions
from the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category within 10 km of the coke oven
facilities.
TABLE 11—COKE OVENS: PUSHING, QUENCHING, AND BATTERY STACKS SOURCE CATEGORY: PRE-CONTROL AND POSTCONTROL DEMOGRAPHICS OF POPULATIONS LIVING WITHIN 10 KM OF FACILITIES WITH CANCER RISK GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO 1-IN-1 MILLION COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHICS
Nationwide
average for
reference
Demographic group
Total Population ...............................................................................................................
Number of Facilities .........................................................................................................
Baseline
proximity
analysis for
population
living within
10 km of
Coke Oven
facilities
328M
....................
Cancer risk ≥1-in-1 million
within 10 km of Coke
Oven facilities
Pre-control
baseline
Post-control
1.3M
14
3K
3
400
3
60%
197M
12%
40M
0.7%
2.2M
19%
62M
8%
27M
59%
789K
27%
364K
0.2%
2.5K
11%
144K
3%
44K
86%
2.5K
11%
300
0.1%
<100
1%
<100
2%
<100
96%
400
2%
<100
0.0%
0
1%
<100
1%
<100
13%
44M
87%
284M
22%
297K
78%
1M
17%
500
83%
2.4K
10%
<100
90%
300
Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
White ................................................................................................................................
African American .............................................................................................................
Native American ..............................................................................................................
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ...........................................................
Other and Multiracial .......................................................................................................
Income by Percent/Number of People
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Below Poverty Level ........................................................................................................
Above Poverty Level ........................................................................................................
53 Note that, since there are only 57 people with
a noncancer HI greater than or equal to 1 living
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
around one facility, we did not conduct risk-based
demographics for noncancer.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
55897
TABLE 11—COKE OVENS: PUSHING, QUENCHING, AND BATTERY STACKS SOURCE CATEGORY: PRE-CONTROL AND POSTCONTROL DEMOGRAPHICS OF POPULATIONS LIVING WITHIN 10 KM OF FACILITIES WITH CANCER RISK GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO 1-IN-1 MILLION COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHICS—Continued
Nationwide
average for
reference
Demographic group
Baseline
proximity
analysis for
population
living within
10 km of
Coke Oven
facilities
Cancer risk ≥1-in-1 million
within 10 km of Coke
Oven facilities
Pre-control
baseline
Post-control
Education by Percent/Number of People
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ..................................................................
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma .......................................................................
12%
40M
88%
288M
14%
194K
86%
1.1M
21%
600
79%
2.3K
7%
<100
93%
400
3%
39K
1%
<100
0%
0
Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
Linguistically Isolated .......................................................................................................
5%
18M
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census’ 2015–2019 ACS 5-year block group averages. Total population
count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A person who identifies as Hispanic
or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located at a user assigned receptor
at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
2. Coke Oven Whole-Facility
Demographics
As described in section IV.B.5. of this
preamble, we assessed the facility-wide
(or ‘‘whole-facility’’) risks for 14 coke
oven facilities in order to compare the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP source category
risk to the whole facility risks. This
whole-facility demographic analysis
characterizes the risks communities face
from all HAP sources at coke oven
facilities both before and after
implementation of the controls
proposed in this action that result in
reduction of actual emissions. The
whole facility risk assessment includes
all sources of HAP emissions at each
facility (described in section III.C.7. of
this preamble). Note, no reduction in
actual emissions or risk is expected at
the whole facility level apart from the
reduction in actual emissions and risk
estimated for the proposed standards for
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP source
category.
The whole-facility demographic
analysis is an assessment of individual
demographic groups in the total
population living within 10 km (∼6.2
miles) and 50 km (∼31 miles) of the
facilities. In this preamble, we focus on
the 10 km radius for the demographic
analysis because it encompasses all the
facility MIR locations and captures 99
percent of the population with baseline
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
in-1 million from the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
NESHAP source category emissions.
The results of the whole-facility
demographic analysis for populations
living within 50 km are included in the
document titled Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Coke Oven Facilities, which
is available in the docket for this action.
The whole-facility demographic
analysis post-control results are shown
in Table 12 of this preamble. This
analysis focused on the populations
living within 10 km of the coke oven
facilities with estimated whole-facility
post-control cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The risk analysis
indicated that all emissions from the
coke oven facilities, after the proposed
reductions, expose a total of about
575,000 people living within 10 km of
the 14 facilities to a cancer risk greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. About 83
percent of these 575,000 people with a
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in1 million live within 10 km of 3
facilities—2 in Alabama and 1 in
Pennsylvania. The population with
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1in-1 million living within 10 km of the
two facilities in Alabama is 56 percent
African American, which is
significantly higher than the national
average of 12 percent. Note that, in the
baseline, there are only 26 people with
post-control risks greater than 50-in-1
million within 10 km of the coke oven
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facilities, therefore, the demographics of
this population is not discussed.
When the coke oven whole-facility
populations are compared to the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks NESHAP source category
populations in the post-control
scenarios, 573,000 additional people are
estimated to have risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by
the 14 modeled facilities based on
whole facility emissions is 50-in-1
million, with COE from coke oven doors
(a regulated source in the Coke Oven
Batteries source category) driving the
whole facility risk.
While the pre-control and postcontrol Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category population with risks ≥1-in-1
million (shown in Table 12) is
disproportionately White, the precontrol and post-control whole-facility
population with risks ≥1-in-1 million
(shown in Table 12) is
disproportionately African American.
Specifically, the pre-control and postcontrol whole-facility population with
risk greater than 1-in-1 million is 26
percent African American compared to
the national average of 12 percent. In
addition, the percentage of the precontrol and post-control whole-facility
population with risks ≥1-in-1 million
that is below the poverty level (17
percent) is above the national average
(13 percent).
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55898
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 12—WHOLE-FACILITY: PRE-CONTROL AND POST-CONTROL DEMOGRAPHICS OF POPULATIONS LIVING WITHIN 10 KM
OF FACILITIES WITH CANCER RISK GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1-IN-1 MILLION FROM COKE OVEN WHOLE-FACILITY
EMISSIONS COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHICS
Nationwide
average for
reference
Demographic group
Total Population ...............................................................................................................
Number of Facilities .........................................................................................................
Baseline
proximity
analysis for
pop. living
within 10
km of Coke
Oven
facilities
328M
....................
Cancer risk ≥1-in-1 million
within 10 km of Coke
Oven facilities
Pre-control
baseline
Post-control
1.4M
14
575K
9
573K
9
60%
197M
12%
40M
0.7%
2.2M
19%
62M
8%
27M
58%
805K
27%
381K
0.2%
2.5K
12%
166K
3%
45K
66%
379K
26%
151K
0.2%
900
4%
25K
3%
19K
66%
377K
26%
151K
0.2%
900
4%
25K
3%
19K
13%
44M
87%
284M
22%
310K
78%
1.1M
17%
100K
83%
475K
17%
100K
83%
474K
12%
40M
88%
288M
15%
206K
85%
1.2M
10%
55K
90%
520K
9%
54K
91%
519K
3%
44K
1%
6K
1%
6K
Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
White ................................................................................................................................
African American .............................................................................................................
Native American ..............................................................................................................
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ...........................................................
Other and Multiracial .......................................................................................................
Income by Percent/Number of People
Below Poverty Level ........................................................................................................
Above Poverty Level ........................................................................................................
Education by Percent/Number of People
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ..................................................................
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma .......................................................................
Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
Linguistically Isolated .......................................................................................................
5%
18M
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census’ 2015–2019 ACS 5-year block group averages. Total population
count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A person who identifies as Hispanic
or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located at a user assigned receptor
at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
H. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because the EPA does not
believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to
children. The EPA’s assessment of the
potential impacts to human health from
emissions at existing coke ovens sources
in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category are
discussed in section IV.B. and IV.C. of
this preamble. The proposed BTF limit
for mercury at HNR waste heat stacks,
described in section IV.A. of this
preamble, would reduce actual and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
allowable mercury emissions, thereby
reducing potential exposure to children,
including the unborn. Although we did
not perform a risk assessment of the
Coke Oven Batteries source category in
this action, we note that COE, which is
primarily emitted from this source
category, has a mutagenic mode of
action; therefore, changes to the
standards for the Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP under the technology review
could reduce the exposure of children to
mutagens.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed
action. In addition to general comments
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on this proposed action, we are also
interested in specific issues, as follows:
• Additional data that may improve
the risk assessments and other analyses.
We are specifically interested in
receiving any improvements to the data
used in the site-specific emissions
profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or
information. Section VII. of this
preamble provides more information on
submitting data;
• All aspects of cost and benefit
estimates for the proposed action;
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
• New methods available to reduce
leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes from
coke oven batteries;
• The revised equation to estimate
coke oven door leaks 39 discussed in
section IV.D.6., above, as well as the
recently received (June 27, 2023) EPA
Method 303 data from two batteries at
each of two coke facilities, that are
located in the dockets for the rules;
• The validity of the assumption of 2
for an acute factor;
• Establishing a 1-hour battery stack
MACT standard, including comments
regarding whether or not EPA should
include such a standard in the final rule
and an explanation as to why or why
not;
• For fenceline monitoring, we
request comment on the following:
• The suitability of selecting benzene
or other HAP, including naphthalene
and other PAH, as the indicator to be
monitored by fenceline samplers;
• Whether it would be appropriate to
require multiple HAP to be monitored at
the fenceline, considering the capital
and annual cost for additional monitors
that are not passive/diffusion type, and
if so, which pollutants should be
monitored;
• Alternative approaches for making
adjustments for off-site contributions to
the fenceline concentration of benzene;
whether it is appropriate to establish a
standard time frame for compliance
with actions listed in a corrective action
plan and whether the approval of the
corrective action plan should be
performed by to state, local and tribal
governments;
• The proposed approach for
reducing fenceline monitoring
requirements for facilities that
consistently measure fenceline
concentrations below the concentration
action level and the measurement level
that should be used to provide such
relief;
• Suggestions for other ways to
improve the fenceline monitoring
requirements; and
• The minimum time period facilities
should be required to conduct fenceline
monitoring before allowing a reduction
in monitoring frequency due to low
fenceline concentration levels;
• The level of performance, in terms
of monitored fenceline concentrations,
that would enable a facility to reduce
the frequency of data collection and
reporting; and
• The costs associated with changes
in equipment or practices resulting from
an exceedance of the fenceline action
level;
• Whether we have successfully
ensured that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption;
• Whether any situations exist where
separate standards, such as work
practices, would be more appropriate
during periods of startup and shutdown
rather than the current standard;
• The content, layout, and overall
design of the templates for quarterly and
semiannual compliance reports;
• The use of other surrogates,
practices, or techniques to determine
leaks from HNR ovens, that could be
applied to HNR door leaks as an
alternatives to EPA Method 303A, to
include alternative monitoring
approaches or techniques. For those
alternative techniques that could be
applied to measuring HNR door leaks,
we are soliciting information on
equivalency studies that have been
performed against EPA Method 303
and/or 303A, and any potential training
requirements.
• The use of either additional
pressure transducers to monitor for
negative pressure inside HNR common
tunnels and ovens (including comments
on number and placement of monitors)
or a requirement for an approved
monitoring plan; or a requirement for
both additional monitors and an
approved plan.
• The measures or monitoring
methods for limiting soaking emissions
from ByP ovens (including the
definition of soaking).
• Changes to Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP to require both leak
monitoring and pressure monitoring
instead of a choice between the two, and
whether pressure monitoring should be
measured at least during key points in
the whole oven cycle, possibly more
often.
• Other potential approaches to
establish emissions standards for the
HRSG main stacks and bypass stacks,
including: (1) whether the EPA should
consider the emission points all
combined (i.e., HRSG main stack plus
HRSG bypass stack emissions) and
establish standards based on the best
five units or best five facilities including
emissions following the HRSGs and
their control devices and emissions
from the bypass over a period of time
(e.g., per year or per month); or (2) a
standard that is based in part on
limiting the number of hours per year or
per month that bypass stack can be
used.
• The accuracy of revenue and
employment data included in the EIA;
• The accuracy of the cost-to-sales
ratios calculated in the EIA and whether
the BTF limit for Hg and non-Hg metals
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55899
could put SunCoke’s Vansant facility at
risk of closure;
• Other ongoing rulemaking efforts
(such as integrated iron and steel
manufacturing, taconite iron ore
processing) that may impact facilities in
this source category and the cumulative
regulatory burden of rules affecting
these facilities;
• Potential interactions between this
proposed action and potential timelines
and changes to facilities installing
carbon capture and/or using hydrogen,
or how the regulation might affect steel
decarbonization efforts; and
• Potential impacts, if any, on: U.S.
manufacturing, the creation or retention
of jobs (and the quality of those jobs)
and supply chains; National Security;
renewable and clean energy projects;
projects funded by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and
Science Act; aerospace manufacturing;
telecommunications; critical
infrastructure for national defense, and
global competitiveness.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles
used in the source category risk and
demographic analyses and instructions
are available for download on the source
category websites at https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-pushingquenching-and-battery-stacks-nationalemission, or https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-batteries-national-emissionsstandards-hazardous-air. The data files
include detailed information for each
HAP emissions release point for the
facilities and sources in the source
categories.
If you believe that the data are not
representative or are inaccurate, please
identify the data in question, provide
your reason for concern, and provide
any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we
request that you provide documentation
of the basis for the revised values to
support your suggested changes. To
submit comments on the data
downloaded from the RTR website,
complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter
suggested revisions to the data fields
appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information
fields for each suggested revision (i.e.,
commenter name, commenter
organization, commenter email address,
commenter phone number, and revision
comments).
3. Gather documentation for any
suggested emissions revisions (e.g.,
performance test reports, material
balance calculations).
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
55900
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
4. Send the entire downloaded file
with suggested revisions in Microsoft®
Access format and all accompanying
documentation to Docket ID Nos. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2002–0085 and EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0051 (through the method
described in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on
a single facility or multiple facilities,
you need only submit one file for all
facilities. The file should contain all
suggested changes for all sources at that
facility (or facilities). We request that all
data revision comments be submitted in
the form of updated Microsoft® Excel
files that are generated by the
Microsoft® Access file. These files are
provided on the source category
websites at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/cokeovens-pushing-quenching-and-batterystacks-national-emission and https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/coke-ovens-batteries-nationalemissions-standards-hazardous-air.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order
12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to the
Executive Order 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA
prepared an economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this
action. This analysis, Economic Impact
Analysis for the Proposed National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks,
Residual Risk and Technology Review;
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven
Batteries Technology Review, is
available in the dockets EPA–HQ–OAR–
2002–0085 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0051.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the PRA. The information collection
request (ICR) documents that the EPA
prepared have been assigned EPA ICR
numbers 1995.09 and 1362.14. You can
find a copy of the ICRs in the dockets
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
for this rule, and they are briefly
summarized here.
We are proposing amendments to the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP that require
compliance testing for 15 MACT and 2
BTF limits and to the Coke Oven Battery
NESHAP that require fenceline
monitoring. Furthermore, the
amendments also require electronic
reporting and remove the SSM
exemptions in both NESHAPs. We are
also incorporating other revisions (e.g.,
facility counts) that affect reporting and
recordkeeping for coke oven facilities.
This information would be collected to
assure compliance with the CAA.
For ICR: NESHAP for Coke Oven
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
(40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) (OMB
Control Number 2060–0521).
Respondents/affected entities: Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCC).
Estimated number of respondents: 14
facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden of entire rule:
The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAPs is
estimated to be 32,500 hours (per year).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule:
The annual recordkeeping and reporting
cost for all facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAPs is
estimated to be $4,230,000 (per year), of
which $1,060,000 (per year) is for this
proposal, and $3,043,000 is for other
costs related to continued compliance
with the NESHAPs in addition to
$125,000 for the operation and
maintenance of leak detectors and
continuous opacity monitors. The total
rule costs reflect an overall increase of
$1,280,000 (per year) from the previous
ICR due to the compliance with 17
additional MACT/BTF limits, transition
to electronic reporting, and elimination
of SSM requirements.
For ICR: NESHAP for Coke Oven
Batteries (40 CFR part 63, subpart L)
(OMB Control Number 2060–0253).
Respondents/affected entities: Coke
Oven Batteries source category.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart L).
Estimated number of respondents: 14
facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden of entire rule:
The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAPs is
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimated to be 63,000 hours (per year).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule:
The annual recordkeeping and reporting
cost for all facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAPs is
estimated to be $7,795,000 (per year), of
which $530,000 (per year) is for this
proposal and $7,410,000 is for other
costs related to continued compliance
with the NESHAPs. The total rule costs
reflect an increase of $1,070,000 (per
year) from the previous ICR, due to
revised HNR facility counts, transition
to electronic reporting, addition of
fenceline monitoring, and elimination of
SSM requirements.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will
respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule. You may also send your
ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain. Find this
particular information collection by
selecting ‘‘Currently under Review—
Open for Public Comments’’ or by using
the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than September 15,
2023.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. Small entities that may
be impacted by this rulemaking include
Coke facilities located within an
integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility under NAICS 331110 (Iron and
Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing) with 1,500 or fewer
employees, or facilities under NAICS
324199 (All Other Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing, with 500 or
fewer workers. None of the facilities
currently in operation that are
potentially affected by this rulemaking
proposal under these size definitions are
‘‘small businesses’’ and therefore will
not have a significant economic impact.
Additional details of the analysis can be
found in the document prepared for this
rule titled Economic Impact Analysis for
the Proposed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and
Technology Review; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Coke Oven Batteries Technology
Review.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
While this action creates an enforceable
duty on the private sector, the cost does
not exceed $100 million or more.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. No tribal
governments own facilities subject to
these NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the
health and safety effects of the planned
regulation on children in federal health
and safety standards and explain why
the regulation is preferable to
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. Due to
control of mercury and nonmercury
metal HAP at waste heat stacks at
nonrecovery facilities, we believe the
health of children living nearby would
be improved. This action’s health and
risk assessments for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
source category are contained in section
IV. of this preamble and further
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
documented in The Residual Risk
Assessment or the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stack Source
Category in Support of the 2023 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule,
available in the docket for this action
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0085). However,
EPA’s Policy on Children’s Health
applies to this action.
Although we did not perform a risk
assessment of the Coke Oven Batteries
source category in this action, we note
that COE, which is primarily emitted
from this source category, has a
mutagenic mode of action; therefore,
changes to the standards for the Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAP under the
technology review could reduce the
exposure of children to mutagens.
Information on how this policy was
applied is available under ‘‘Children’s
Environmental Health’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
We have concluded this action is not
likely to have any adverse energy effects
because energy use is projected to
increase by only 15 million kilowatthours to operate control devices to
achieve the proposed air emissions
reductions in HAP metals (see section
V.C. of this preamble, ‘‘What are the
other environmental impacts?’’).
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the RTR for the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP and the
NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). We also
contacted VCS organizations and
accessed and searched their databases.
For Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP, we
conducted searches for EPA Methods
EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4,
5, 5D, 9, 18, 22 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, EPA Methods 303, 303A of
40 CFR part 63, appendix A. No
applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA
Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 22, 303, and 303A.
For Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP, searches were
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55901
conducted for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F,
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 23, 26, 26A,
29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, EPA
Method 160.1 in 40 CFR part 136.3,
appendix A, EPA Methods 316 and 320
40 CFR part 63, appendix A. No
applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA
Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 316, and 160.1.
During the EPA’s VCS search, if the
title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to
the EPA’s reference method, the EPA
reviewed it as a potential equivalent
method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality
of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation
data that meet the requirements of EPA
Method 301 for accepting alternative
methods or scientific, engineering and
policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA reference methods. The EPA may
reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional
information is available for a particular
VCS.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10–1981—Part 10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses.’’ The manual
procedures (but not instrumental
procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10–1981—Part 10 may be used as an
alternative to EPA Method 3B for
measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide
content of the exhaust gas. This
standard is acceptable as an alternative
to EPA Method 3B and is available from
ASME at https://www.asme.org; by mail
at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016–5990; or by telephone at (800)
843–2763. This method determines
quantitatively the gaseous constituents
of exhausts resulting from stationary
combustion sources. The gases covered
in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 are
oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide,
sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and
hydrocarbons, however the use in this
rule is only applicable to oxygen and
carbon dioxide.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the VCS ASTM D7520–16,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining
the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor
Ambient Atmosphere’’ which is an
instrumental method to determine
plume opacity in the outdoor ambient
environment as an alternative to visual
measurements made by certified smoke
readers in accordance with EPA Method
9. The concept of ASTM D7520–16, also
known as the Digital Camera Opacity
Technique or DCOT, is a test protocol to
determine the opacity of visible
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
55902
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
emissions using a digital camera. This
method is based on previous method
development using digital still cameras
and field testing of those methods. The
purpose of ASTM D7520–16 is to set a
minimum level of performance for
products that use DCOT to determine
plume opacity in ambient
environments.
The DCOT method is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 9 with the
following caveats:
• During the digital camera opacity
technique (DCOT) certification
procedure outlined in section 9.2 of
ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT
vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue
sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds
(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
• You must also have standard
operating procedures in place including
daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within
manufacturing specifications as
outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520–
16.
• You must follow the record keeping
procedures outlined in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all
raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity
and certification determination.
• You or the DCOT vendor must have
a minimum of four (4) independent
technology users apply the software to
determine the visible opacity of the 300
certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15
percent opacity of any one reading and
the average error must not exceed 7.5
percent opacity.
• This approval does not provide or
imply a certification or validation of any
vendor’s hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the
certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software and operator in
accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and
this letter is on the facility, DCOT
operator, and DCOT vendor. This
method describes procedures to
determine the opacity of a plume, using
digital imagery and associated hardware
and software, where opacity is caused
by PM emitted from a stationary point
source in the outdoor ambient
environment. The opacity of emissions
is determined by the application of a
DCOT that consists of a digital still
camera, analysis software, and the
output function’s content to obtain and
interpret digital images to determine
and report plume opacity.
The ASTM D7520–16 document is
available from ASTM at https://
www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959, telephone number: (610) 832–
9500, fax number: (610) 832–9555 at
service@astm.org.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the VCS ASTM D6420–18,
‘‘Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry’’ which provides on-site
analysis of extracted, unconditioned,
and unsaturated (at the instrument) gas
samples from stationary sources. The
ASTM D6420–18 method employs a
direct interface gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer to identify and quantify 36
volatile organic compounds (or sub-set
of these compounds). The ASTM
method incorporates a performancebased approach, which validates each
analysis by placing boundaries on the
instrument response to gaseous internal
standards and their specific mass
spectral relative abundance; using this
approach, the test method may be
extended to analyze other compounds.
This ASTM D2460–18 method is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18
only when the target compounds are all
known and the target compounds are all
listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. It
should not be used for methane and
ethane because atomic mass is less than
35. ASTM D6420 should never be
specified as a total VOC method. The
ASTM D6420–18 document is available
from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or
1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959,
telephone number: (610) 832–9500, fax
number: (610) 832–9555 at service@
astm.org.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the VCS ASTM D6784–16,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total
Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 3
Method)’’ as an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury
only) as a method for measuring
mercury.
Note: This applies to concentrations
approximately 0.5–100 μg/Nm3.
The ASTM D6784–16 document is
available from ASTM at https://
www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959, telephone number: (610) 832–
9500, fax number: (610) 832–9555 at
service@astm.org.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the VCS ASTM D6348–12e1,
‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds
by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier
Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy’’ as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method
320. This ASTM method is an FTIR-
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based field test method used to quantify
gas phase concentrations of multiple
target analytes from stationary source
effluent. The method provides near real
time analysis of extracted gas samples
from stationary sources. The method
employs an extractive sampling system
to direct stationary source effluent to an
FTIR spectrometer for the identification
and quantification of gaseous
compounds. The test method is
potentially applicable for the
determination of compounds that (1)
have sufficient vapor pressure to be
transported to the FTIR spectrometer
and (2) absorb a sufficient amount of
infrared radiation to be detected.
In the 9/22/08 NTTA summary,
ASTM D6348–03(2010) was determined
equivalent to EPA Method 320 with
caveats. ASTM D6348–12e1 is a revised
version of ASTM D6348–03(2010) and
includes a new section on accepting the
results from direct measurement of a
certified spike gas cylinder, but still
lacks the caveats we placed on the
D6348–03(2010) version. The voluntary
consensus standard ASTM D6348–12e1
‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds
by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier
Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy’’ is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method
320 at this time with caveats requiring
inclusion of selected annexes to the
standard as mandatory. When using
ASTM D6348–12e1, the following
conditions must be met:
• The test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348–12e1, sections A1
through A8 are mandatory; and
• In ASTM D6348–12e1 Annex A5
(Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent (%) R must be determined for
each target analyte (Equation A5.5).
In order for the test data to be
acceptable for a compound, %R must be
70% ≥ R ≤ 130%. If the %R value does
not meet this criterion for a target
compound, the test data is not
acceptable for that compound and the
test must be repeated for that analyte
(i.e., the sampling and/or analytical
procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each
compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must
be corrected with the calculated %R
value for that compound by using the
following equation:
Reported Results = (Measured
Concentration in Stack)/(%R) × 100
The ASTM D6348–12e1 document is
available from ASTM at https://
www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959, telephone number: (610) 832–
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
9500, fax number: (610) 832–9555 at
service@astm.org.
Additional information for the VCS
search and determinations can be found
in the memorandum titled Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery
Stacks: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants and Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for Coke
Oven Batteries: National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
available in the EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0085, EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0051
dockets for this proposed rule.
The EPA is also incorporating by
reference Quality Assurance Handbook
for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,
Volume IV: Meteorological
Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final),
March 2008 (EPA–454/B–08–002). This
EPA document is dedicated to
meteorological measurement systems
and their support equipment, and is
designed to provide clear and concise
information and guidance to the State/
Local/Tribal air pollution control
agencies that operate meteorological
monitoring equipment and systems.
New monitoring rules require that
meteorological data be collected at all
National Core network stations, as
stated in the CFR Chapter 40 Section 58,
Appendix D.3.b. Thus, there is a need
for updated information to guide
agencies as they implement the new
network. Since the last version of
Volume IV was written, there have been
a number of breakthroughs in
instrument development and support
equipment, which are reflected in this
revision (2.0). A copy of this handbook
can be obtained from the National
Service Center for Environmental
Publications at https://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100FOMB.txt
or from the dockets to these rules (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2002–0085 and EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0051).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Aug 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on communities
with environmental justice concerns.
The EPA believes that the human
health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or
have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human
health or environmental effects on
communities with environmental justice
concerns.
As discussed in section V.G. of this
preamble, the population with risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
due to emissions from all sources of
HAP at coke oven facilities is
disproportionately (26 percent) African
American compared to the national
average (12 percent African American).
About 83 percent of the 575,000 people
with a cancer risk greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million live within 10 km of
3 facilities—two in Alabama and one in
Pennsylvania. The population with
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1in-1 million living within 10 km of the
two facilities in Alabama is 56 percent
African American, which is
significantly higher than the national
average of 12 percent. In addition, the
population with risks ≥1-in-1 million
due to emissions from all sources of
HAP at coke oven facilities that is below
the poverty level (17 percent) is above
the national average (13 percent).
The EPA believes that this action is
likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on
communities with environmental justice
concerns. The impacts of these
proposed rules are to limit allowable
emissions from coke ovens sources in 40
CFR part 63, subparts CCCCC and L. In
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
55903
addition, proposed BTF standards for
HNR waste heat stacks would limit
actual emissions for mercury and
nonmercury metal HAP 26 from these
sources.
While the proposed measures do not
significantly decrease the number of
those below the poverty level and those
over 25 years of age without a high
school diploma who have risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to
HAP emissions from pushing,
quenching, and battery stacks sources
(Table 12), the proposed standards for
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category
achieve a reduction in the disparity for
these groups (Table 12). Specifically, of
the people living within 10 km of a coke
oven facility with risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million due to HAP
emissions from the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category, the percentage who are
below the poverty level is estimated to
decrease from 17 percent to 10 percent
under the proposed standards and the
percentage who are over 25 without a
high school diploma is estimated to
decrease from 21 percent to 7 percent
under the proposed standards. The EPA
also is proposing that coke oven
facilities conduct fenceline monitoring
for benzene and report these data
electronically to the EPA so that it can
be made public and provide fenceline
communities with greater access to
information about potential emissions
impacts.
The information supporting this
Executive Order review is contained in
section V.G. of this preamble and in the
document Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near
Coke Oven Facilities located in the
dockets for this rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2002–0085 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0051) and described above in section
V.G.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023–16620 Filed 8–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\16AUP3.SGM
16AUP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55858-55903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16620]
[[Page 55857]]
Vol. 88
Wednesday,
No. 157
August 16, 2023
Part III
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;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55858]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051; FRL-8471-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV19
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
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks (PQBS) source category, and the NESHAP for the Coke Oven
Batteries (COB) source category. This proposal presents the results of
the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted as required
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the PQBS source category, and the
periodic technology review for the COB source category, also required
under the CAA. The EPA is proposing 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. Under the technology review for PQBS
NESHAP, we are proposing there are no developments in practices,
processes or control technologies that necessitate revision of
standards for this source category. Under the technology review for the
COB source category, the EPA is proposing amendments to the NESHAP to
lower the limits for leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes to reflect
improvements in technology to minimize emissions. We also are proposing
a requirement for fenceline monitoring for benzene (as a surrogate for
coke oven emissions) and a requirement to conduct root cause analysis
and corrective action upon exceeding an action level. In addition, we
are proposing: (1) new standards for several unregulated HAP or sources
of HAP at facilities subject to PQBS NESHAP; (2) the removal of
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction consistent
with a 2008 court decision, and clarifying that the standards apply at
all times for both source categories; and (3) the addition of
electronic reporting for performance test results and compliance
reports. We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2023.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before September 15, 2023.
Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before August 21, 2023, we will hold a virtual public hearing.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and
registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085 (Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 (Coke Oven Batteries source
category) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID Nos. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0085 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 in the subject line of the
message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0085 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051,
Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
Nos. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact 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:
[email protected]. For specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact 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: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual
public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by
email at [email protected]. If requested, the hearing will be
held via virtual platform on August 31, 2023. The hearing will convene
at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. The
EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered
speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will
announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission or https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air.
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission or https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air, or contact the public hearing team
at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. The last
day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be August 28, 2023.
Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list
pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission, or https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
[[Page 55859]]
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission, or https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. While the
EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please
monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-
8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if there are
any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by August
23, 2023. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 (Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 (Coke Oven
Batteries source category). All documents in the dockets are listed in
https://www.regulations.gov/. 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. With the
exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are
available electronically in Regulations.gov.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051. The EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov/,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically to
https://www.regulations.gov/ any information that you consider to be
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
This type of information should be submitted as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID.
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No's
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051. The mailed CBI material
should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should
not show through the outer envelope.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. 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:
[[Page 55860]]
1-BP 1-bromopropane
ACI activated carbon injection
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM model
B/W Bypass/Waste
BTF beyond-the-floor
ByP by-product recovery coke production process
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI confidential business information
CBRP coke by-product chemical recovery plant
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COE coke oven emissions
delta c lowest concentration subtracted from the highest
concentration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT electronic reporting tool
FGD flue gas desulfurization
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HCN hydrogen cyanide
HEM human exposure model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HNR heat and nonrecovery, or only nonrecovery, no heat
HQ hazard quotient
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
IBR incorporation by reference
IRIS integrated risk information system
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
RDL representative detection limit
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TBD to be determined
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE total risk integrated methodology.fate, transport, and
ecological exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UPL upper prediction limit
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
WAS wet alkaline scrubber
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?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAPs
regulate HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data were
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the coke ovens:
pushing, quenching, and battery stacks source category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and 112(d)(3)?
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for
coke ovens: pushing, quenching, and battery stacks source category?
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
E. What other actions are we proposing?
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
G. Adding 1-bromopropane to List of HAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the other environmental impacts?
D. What are the cost impacts?
E. What are the economic impacts?
F. What are the benefits?
G. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
H. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing 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
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The EPA is proposing amendments to the NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven
Batteries. The purpose of this proposed 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 Coke Oven Batteries and Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks 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 maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards for the Coke Ovens Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category to determine whether
additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk
associated with HAP emissions from this Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks source category (``residual risk review'').
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
The EPA is proposing amendments under the technology review for the
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6),
including: (1) revising the emission leak limits for coke oven doors,
lids, and offtakes; and (2) requiring fenceline monitoring for benzene
along with an action level for benzene (as a surrogate for coke oven
emissions (COE)) and a requirement for root cause analysis and
corrective actions if the action level is exceeded.
[[Page 55861]]
Under the technology review for the Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA
did not identify any cost-effective options to reduce actual emissions
from currently regulated sources under the Coke Ovens Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP. However, EPA is asking for
comment on 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 on whether COE are emitted
from ovens after being pushed and while they are waiting to be charged
again (i.e., ``soaking emissions'').
As part of the technology review, the EPA must also set MACT
standards for previously unregulated HAP emissions pursuant to CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA identified 17 unregulated HAP or
emissions sources from Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks sources including hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride
(HF), mercury (Hg), and PM metals (e.g., lead and arsenic) from heat
nonrecovery (HNR) facility heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) main
stacks and bypass/waste (B/W) stacks, and HCl, HF, hydrogen cyanide
(HCN), Hg, and PM metals from pushing and coke oven battery stacks. In
this action, under the authority of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we
are proposing MACT floor limits (i.e., the minimum stringency level
allowed by the CAA) for 15 of the 17 unregulated HAP and beyond the
floor limits (i.e., more stringent than the MACT floor) for two HAP
(mercury and nonmercury HAP metals) from B/W stacks.
With regard to the residual risk review for the Coke Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2),
the estimated inhalation maximum individual risk (MIR) for cancer for
the baseline scenario (i.e., current actual emissions levels) due to
HAP emissions from Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
sources is 9-in-1 million, and the MIR based on allowable emissions was
only slightly higher (10-in-1 million), as shown in Table 1.
Furthermore, 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 proposing that risks
due to HAP emissions from the Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category are acceptable and the Coke Ovens
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP provides an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. Therefore, we are not proposing
amendments under CAA section 112(f)(2); however, we note that the
proposed BTF MACT limit for 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. However, 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
because the whole facility MIR is driven by the estimated actual
current fugitive emissions from coke oven doors (as described in
section IV.B. of this preamble) and we do not expect reductions of the
actual emissions from doors as a result of this proposed rule (as
explained further in section IV.D. of this preamble).
Table 1--Summary of Estimated Cancer Risk Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation Population cancer risk
cancer risk ----------------------------------
Item ---------------- Estimated annual
MIR in 1 cancer incidence >= 1-in-1
million (cases per year) million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source 9 0.02 2,900
Category....................................................
Post Control Risks for the Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and 2 \a\ 0.02 390
Battery Stacks Source Category..............................
Whole Facility............................................... 50 0.2 2.7M
Post Control Whole Facility Risks............................ 50 0.2 2.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures is 0.02 excess cancer case per year (or 1 case
every 50 years) and stays approximately the same due to emission reductions as a result of this proposed
action.
Furthermore, we conducted a demographics analysis, which indicates
that the population within 10 km of the coke oven facilities with risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is disproportionately African
American.
With regard to other actions, we are proposing the removal of
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 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 the addition of electronic reporting for performance test
results and compliance reports for both NESHAPs.
With regard to costs and emissions reductions, we estimate that the
proposed BTF limits for B/W stacks will achieve an estimated 237 tons
per year (tpy) reduction of PM emissions, 14 tpy of PM2.5
emissions, 4.0 tpy reduction of nonmercury metal HAP emissions, and 144
pounds per year reduction of mercury emissions. The total capital costs
for the industry (for 1 facility) are estimated to be $7.5M and the
estimated annual costs for the industry for all proposed requirements
are about $9.1M/yr for 11 affected facilities.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Table 2 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the subjects of this proposal.
Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category includes
emissions from pushing and quenching operations, and battery stacks at
a coke oven facility. The Coke Oven Batteries source category includes
emissions from the batteries themselves. A coke oven facility is
defined as a facility engaged in the manufacturing of metallurgical
[[Page 55862]]
coke by the destructive distillation of coal.
Table 2--NESHAP and Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS Code \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of
the proposal and key technical documents at these same websites.
Information on the overall residual risk and technology review (RTR)
program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart L proposed in this action are available in the dockets
(Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post a
copy of this document to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to
develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing
technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating
those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the
standards as necessary taking into account any ``developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies.'' This review is
commonly referred to as the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews
are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as
the ``risk and technology review.'' The discussion that follows
identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains
the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory
requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document
titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority
and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and nonair
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may
set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards.
Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA must also consider
control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more
stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor
(BTF) MACT standards. The EPA evaluates whether BTF standards are
needed based on emission reductions, costs of control, and other
factors. If EPA determines that there are potential BTF standards that
might be cost-efffective, the EPA typicallly develops and evaluates
those BTF control options. After evaluating the BTF options, the EPA
typically proposes such BTF options if EPA determines those BTF options
under consideration are technically feasible, costs impacts are
reasonable, and that the BTF standard would achieve meaningful
reductions and not result in significant non-air impacts such as
impacts to other media or excessive energy use. For area sources, CAA
section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT
standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk
[[Page 55863]]
and the Agency's interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed
in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene
Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-
Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14,
1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report that the
Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA
section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-
11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk
determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section
112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP.
See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045). If risks are
unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary
to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the
second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
``in consideration of all health information, including the number of
persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as
well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts,
technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each
particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin
of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floors that were
established during 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 MACT standards for listed air
toxics known to be emitted from the source category. Louisiana
Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir.
2020).
B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAPs
regulate HAP emissions?
Coke oven facilities produce metallurgical coke from coal in coke
ovens. Coke ovens are chambers of brick or other heat-resistant
material in which coal is heated to separate the coal gas, coal water,
and tar to produce coke. In a coke oven, coal undergoes destructive
distillation to produce coke, which is almost entirely carbon. A coke
oven ``battery'' is a group of ovens connected by common walls. There
are two types of metallurgic coke: (1) furnace coke, which is primarily
used in integrated iron and steel furnaces, along with iron ore pellets
(known as Taconite pellets) and other materials, to produce iron and
steel; and (2) foundry coke, which is primarily used in foundry
furnaces for melting iron to produce iron castings.
The process begins when a batch of coal is discharged from the coal
bunker into a larry car (i.e., charging vehicle that moves along the
top of the battery). The larry car is positioned over the empty, hot
oven; the lids on the charging ports are removed; and the coal is
discharged from the hoppers of the larry car into the oven. The coal is
heated in the oven in the absence of air to temperatures approaching
2,000 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) which drives off most of the volatile
organic constituents of the coal as gases and vapors, forming coke
which consists almost entirely of carbon. Coking continues for 15 to 18
hours to produce blast furnace coke and 25 to 30 hours to produce
foundry coke.
At the end of the coking cycle, doors at both ends of the oven are
removed, and the incandescent coke is pushed out of the oven by a ram
that is extended from the pusher machine. The coke is pushed through a
coke guide into a special rail car, called a quench car, which
transports the coke to a quench tower, typically located at the end of
a row of batteries. Inside the quench tower, the hot coke is deluged
with water so that it will not continue to burn after being exposed to
air. The quenched coke is discharged onto an inclined ``coke wharf'' to
allow excess water to drain and to cool the coke.
This process takes place at two types of facilities: (1) by-product
recovery (ByP) facilities, where chemical by-products are recovered
from coke oven emissions (COE) in a co-located coke by-product chemical
recovery plant (CBRP); or (2) heat and nonrecovery, or only nonrecovery
with no heat recovery (HNR) facilities, where chemicals are not
recovered but heat may be recovered from the exhaust from coke ovens in
a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG).
The coke production process described above is similar at both
types of facilities, except that at by-product facilities the ovens are
under positive pressure and the organic gases and vapors that evolve
are removed through an offtake system and sent to a CBRP for chemical
recovery and coke oven gas cleaning. The CBRPs are not part of the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category or the
Coke Oven Batteries source category. The CBRPs comprise a separate
source category that is regulated under the 40 CFR part 61, subpart L
NESHAP, which was promulgated in 1989.
At the HNR facilities and the only nonrecovery with no heat
recovery facilities, as the names imply, the coke production process
does not recover the chemical by-products. Instead, all of the coke
oven gas is burned and the hot exhaust gases can be recovered for the
cogeneration of electricity. Furthermore, the non-recovery ovens are of
a horizontal design (as opposed to the vertical design used in the by-
product process). Ovens at HNR facilities are typically 30 to 45 feet
long, 6 to 12 feet wide, and 5 to 12 feet high. Typically, the
individual ovens at ByP facilities are 36 to 56 feet long, 1 to 2 feet
wide, and 8 to 20 feet high, and each oven holds 15 to 25 tons of coal.
Ovens at ByP facilities operate under positive pressure and,
consequently, leak COE, a HAP, that includes both gases and particulate
matter (PM), via oven door jams (``doors''), charging port lids
(``lids''), offtake ducts (``offtakes''), and during charging. Ovens at
HNR facilities
[[Page 55864]]
are designed to operate under negative pressure to reduce or eliminate
leaks but require maintenance and monitoring to ensure constant
operation at negative pressure.
There are 14 coke facilities in the United States (U.S.). Nine of
these facilities use the ByP process and five use the HNR process, as
listed in Table 3. Of these 14 facilities, 11 are currently operating,
with six ByP process facilities and five HNR facilities. Of the five
HNR facilities, four have HRSGs and one does not. The one facility
without HRSGs sends COE directly to the atmosphere via waste heat
stacks, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. At the current heat recovery
facilities, each HRSG can be bypassed ranging from 192 to 1,139 hours
per year, depending on the facilities' permits, sending COE directly
into the atmosphere.
Table 3--Coke Oven Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm name Parent company City State Coke process Currently operating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Coke........................... Drummond Co........... Tarrant............... AL ByP Yes.
Bluestone.......................... Bluestone............. Birmingham............ AL ByP No.
Cleveland-Cliffs................... Cleveland-Cliffs...... Middletown............ OH ByP No.
Cleveland-Cliffs................... Cleveland-Cliffs...... Follansbee............ WV ByP No.
Cleveland-Cliffs................... Cleveland-Cliffs...... Burns Harbor.......... IN ByP Yes.
Cleveland-Cliffs................... Cleveland-Cliffs...... Monessen.............. PA ByP Yes.
Cleveland-Cliffs................... Cleveland-Cliffs...... Warren................ OH ByP Yes.
EES Coke Battery................... DTE Vantage........... Detroit............... MI ByP Yes.
Indiana Harbor Coke................ SunCoke Energy........ East Chicago.......... IN HNR Yes.
Haverhill Coke..................... SunCoke Energy........ Franklin Furnace...... OH HNR Yes.
Gateway Coke....................... SunCoke Energy........ Granite City.......... IL HNR Yes.
Middletown Coke.................... SunCoke Energy........ Middletown............ OH HNR Yes.
Jewell Coke........................ SunCoke Energy........ Vansant............... VA HNR Yes.
US Steel Clairton.................. United States Steel... Clairton.............. PA ByP Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
regulates both ByP and HNR facilities. Emissions occur during the
pushing process, where coke oven doors are opened at both ends of the
coke oven and a pusher machine positioned next to the ovens pushes the
incandescent coke from the oven's coke end (or coke side of the
battery) using a ram that is extended from the coal or push end of the
oven (or push side of the battery) to the coke end, where coke then
leaves the oven. Particulate emissions that escape from open ovens
during pushing are collected by particulate control devices such as
baghouses, cyclones, and scrubbers that remove metal HAP in the form of
PM. The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
includes limits for PM emissions (as a surrogate for nonmercury metal
HAPs) from the pushing control device, ranging from 0.01 to 0.04 pounds
per ton (lb/ton), depending on whether the control device is mobile or
stationary, and whether the battery is tall or short, according to the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP definitions.\2\
Opacity (which also is a surrogate for nonmercury metal HAPs) during
pushing is limited by the NESHAP to 30 or 35 percent, depending on
whether the battery is short or tall, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Tall battery in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP means a ByP coke oven battery with ovens 16.5 feet
(five meters) or more in height; short battery means a ByP coke oven
battery with ovens less than 16.5 feet (five meters) in height. Note
the two rules (40 CFR part 63, subparts CCCCC and L) differ in their
designation of tall ovens (5 meters for subpart 5C and 6 meters for
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The incandescent coke pushed from the ovens is received by rail
quench cars that travel to the nearby quench tower. In the quenching
process, several thousand gallons of water are sprayed from multiple
ports within the quench tower onto the coke mass to cool it. The quench
towers have baffles along the inside walls to condense any steam and
coke aerosols, which then fall down the inside of the tower and exit as
wastewater. The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
NESHAP requires that baffles limit the quench towers to 5 percent open
space and that the dissolved solids in the quench water are no greater
than 1,100 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP also requires the use of clean
quench water.
The battery stack that collects the underfire hot gases, which
surround the oven and do not contact the coke or coke gas, into the
oven flues and discharges to the atmosphere is limited to 15 percent
opacity during normal operation, as a daily average, and to 20 percent
opacity during extended coking, as a daily average, which is the period
when the coke ovens are operated at a lower temperature to slow down
the coke-making process.
The HAP emissions from HRSG main stacks and COE from bypass/waste
heat stacks are not currently regulated by any NESHAP and, therefore,
we are proposing to revise the NESHAP for the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category to add standards for
these emission points. The exhaust from HRSGs currently is controlled
by flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units and baghouses for removal of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and PM, respectively. The control of PM
also reduces HAP (nonmercury metal) emissions from the baghouse
exhaust.
The Coke Oven Batteries source category addresses emissions from
both ByP and HNR facilities. At HNR facilities, the NESHAP addresses
emissions from charging and emissions from doors (offtake and lids
leaks also are addressed but only ``if applicable to the new
nonrecovery coke oven battery,'' which they are not). The HNR
facilities are required to have 0 emissions from leaking doors on the
coke oven battery (and 0 emissions from leaking lids to ovens and
offtake systems, if any). Door leaks include emissions from coke oven
doors when they are closed and the oven is in operation. Charging at
HNR facilities involves opening one of the two doors on an oven and
loading coal into the oven using a ``pushing/charging machine.''
Because coal is charged on the ``coal side'' of a HNR battery, there
are no ports with ``lids'' on top of HNR ovens for charging coal as
there are on ByP ovens. The Coke Oven Battery 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 and any new ByP facilities to 0 percent leaking.
For HNR facilities operating before 2004, the 1993 Coke Oven
Batteries NESHAP required good operating and
[[Page 55865]]
maintenance practices to minimize emissions during charging. This
requirement for charging affects only SunCoke's Vansant (Virginia)
facility, which is a nonrecovery coke facility and does not recover
heat. For HNR facilities operating after 2004, which includes the other
four HNR facilities (that are heat recovery) and any future HNR
facilities, the NESHAP regulates charging via PM and opacity limits,
and requires a PM control device and work practices for minimizing VE
during charging.
For ByP facilities, the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP regulates
emissions occurring during the charging of coal into the ovens and from
leaking of 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 ovens and discharging
of coal from hoppers of a car that positions itself over the oven port
and drops coal into the oven. The Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP limits the
number of seconds of visible emissions 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
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP by limits on the percent of doors, lids and
offtakes that leak COE. Doors are located on both sides of the ovens.
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. The Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP established limits for
the percent of leaking doors, lids, and offtakes for the current ByP
coke facilities that are shown in Table 4 and are based on the
regulatory ``track'' of the facilities. The facilities were required by
the CAA section 112(i)(8) to choose either the MACT track or the lowest
achievable emissions rate (LAER) track by 1993 (58 FR 57898). Only one
of the nine ByP coke oven facilities remains as a MACT track facility
today (Cleveland Cliffs, Middletown, OH). The remaining eight existing
ByP facilities are on the LAER track.
Table 4--Limits for Existing ByP Facilities Under the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits by track \a\ and effective date
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT LAER
Emission source -------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14, 2005
\b\ (residual January 2010 Residual Risk
risk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent leaking lids........................ 0.4 0.4 TBD \c\.
Percent leaking offtakes.................... 2.5 2.5 TBD.
Charging (log \d\) s/charge \e\............. 12 12 TBD.
Percent leaking doors--Tall \f\............. 4.0 4.0 TBD.
Percent leaking doors--All other \g\........ 3.3 3.3 TBD.
Percent leaking doors--Foundry \h\.......... 3.3 4.0 TBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The tracks were established in the 1993 NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries in a tiered approach (58 FR 57898).
\b\ Established in the 2005 RTR final rule for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19992). Only applies to one current
ByP facility, which is idle.
\c\ TBD = to be determined, as specified in section 171 of the CAA.
\d\ Log = the logarithmic average of the observations of multiple charges (as opposed to an arithmetic average).
\e\ s/charge = seconds of visible emissions per charge of coal into the oven.
\f\ Tall = doors 20 feet (six meters) or more in height (Coke Oven Batteries).
\g\ All other = all blast furnace coke oven doors that are not tall, i.e., doors less than 20 feet (six meters).
\h\ Foundry = doors on ovens producing foundry coke. Two of the 14 coke oven facilities, both LAER track,
produce foundry coke exclusively.
One HNR facility is on the LAER track (SunCoke's Vansant facility
in Virginia) and the other four HNR facilities are under the MACT
track. Any future coke facilities of any type (HNR or ByP) would be
under the MACT track,\3\ 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 Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP. The positive pressure operation of ByP
ovens makes it impossible to achieve 0 leaks with the current ByP coke
oven technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See CAA section 112(i)(8)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA sent two CAA section 114 information requests to industry
in 2016 and 2022 (CAA section 114 request). The CAA section 114 request
in 2016 was sent to nine parent coke companies, which included a
facility questionnaire and source testing request, and resulted in
information gathered for 11 facilities of which seven were requested to
perform testing. After testing was conducted and data were submitted,
the EPA was notified that one of the CAA section 114 request facilities
(Erie Coke) was shut down in late 2019.
The 2016 CAA section 114 request questionnaire was composed of ten
parts: owner information, general facility information, regulatory
information, process flow diagrams and plot plans, emission points,
process and emission unit operations, air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, economics/costs, startup and shutdown procedures,
and management practices. The compilation of the facility responses can
be found in the dockets to this proposed rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
Through the 2016 CAA section 114 request, source test data were
obtained for HAP and PM emissions at the following coke stack sources:
pushing, ByP battery combustion stacks, ByP boiler stacks, HRSG main
stacks, HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks, HNR charging control device
outlets, and quench towers for a total of 18 units among the seven
facilities that performed testing. In addition, results of daily and
monthly EPA Method 303 leak tests were obtained for ByP charging, lids,
doors, and offtakes. The EPA sent each facility its compiled testing
results for review, and corrections, if needed, and incorporated the
facilities' comments and revisions into the final results. The final
compilation of 2016 source testing results can be found in the docket
to this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
The CAA section 114 request in 2022 was sent to six parent
companies, which included a facility questionnaire and source testing
request, and resulted in information gathered for eight facilities. In
the 2022 CAA section 114 request, the 2016 CAA section 114 request
questionnaire was resent to six facilities that already had received
the CAA
[[Page 55866]]
section 114 request in 2016 to update if needed and then also sent to
two facilities for the first time. The 2022 CAA section 114 request
also included additional questionnaire sections for work practices that
prevent leaks at ByP facilities; EPA Method 303 leak data for coke oven
doors, lids, offtakes, and charging at ByP coke oven facilities; coke
ByP battery stack opacity data and work practices that prevent stack
limit exceedances; information concerning miscellaneous sources, such
as emergency battery flares; community issues; and paperwork reduction
act estimates. The compilation of the facility responses can be found
in the dockets to this proposed rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
Through the 2022 CAA section 114 request, source test data were
obtained for volatile and particulate HAP and COE at the following coke
point sources: HRSG main stacks and HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks. In
addition, data and information were obtained for HAP from: the CBRP
cooling towers, light oil condensers, sulfur recovery/desulfurization
units, and flares; EPA Method 303 door leaks from the bench and yard;
and fugitive emissions monitoring at the fenceline and interior on site
locations. The fenceline monitoring requirements and results are
described in much more detail in section IV.D.5. of this preamble. The
CAA section 114 requests sent by EPA and compilation of source testing
results can be found in the docket to this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
The 2016 and 2022 CAA section 114 request responses and other data
for emissions for coke facilities were used to populate the risk
assessment modeling input files and included all source testing results
and relevant questionnaire responses on facility operations (e.g.,
stack parameters, stack locations) as well as estimates for sources not
currently operating.
D. What other relevant background information and data were available?
1. Noncategory Emissions
The 2017 National Emission Inventory (NEI)/Emission Inventory
System (EIS) data were used to estimate some emissions for the
noncategory sources at coke facilities, such as CBRPs, excess coke oven
gas flares, and other miscellaneous units not related to coke
manufacturing (e.g., process heaters, metal finishing, steel pickling,
annealing furnaces, reheat furnaces, thermal coal dryers, etc.). Other
emissions, such as number of leaking doors, lids, and offtakes and
emissions from charging, which are regulated under Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP, were obtained from CAA section 114 request responses obtained
in 2016 and 2022.
2. Emissions From CBRP
The emissions from operations at the CBRP are sources of HAP at ByP
facilities, which are regulated by the Benzene NESHAP for Coke By-
Product Recovery Plants in 40 CFR part 61. We intend to list CBRP
operations (as we are calling the co-located plants at coke ByP
facilities) that currently are addressed under the Benzene NESHAP in 40
CFR part 61, as a source category under CAA section 112(c)(5). We
request additional information on the individual HAP emitted, the
process units that are the source(s) of the HAP emissions, and the
estimated amount of HAP emissions, if known, by these CBRP activities.
Once we have this information, we will be in a better position to
finalize the decision to list and to identify the appropriate scope of
the source category to be listed. Details on the currently available
estimates of CBRP emissions are located in the document: Coke Ovens
Risk and Technology Review: Data Summary,\4\ hereafter referred to as
the ``Data Memorandum,'' available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Coke Ovens Risk and Technology Review, Data Summary. 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 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A. of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under [CAA] section 112 is best judged on the
basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' (54 FR
38046). Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety
determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health risk and
other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that
information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of
control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of
controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by emissions of HAP
that are carcinogens from each source in the source category, the
hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute
exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health
effects.\5\ The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution
of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an
evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The
scope of the EPA's risk analysis is consistent with the explanation in
EPA's response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP. That
policy, chosen by the Administrator, permits the EPA to consider
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR be considered,
but also cancer incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects,
and uncertainties of the risk estimates. This allows the effect on the
most exposed individuals to be reviewed as well as the impact on the
general public. The various factors can then be weighed in each
individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate
that the Administrator determine an acceptable level of risk to the
public by employing his or her expertise to assess available data. It
also complies with Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not
exclude use of any particular measure of public health risk from the
EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his or her judgment,
[[Page 55867]]
believes are appropriate to determining what will ``protect the public
health. (54 FR 38057). Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to
be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP
explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should
ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks
increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less
acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other
health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on
acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a
risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level
is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.'' Id. at
38045. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million
may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that
level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the
available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample
margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that:
``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be
considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source categories under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the categories.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/documents/epa-sab-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments. The Agency (1)
conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category
emission points, as well as other emission points within the
facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same
category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some
persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route
of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate
cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all
noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we note there are
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review primarily focuses on the identification and
evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were
promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their
technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and nonair
environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions
associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our
decision of whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions
standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying
controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this
exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
or last updated the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our
investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls. We also
review the NESHAP and the available data to determine if there are any
unregulated emissions of HAP within the source categories and evaluate
this data for use in developing new emission standards. See sections
II.C. and II.D. of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the coke ovens: pushing,
quenching, and battery stacks source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and
[[Page 55868]]
bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would not perform a
multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis,
we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of
our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results
for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.B. of this
preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: 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.\7\ The
methods used to assess risk (as described in the eight primary steps
below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document
reviewed by a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \8\ and described in the
SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source
Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule. M. Moeller. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085).
\8\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. June 2009. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category emits HAP from pushing of coke out of ovens, ByP battery
(combustion) stacks, HNR HRSG control device main stacks, and quench
towers; and volatile and particulate COE from HNR HRSG bypass/waste
heat stacks. Emissions estimates and release characteristics for HAP
and COE from the above affected sources at current coke facilities were
derived from stack test data obtained through the 2016 and 2022 CAA
section 114 requests. The derivation of actual emissions estimates and
release characteristics for the emission points are described in the
Data Memoradum,\4\ which is available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
The affected sources of the Coke Oven Battery NESHAP include COE
leaks from oven doors, charging port lids, and offtakes; charging
control device HAP emissions; and visible fugitive emissions from
charging. Emissions estimates for leaks were derived from EPA Method
303 data submitted as part of the CAA section 114 requests (with
estimates for door leak emissions derived using an equation described
in section IV.D.6. of this preamble). Emissions estimates and release
characteristics for HAP from charging control devices were derived from
stack test data obtained through the CAA section 114 requests. The
derivation of all actual emissions estimates and release
characteristics for sources subject to the Coke Oven Battery NESHAP are
discussed in more detail in the Data Memorandum,\4\ available in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19992, 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the
proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34421, 34428,
June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, 76609, December 21, 2006,
respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risk at
the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk
reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with
national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to
consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps
of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach.
(54 FR 38044.)
For pushing, the PM limits in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP were used along with measured HAP and PM data
from the 2016 CAA section 114 request for pushing operations to
estimate allowable HAP emissions. The ratio of allowable PM based on
the standards to actual PM was multiplied by HAP emissions measured in
the 2016 CAA section 114 request to estimate allowable HAP emissions.
For battery stacks, the ratio of the opacity limits to opacity data
from the 2016 CAA section 114 request was used with HAP test data from
battery stacks from the 2016 CAA section 114 request to develop
allowable HAP emissions for battery stacks. The ratios of the quench
tower water limit for total dissolved solids (TDS) to water TDS test
data from the 2016 CAA section 114 request were used along with test
data for HAP air emissions from the 2016 CAA section 114 request for
the quench tower to estimate allowable HAP air emissions from the
quench tower. For HAP from HRSG main control device stacks and COE from
HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks, allowable emissions were set equal to
actual emissions, developed from 2016 and 2022 CAA section 114 test
request data because the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks NESHAP currently does not have emission limits for these
sources.
For sources subject to the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP, the limits
for COE from doors, lids, offtakes, and charging were used with 2016
and 2022 CAA section 114 request operating data to estimate allowable
emissions from these emission points.
Further details regarding the development of allowable emissions
estimates using data from source test reports and other parts of the
2016 and 2022 CAA section 114 request responses are provided in the
Data Memorandum\4\ available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM).\9\ The HEM
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
[[Page 55869]]
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For more information about HEM, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\10\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2019) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 838 meteorological
stations selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \11\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\11\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models,
including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an
upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of contracting
cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of
the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we
generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using
California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new,
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a
manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-response
values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.
The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health
risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \12\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100JOEY.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000033%5CP100JOEY.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that
[[Page 55870]]
used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. As part of our efforts to continually improve our
methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of
industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,\13\ we
revised our treatment of meteorological data to use reasonable worst-
case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments
instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment
of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in
more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category in Support of the 2023
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment.
This revised approach has been used in this proposed rule and in all
other RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\14\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks in Support of the 2023
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \15\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\16\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
ppm or mg/m\3\) of a substance above which it is predicted that the
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or
an impaired ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\16\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are developed, by the American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA), for emergency planning and are intended to be health-based
guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals. The ERPG-1
is the maximum airborne concentration, established by AIHI below which
it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1
hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health
effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.
Similarly, the ERPG-2 is the maximum airborne concentration,
established by AIHA, below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or
developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms
which could impair an individual's ability to take protective action.
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For these source categories, a factor of 2 was applied to actual
emissions to calculate the acute emissions. Coke oven charging,
pushing, and quenching operations maintain largely consistent hour-to-
hour pushing rates because plants are constrained by oven capacity,
coking temperatures, coking times, and plant design/equipment. Coke
plants may have small deviations in short-term emission rates from
annual average emission rates. An analysis of hourly pushing records at
five coke plants showed that the hourly pushing rate
[[Page 55871]]
does not deviate significantly from the annual average pushing rate,
with multipliers ranging from 1.26 to 2.06.\17\ Acute levels of HAP
emissions from other coke emission sources are thought to mirror the
pushing emissions based on a reasonable expectation that those levels
would mirror the acute levels estimated for pushing operations;
therefore, an acute factor of two was used for all sources at coke
facilities. A further discussion of why this factor was chosen can be
found in the Data Memorandum,\4\ located in the docket for the rule. We
request comments on the validity of the assumption of two for an acute
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Personal communication (email). A.C. Dittenhoefer, Coke
Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) of the American Coke and Coal
Chemicals Institute, with D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-
site location.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source categories emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of arsenic, cadmium, dioxin,
lead, mercury and POMs (polycyclic organic matter), so we proceeded to
the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk
screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In
a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of
the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP warrants further evaluation
to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To
facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously
developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that
are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario
developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated
Methodology. Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE)
model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative
list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we
compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the
potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway.
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening
assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier
1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1
combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local
meteorology and the USGS lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures,
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations.
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption) \18\ and
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios).\19\ If
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater
than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level
of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier
2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research, 12:343-354.
\19\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume-rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
[[Page 55872]]
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\20\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the 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 available in the docket for
this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
The HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular
environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment,
and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-
documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In
the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following
four exposure media: terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the 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 available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category emitted any of the
environmental HAP. For the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium,
dioxin, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and divalent mercury),
and POMs. Because one or more of these environmental HAP are emitted by
at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the
second step of the evaluation for the source category.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5 km-radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the
[[Page 55873]]
environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the
lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are
not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial
ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-
series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening
threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse
environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM) of
lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
the size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and square kilometers;
the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds
the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted
average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing
the area-weighted average concentration over the 50 km-modeling domain
by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information
on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of
the 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 available in the docket for this
action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from CAA section 114 request data from 2016
and 2022, as well as from the 2017 NEI. The source category data were
evaluated as described in section II.C. of this preamble: What data
collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a
quality-assured source category dataset was available, the facility-
wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP
that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within
50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source
category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this risk
assessment. We also specifically examined the facility that was
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of
interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stack Source Category in Support of the 2023
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through the docket
for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-
wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of
source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we conduct community-based risk assessments?
In addition to the source category and facility-wide risk
assessments, we also assessed the combined inhalation cancer risk from
all local stationary sources of HAP for which we have emissions data.
Specifically, we combined the modeled impacts from the facility-wide
assessment (which includes category and non-category sources) with
other nearby stationary point source model results. The facility-wide
emissions used in this assessment are discussed in section II.C. of
this preamble. For the other nearby point sources, we used AERMOD model
results with emissions based primarily on the 2018 NEI. After combining
these model results, we assessed cancer risks due to the inhalation of
all HAP emitted by point sources for the populations residing within 10
km of coke oven facilities. In the community-based risk assessment, the
modeled source category and facility-wide cancer risks were compared to
the cancer risks from other nearby point sources to determine the
portion of the risks that could be attributed to the source category
addressed in this proposal. The document titled The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
Source Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking,
provides the methodology and results of the community-based risk
analyses.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the 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 available
in the docket for this action.
[[Page 55874]]
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\21\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\22\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\23\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\22\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\23\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk
[[Page 55875]]
could be considered significant and widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by the source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTRs.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume-rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not
[[Page 55876]]
exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are
confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human
health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or
facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3)?
We are proposing the following pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (3): \25\ MACT standards for acid gases, hydrogen cyanide (HCN),
mercury, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from pushing
operations for existing and new sources; MACT standards for acid gases,
HCN, mercury, and PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals \26\)
from battery stacks for existing and new sources; and MACT standards
for acid gases, mercury, PAH, and PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP
metals) from HNR HRSG control device main stacks for existing and new
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The EPA not only has authority under CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (3) to set MACT standards for previously unregulated HAP
emissions at any time, but is required to address any previously
unregulated HAP emissions as part of its periodic review of MACT
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). LEAN v. EPA, 955 F3d at 1091-
1099.
\26\ Nonmercury HAP metals include the following compounds:
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
manganese, nickel, and selenium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the proposed MACT standards, we first calculated the
MACT floor limits. The MACT floor limits were calculated by ranking the
data for each emission point per HAP and determining the top 5 sources
with emissions information, as per CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
existing sources and the best performing source for new sources. These
sources are referred to as the ``MACT floor pool.'' However, for two of
the emissions points, ByP battery combustion and ByP and HNR pushing,
we only had data from four facilities, so the MACT floor limits were
based on data from the four facilities (except for mercury for pushing,
we had data from five facilities); and for two other point sources, HNR
Main stack and HNR bypass/waste stacks, we only had data from two
facilities, so the MACT floor was based on data from the two facilities
for these two emissions points.
The existing and new source MACT floor pool datasets were evaluated
statistically to determine the distributions for both existing and new
sources, by process type and by HAP. After determining the type of data
distribution for the dataset, the upper predictive limit (UPL) was
calculated using the corresponding equation for the distribution for
that dataset and groupings of emission points. The UPL represents the
value which one can expect the mean of a specified number of future
observations (e.g., 3-run average) to fall below for the specified
level of confidence (99 percent), based upon the results from the same
population. The UPL approach encompasses all the data point-to-data
point variability in the collected data, as derived from the dataset to
which it is applied. The UPL was then compared to 3 times the
representative detection limit (RDL) to ensure that data measurement
variability is addressed and the higher value used as the MACT limit.
The EPA also considered BTF options for each of the HAP emitted from
pushing operations, battery stacks and HNR HRSG control device main
stacks for existing and new sources. The EPA did not identify any cost-
effective BTF options for HAP from these three sources; therefore, the
EPA is proposing MACT floor limits for the HAP from pushing, battery
stacks and HNR HRSG control device main stacks. For details on the MACT
floor limits and BTF options see the memorandum titled Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard Calculations, MACT Cost
Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for Coke Ovens Facilities
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC \27\ (hereafter referred to as the
``MACT/BTF Memorandum''), located in the docket for the proposed rule
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085). The results and proposed decisions based on the
analyses performed pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) are
presented in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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. 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 No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085.
Table 5--Proposed MACT Standards for Unregulated HAP or Sources Developed Under CAA Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3)
for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks
[Subpart CCCCC]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of affected source (new or existing)
Source or process Pollutant -----------------------------------------------
Existing New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pushing............................. acid gases................ 0.0052 lb/ton coke 5.1E-04 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
HCN....................... 0.0011 lb/ton coke 3.8E-05 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
mercury................... 8.9E-07 lb/ton coke 3.4E-07 lb mercury/ton
[UPL]. coke [3xRDL].
[[Page 55877]]
PAH....................... 3.4E-04 lb/ton coke 1.4E-05 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
Battery Stack....................... acid gases................ 0.083 lb/ton coke 0.013 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
HCN....................... 0.0039 lb/ton coke 7.4E-04 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
mercury................... 5.8E-05 lb/ton coke 7.1E-06 lb/ton coke
[UPL]. [UPL].
PM \28\................... 0.10 PM gr/dscf [UPL]. 0.014 gr/dscf [UPL].
HNR HRSG Control Device Main Stack.. acid gases................ 0.038 gr/dscf [UPL]... 0.0029 gr/dscf [UPL].
mercury................... 2.4E-06 gr/dscf [UPL]. 1.5E-06 gr/dscf [UPL].
PAH....................... 4.7E-07 gr/dscf [UPL]. 3.7E-07 gr/dscf [UPL].
PM \28\................... 0.0065 gr/dscf [UPL].. 7.5E-04 gr/dscf [UPL].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic feet. RDL = representative detection level. UPL = upper prediction
limit.
For HNR bypass/waste heat stacks, there is one HNR facility without
HRSGs that sends COE directly to the atmosphere via waste heat stacks,
24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The other four heat recovery
facilities utilize HRSGs most of the time (i.e., process COE through
the HRSG units) but send COE via ductwork to a bypass stack
periodically to conduct maintenance on the HRSGs or because of other
operational issues. All four heat recovery facilities with HRSGs have
limits in their permits prepared under CAA title V requirements that
limit the number of hours per year that they are allowed to use the
bypass stacks. We are proposing to establish two subcategories with
regard to the HNR bypass/waste stacks based on whether or not they
process COE through an HRSG, as follows: (1) HNR facilities that have
HRSGs; and (2) HNR facilities that do not have HRSGs. We only received
CAA section 114 request test data (in 2016 and 2022) for bypass/waste
stacks from two HNR facilities that have HRSGs (SunCoke's Granite City,
Illinois, and Franklin Furnace, Ohio facilities). We did not receive
bypass/waste stacks test data from the one HNR facility without HRSGs
(SunCoke's Vansant, Virginia) nor for bypass/waste stacks at the other
two HNR facilities with HRSGs (SunCoke's East Chicago, Indiana, and
Middletown, Ohio, facilities). However, we concluded that the COE data
from SunCoke's Granite City, Illinois, and SunCoke Franklin Furnace,
Ohio, facilities (in units of gr/dscf by individual HAP tested) are
representative of emissions from bypass/waste heat stacks for all 5 HNR
facilities (including SunCoke's Vansant, Virginia, facility) due to the
nearly identical conditions in the ovens at all the HNR facilities. The
MACT floor limit, which is determined from the average of the lowest-
emitting top 5 facilities, as stated in CAA section 112(d)(2), is
therefore equal to the average emissions from SunCoke's Granite City,
Illinois, and SunCoke Franklin Furnace, Ohio, facilities, where the COE
from bypass/waste heat stacks are reported as the individual HAP
emissions able to be tested with EPA test methods (in units of gr/
dscf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ PM as a surrogate for HAP metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether or not more stringent MACT limits should be
proposed as BTF standards for the two subcategories described above, we
initially evaluated potential additional control options to lower the
MACT limits for five HAP (referred to as ``BTF Approach 1'') as
follows: activated carbon injection (ACI) with 95 percent control
efficiency for mercury; wet alkaline scrubber (WAS) with 95 percent
control efficiency for PM as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals;
\26\ WAS with 99.9 percent control efficiency for acid gases (HCl and
HF); regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) with 98 percent control
efficiency for PAH; and RTO with 98 percent control efficiency for
formaldehyde.
Next, we evaluated the BTF costs to control two HAP (mercury and
nonmercury HAP metals) (referred to as ``BTF Approach 2'') as follows:
a baghouse with 99.9 percent control efficiency for PM as a surrogate
for HAP metals; and ACI with 90 percent control efficiency for mercury.
Table 6 shows the estimated capital and annualized costs, emission
reductions, and cost effectiveness of the BTF controls for mercury, PM,
acid gases, PAH, and formaldehyde at all five HNR facilities for BTF
Approach 1. Table 6 shows the estimated capital and annualized costs,
emission reductions, and cost-effectiveness of the BTF controls for
mercury and PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals) for BTF
Approach 2.
Table 6--Comparison of Estimated Costs of Controls and Emission Reductions for Potential BTF MACT Standards for
HNR Coke Facilities for Mercury and Nonmercury Metals for B/W Stacks Under BTF Approaches 1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach 1 Approach 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HNR facilities HNR facilities HNR facilities HNR facilities
Cost item \a\ with HRSGs without HRSGs with HRSGs without HRSGs
(includes 4 (includes one (includes 4 (includes one
facilities) facility) facilities) facility)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ductwork................................ $1,249K $540K $1,249K $540K
[[Page 55878]]
ACI..................................... $1,299K $314K $1,299K $314K
BH...................................... n/a n/a $30M $6.6M
WAS..................................... $225M $54M n/a n/a
RTO..................................... $150M $36M n/a n/a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Capital Cost.................. $378M $91M $33M $7.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ductwork................................ $315K $426K $315K $426K
ACI..................................... $6.7M $1.6M $6.7M $1.6M
BH...................................... n/a n/a $5.7M $2.6M
WAS..................................... $32M $7.7M n/a n/a
RTO..................................... $57M $13M n/a n/a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost................... $95M $22M $13M $4.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled Emissions (ton/yr, unless otherwise indicated) \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury (lbs/yr)........................ 60 160 60 160
Nonmercury metal HAP.................... 1.5 4.0 1.5 4.0
Acid Gases.............................. 360 956 n/a n/a
PAH..................................... 0.0034 0.0091 n/a n/a
Formaldehyde............................ 0.28 0.74 n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Reductions (ton/yr, unless otherwise indicated) \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury w/ACI (lb/yr) [CE% \c\]......... 57 [95%] 152 [95%] 54 [90%] 144 [90%]
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/BH [CE%]......... n/a n/a 1.5 [99.9%] 4.0 [99.9%]
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/WAS [CE%]........ 1.4 [95%] 3.8 [95%] n/a n/a
Acid Gases w/WAS [CE%].................. 359 [99.9%] 955 [99.9%] n/a n/a
PAH w/RTO [CE%]......................... 0.0034 [98%] 0.0089 [98%] n/a n/a
Formaldehyde w/RTO [CE%]................ 0.27 [98%] 0.72 [98%] n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Cost Effectiveness ($/ton, unless otherwise indicated)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury w/ACI ($/lb).................... $117K $11K $123K $11K
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/BH............... n/a n/a $4.0M $756K
Nonmercury Metal HAP w/WAS.............. $22M $2.0M n/a n/a
Acid Gases w/WAS........................ $88K $8.1K n/a n/a
PAH w/RTO............................... $17B $1.4B n/a n/a
Formaldehyde w/RTO...................... $209M $18M n/a n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Acid gases = HCl and HF; activated carbon injection = ACI; control efficiency = CE; baghouse = BH; not
applicable to Approach 2 = n/a; regenerative thermal oxidizer = RTO; wet alkaline scrubber = WAS.
\b\ The COE from bypass/waste heat stacks are broken down into the individual HAP that are able to be tested
with EPA test methods. Once the COE pass through control devices, the emissions are no longer considered COE.
\c\ Typically, ACI achieves about 90 percent mercury control, which is reflected in Approach 2. For Approach 1,
the facility also would need to install a WAS for acid gas control. Because there is a small amount of Hg
control from the WAS, incorporating the WAS control with the ACI control results in an estimated overall Hg of
95 percent.
Based on consideration of the estimated capital costs, annualized
costs, reductions and cost effectiveness of the two approaches
described above, we are proposing BTF emissions limits for the
individual COE HAP, as nonmercury metals and mercury from B/W stacks,
consistent with BTF Approach 2 for the subcategory that includes HNR
facilities without HRSGs, which includes one facility (Vansant). We are
proposing this option because we estimate that BTF Approach 2 achieves
similar reductions of mercury. Mercury reduction under Approach 1 is 57
lb/yr for HNR facilities with HRSGs and 152 lb/yr for HNR facilities
without HRSGs, while mercury reduction under Approach 2 is 54 lb/yr for
HNR facilities with HRSGs and 144 lb/yr for HNR facilities without
HRSGs. Nonmercury metal reduction under Approach 1 is 1.4 tpy for HNR
facilities with HRSGs and 3.8 tpy for HNR facilities without HRSGs,
while nonmercury metal reduction under Approach 2 is 1.5 tpy for HNR
facilities with HRSGs and 4.0 tpy for HNR facilities without HRSGs.
The BTF Approach 2 achieves similar (although slightly lower)
reductions of mercury compared to Approach 1 at similar cost
effectiveness (slightly higher $/lb for HNR with HRSG but same $/lb
value for HNR without HRSGs). However, Approach 2 includes much more
cost-effective controls for nonmercury HAP (COE) metals and slightly
more reductions.
[[Page 55879]]
We conclude that both approaches are cost-effective for mercury.
Regarding nonmercury metals, the BTF Approach 2 is clearly cost-
effective based on historical decisions regarding nonmercury HAP metals
(for example, the EPA accepted cost effectiveness of $1.3 million per
ton HAP metals in the 2012 Secondary Lead Smelters RTR final rule based
on 2009 dollars). BTF Approach 1 also could potentially be considered
cost-effective for nonmercury metals. However, we conclude it is
appropriate to propose the more cost-effective approach because it
achieves similar reductions of the COE HAP metals at lower cost. With
regard to the other three COE HAP from HNR without a HRSG subcategory
(acid gases, formaldehyde and PAHs), based on consideration of capital
costs, annual costs and cost effectiveness, we are proposing MACT floor
limits (not BTF limits).
For the nonrecovery facility without HRSGs subcategory, the
potential BTF limits for COE HAP emitted as nonmercury HAP metals and
mercury were calculated by assuming the addition of a baghouse (with
estimated 99.9 percent reduction for metals) and ACI (with 90 percent
reduction for mercury). We then compared the limits to the applicable
3xRDL value to ensure a measurable standard. For HAP metals, the 3xRDL
value was greater than the BTF limit, and thus the proposed BTF
standard was set at the 3xRDL value (a measurable value), which is 2
percent of the level of the MACT floor standard. For mercury, the 3xRDL
value was less than the BTF UPL limit, and thus the proposed BTF
standard was set at the BTF UPL limit. The results and proposed
decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for HNR bypass/waste heats stacks are presented in
Table 7.
Table 7--MACT Floor and BTF Standards Developed for Emissions From Coke Ovens HNR HRSG Bypass/Waste Heat Stacks
Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of MACT standard \a\
Source or process Pollutant \a\ \b\ -------------------------------------------------
Existing New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HNR bypass/waste heat stack for 2 acid gases............. 0.13 gr/dscf [UPL]..... 0.070 gr/dscf [UPL].
subcategories (for all 5 HNR Formaldehyde........... 0.0011 gr/dscf......... 1.9E-05 gr/dscf.
facilities). PAH.................... 2.4E-06 gr/dscf [UPL].. 2.4E-06 gr/dscf [UPL].
Heat recovery facilities (only) Mercury................ 1.7E-05 gr/dscf [UPL].. 7.8E-06 gr/dscf [UPL].
bypass/waste heat stack (with HRSGs) PM \28\................ 0.034 gr/dscf [UPL].... 0.025 gr/dscf [UPL].
subcategory.
Nonrecovery facilities (only) waste Mercury................ BTF 1.7E-06 gr/dscf.... BTF 7.8E-07 gr/dscf.
heat stack (without HRSGs) (BTF) PM \28\................ BTF 6.6E-04 gr/dscf.... BTF 6.6E-04 gr/dscf.
subcategory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic feet. RDL = representative detection level. UPL is the upper
performance limit. PM is a surrogate for nonmercury metal HAP.
\b\ Once the bypass/waste heat stacks COE pass through control devices, the emissions are no longer considered
COE.
We are proposing that testing for compliance with these proposed
MACT and BTF limits be performed every 5 years. Annualized costs for
testing, including recordkeeping and reporting, are estimated to be
$3.2 million/year for the 11 operating facilities in the source
category, or an average of $290,000 per year per facility.
We are soliciting comments regarding other potential approaches to
establish emissions standards for the HRSG main stacks and bypass
stacks, including: (1) whether the EPA should consider the emission
points all together (i.e., HRSG main stack plus HRSG bypass stack
emissions) and establish standards based on the best five units or best
five facilities including emissions from the HRSGs and their control
devices, and emissions from the bypass over a period of time (e.g., per
year or per month); or (2) a standard that is based in part on limiting
the number of hours per year or per month that bypass stacks can be
used.
We are also soliciting comments regarding the use of bypass stacks.
For the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks source category,
we understand that bypass of HRSGs is needed for maintenance and repair
of HRSGs or their control devices. Furthermore, the facilities recover
heat from coke oven exhaust and sell or produce power for sale, so they
lose revenue when bypass is used; therefore, it is in the facilities'
interest to not bypass HRSGs. For this source category's HNR
subcategory, we have emissions tests data and, therefore, are able to
propose numeric emissions limits for these emissions sources. We
solicit comments regarding whether the EPA should consider other
approaches to regulate bypass stacks.
For details of how these MACT and BTF standards were developed and
other BTF options that were considered see the MACT/BTF memorandum,\27\
located in the docket for the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085).
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for the
coke ovens: pushing, quenching, and battery stacks source category?
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual
emissions, the MIR posed by the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category is 9-in-1 million driven by arsenic
emissions primarily from bypass/waste heat stacks. The total estimated
cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is 0.02 excess cancer
cases per year, or 1 case every 50 years. No people are estimated to
have inhalation cancer risks above 100-in-1 million due to actual
emissions, and the population exposed to cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million is approximately 2,900 (see Table 8 of this
preamble). In addition, the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for
the source category based on actual emissions is estimated to be 0.1
(for developmental effects from arsenic emissions).
[[Page 55880]]
Table 8--Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 \b\.................. 14 50 2.7 million.......... 0.2 2 (hydrogen cyanide). 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 emission.
\b\ See ``Facility-Wide Risk Results'' in section III.C.6. of this preamble for more detail on this risk assessment.
Considering MACT-allowable emissions, results of the inhalation
risk assessment indicate that the cancer MIR is 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 is 0.05 excess cancer cases per year, or
one excess case every 20 years. No people are 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 is approximately 440,000. In addition, the
maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category based
on allowable emissions is estimated to be 0.2 (for developmental
effects from arsenic emissions).
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
As presented in Table 8 of this preamble, the estimated worst-case
off-site acute exposures to emissions from the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category result in a maximum
modeled acute HQ of 0.6 based on the REL for arsenic. Detailed
information about the assessment is provided in 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 available in the docket for this action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Of the 14 facilities in the source category, all 14 emit PB-HAP,
including arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, mercury, and POMs. Emissions of
these PB-HAP from each facility were compared to the respective
pollutant-specific Tier 1 screening emission thresholds. The Tier 1
screening analysis indicated 14 facilities exceeded the Tier 1 emission
threshold for arsenic, dioxins, mercury, and POM; and two facilities
exceeded for cadmium.
For facilities that exceeded the Tier 1 multipathway screening
threshold emission rate for one or more PB-HAP, we used additional
facility site-specific information to perform a Tier 2 multipathway
risk screening assessment. The multipathway risk screening assessment
based on the Tier 2 gardener scenario resulted in a maximum cancer Tier
2 cancer screening value (SV) equal to 400 driven by arsenic emissions.
Individual Tier 2 cancer screening values for dioxin and POM emissions
were less than 1 for the gardener scenario. The maximum Tier 2 cancer
SV, based on the fisher scenario, is equal to 10, with arsenic and
dioxin emissions contributing to the SV, with a maximum individual Tier
2 SV of 10 for arsenic and a maximum Tier 2 SV of 5 for dioxin
emissions. The maximum POM SV was less than 1. The multipathway risk
screening assessment based on the Tier 2 fisher scenario resulted in a
maximum noncancer Tier 2 SV equal to 6 for methyl mercury and less than
1 for cadmium emissions.
A Tier 3 cancer screening assessment was performed for arsenic
based on the gardener scenario as well as a Tier 3 noncancer screening
assessment for methyl mercury based on the fisher scenario. The Tier 3
gardener scenario was refined by identifying the location of the
residence most impacted by arsenic emissions from the facility as
opposed to the worst-case near-field location used in the Tier 2
assessment. Based on these Tier 3 refinements to the gardener scenario,
the maximum Tier 3 cancer screening value for arsenic was adjusted from
400 to 300. For the fisher scenario, we evaluated the Tier 2 noncancer
SV for methyl mercury, to determine whether the results would change
based on a review of the lakes, to determine if they were fishable.
This review resulted in no change to the Tier 2 noncancer SV of 6 for
methyl mercury.
An exceedance of a screening threshold emission rate or SV in any
of the tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or an HQ (or HI).
Rather, it represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard
may be. For example, an SV of 6 for a noncarcinogen can be interpreted
to mean that the Agency is confident that the HQ would be lower than 6.
Similarly, a Tier 2 cancer SV of 300 means that we are confident that
the cancer risk is lower than 300-in-1 million. Our confidence comes
from the conservative, or health-protective, assumptions encompassed in
the screening tiers. The Agency chooses inputs from the upper end of
the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
screening tiers, and the Agency assumes that the exposed individual
exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure.
The EPA determined that it is not necessary to go beyond the Tier 3
gardener or Tier 2 fisher scenario and conduct a site-specific
assessment for arsenic and mercury. The EPA compared the Tier 2 and 3
screening results to site-specific risk estimates for five previously
assessed source categories. These are the five source categories,
assessed over the past 4 years, which had characteristics that make
them most useful for interpreting the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks screening results. For these source categories, the
EPA assessed fisher and/or gardener risks for arsenic, cadmium, and/or
mercury by conducting site-specific assessments. The EPA used AERMOD
for air dispersion and Tier 2 screens that used multi-facility
aggregation of chemical loading to lakes where appropriate. These
assessments indicated that cancer and noncancer site-specific risk
values were at least 50 times lower than the
[[Page 55881]]
respective Tier 2 screening values for the assessed facilities, with
the exception of noncancer risks for cadmium for the gardener scenario,
where the reduction was at least 10 times (refer to EPA Docket ID: EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373 for a copy of these
reports).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ EPA Docket records (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015): Appendix 11 of
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated
Iron and Steel Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule; Appendix
11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and Oil-Fired EGU
Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule; and EPA Docket: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373): Appendix 11
of the Residual Risk Assessment for Iron and Steel Foundries Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of these analyses, if the Agency was to perform
a site-specific assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category, the Agency would expect similar
magnitudes of decreases from the Tier 2 and 3 SV. As such, based on the
conservative nature of the screens and the level of additional
refinements that would go into a site-specific multipathway assessment,
were one to be conducted, we are confident that the HQ for ingestion
exposure, specifically mercury through fish ingestion, is less than 1.
For arsenic, maximum cancer risk posed by fish ingestion would also be
reduced to levels below 1-in-1 million, and maximum cancer risk under
the rural gardener scenario would decrease to 5-in-1 million or less at
the MIR location. Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment
can be found in the 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.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway risk from emissions of
lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the primary
NAAQS for lead (0.15 microgram per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)). The
highest annual lead concentration of 0.014 [micro]g/m\3\ is well below
the NAAQS for lead, indicating low potential for multipathway risk of
concern due to lead emissions.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A. of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category for the following
pollutants: arsenic, cadmium, dioxin, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl
mercury and divalent mercury), and POMs.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), the maximum screening value was 80 for
methyl mercury emissions for the surface soil No Observed Adverse
Effects Level (NOAEL) avian ground insectivores benchmark. The other
pollutants (arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, POMs, divalent mercury, methyl
mercury) had Tier 1 screening values above various benchmarks.
Therefore, a Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins, POMs, divalent mercury, and methyl mercury emissions.
In the Tier 2 screen no PB-HAP emissions exceeded any ecological
benchmark.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway risk from emissions of
lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the primary
NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m3). The highest annual lead
concentration is well below the NAAQS for lead, indicating low
potential for multipathway risk of concern due to lead emissions. We
did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS.
For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e.,
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis,
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of facility-wide (or ``whole facility'') risks was
performed as described above to characterize the source category risk
in the context of whole facility risks. Whole facility risks were
estimated using the data described in section III.C. of this preamble.
The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 14 modeled
facilities, based on whole facility emissions is 50-in-1 million, with
COE from coke oven doors (a regulated source in the Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP source category), driving the whole facility risk. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on facility-wide emission levels is
0.2 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 2.7 million people. These
facility-wide estimated cancer risks are substantially lower than the
estimated risks in the 2005 Coke Ovens RTR rulemaking (see 70 FR 1992,
April 15, 2005). For example, the facility-wide MIR in the 2005 final
rule (based on estimated actual emissions) was at least 500-in-1
million. The facility-wide MIRs in 2005 also were driven by estimated
COE from coke oven doors. The estimated cancer risks are lower in this
current action largely due to the following: (1) the COE from coke oven
doors in 2005 were based on an older equation and the current COE have
been estimated using a revised equation (as described in section
IV.D.6. of this preamble); and (2) the facility driving the risks in
2005 was a MACT track facility that is no longer operating.
Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the maximum chronic
noncancer HI posed by whole facility emissions is estimated to be 2
(for the neurological and thyroid systems as the target organs) driven
by emissions of hydrogen cyanide from CBRPs, which are emissions
sources not included within the source category addressed in the risk
assessment in this proposed rule. Approximately 60 people are estimated
to be exposed to a TOSHI greater than 1 due to whole facility
emissions. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 8 above.
6. Community-Based Risk Assessment
We also conducted a community-based risk assessment for the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category. The goal
of this assessment is to estimate cancer risk from HAP emitted from all
local stationary point sources for which we have emissions data. We
estimated the overall inhalation cancer risk due to emissions from all
stationary point sources impacting census blocks within 10 km of the 14
coke oven facilities. Specifically, we combined the modeled impacts
from category and non-category HAP sources at coke oven facilities, as
well as other stationary point source HAP emissions. Within 10 km of
coke oven facilities, we identified 583 facilities not in the source
category that could potentially also contribute to HAP inhalation
exposures.
The results indicate that the community-level maximum individual
cancer risk is 100-in-1 million with 99 percent of the risk coming from
a source outside the source category. Furthermore, there are no people
[[Page 55882]]
exposed to cancer risks greater than 100-in-1 million. The population
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million in the
community-based assessment is approximately 1.1 million people. For
comparison, approximately 2,900 people have cancer risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million due to the process emissions from the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category, and
approximately 440,000 people have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1
million due to facility-wide emissions (see Table 8 of this preamble).
The overall cancer incidence for this exposed population (i.e., people
with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and living within 10
km of coke oven facilities) is 0.07, with 4 percent of the incidence
due to emissions from Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks NESHAP processes, 59 percent from emissions of non-category
processes at coke oven facilities (that is, a total of 63 percent from
emissions from coke oven facilities) and 37 percent from emissions from
other nearby stationary sources that are not coke oven facilities.
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.A. of this preamble, we weigh a wide 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 Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category, the 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 0.02 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 2,900. 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.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III.
of this preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks for this source
category under the current NESHAP provisions are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and Proposed Controls
The second step in the residual risk decision framework is a
determination of whether more stringent emission standards are required
to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In
making this determination, we considered the health risk and other
health information considered in our acceptability determination, along
with additional factors not considered in the risk acceptability step,
including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological
feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors, consistent with
the approach of the 1989 Benzene NESHAP.
The proposed BTF limit for PM, as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP
metals, which we are proposing pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) for HRSG waste heat stacks in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stack source category, described in section IV.A. above,
would achieve a reduction of the metal HAP emissions (e.g., arsenic and
lead). This reduction in emissions also would reduce the estimated MIR
due to arsenic from these units from 9-in-1 million to less than 1-in-1
million at a cost of $756,000 per ton nonmercury metals. The overall
MIR for this source category would be reduced from a 9-in-1 million to
2-in-1 million, where the 2-in-1 million is due to arsenic emissions
from the quench tower at U.S. Steel Clairton. We evaluated the
potential to propose this same PM emission limit for the HNR waste heat
stacks under CAA section 112(f); however, because the control
technology would be infeasible to install, operate and implement within
the maximum time allowed under CAA section 112(f),\30\ we are proposing
the emission limit as a BTF standard under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The facility that is affected by the new BTF PM limit is
located between three rivers, a state road, and a railroad track.
Therefore, due to the unique configuration of facility, the
resulting lack of space available to construct control devices and
ductwork to reduce arsenic emissions from bypass stacks creates an
impediment to a typical construction schedule. We estimate that the
facility will need 3 years to complete all this work and comply with
the new PM limit. Consequently, we are proposing this standard under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and proposing the maximum amount of
time allowed under CAA section 112(d) be provided (3 years) to
comply. See section IV.F of this preamble for further explanation of
why we are proposing 3 years to comply with the BTF limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not identify any other potential cost-effective controls to
reduce the remaining risk (2-in-1 million) from quench towers (or from
any other emission source). Therefore, based on all of the information
discussed earlier in this section, we conclude that the current
standards in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Although we are not proposing the BTF PM limit for waste stacks as
part of our ample margin of safety analysis, as described earlier in
this section, we note that once the proposed rule for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP is fully implemented (within
3 years), the MIR would be reduced from 9-in-1 million to 2-in-1
million and the total population living within 50 km of a facility with
risk levels greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to emissions
from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category would be reduced from 2,900 to 390 people due to the BTF PM
limit. However, the total estimated cancer incidence would remain
unchanged at 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, and the maximum modeled
chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source category would remain unchanged
at 0.1 (for respiratory effects from hydrochloric acid emissions). The
estimated worst-case acute exposures to emissions from the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category would be reduced
from a maximum acute HQ of 0.6 to 0.3, based on the REL for arsenic.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
Based on our screening assessment of environmental risk presented
in section IV.B.4. of this preamble, we have determined that HAP
emissions from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
source category do not result in an adverse environmental effect, and
we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent
standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
We have reviewed the standards under the two rules, Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries, and
considered whether revising the standards is necessary based on
[[Page 55883]]
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. For the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack source category, we
did not identify developments in practices, processes, or technologies
to further reduce HAP emissions from pushing coke from ovens and from
quench tower sources in the source category. The pushing sources
already are equipped with capture and control devices, and quench tower
emissions are controlled by baffles inside of the quench towers and
with limits on quench water dissolved solids. However, we are seeking
information on emissions and on control options and work practice
standards to reduce ByP battery stack emissions and to reduce soaking
emissions from HNR ovens. These subjects are discussed in sections 1.
and 2. below.
For the Coke Oven Batteries source category, we did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or controls that would reduce
charging emissions from ByP or HNR facilities regulated under the
source category. The current rule requires the use of baghouses and
scrubbers to minimize emissions from charging and to limit opacity from
control devices used for charging emissions at HNR facilities. However,
we identified improvements in control of ByP battery leaks, and we are
proposing reduced allowable leak limits for leaks from doors, lids, and
offtakes at ByP facilities that range from a 10 to 70 percent reduction
in allowable door leak rate, depending on the size of the facility and
oven door height, and a 50 percent reduction in allowable leak rates
for lids and offtakes for all sizes of facilities and ovens. The
current leak limits and proposed revised leak limits are described in
detail in section IV.D.3. of this preamble. Also, we are asking for
comments on the proposed revised monitoring techniques for leaks from
HNR ovens. These proposed changes are discussed in sections 3. and 4.
below. To further address fugitive emissions at the Coke Oven Batteries
facilities, we are proposing a requirement for fenceline monitoring for
benzene along with an action level for benzene (as a surrogate for coke
oven emissions (COE)) and a requirement for root cause analysis and
corrective actions if the action level is exceeded. These proposed
requirements are discussed in section 5. below.
Lastly, we are proposing a revised equation for estimating leaks
from ByP coke oven doors based on evaluating the historic equation
developed from 1981 coke oven data. The discussion of this issue is in
section 6. below.
1. ByP Battery Stack 1-Hour Standards
We are considering whether an additional 1-hour battery stack
standard is warranted to support the current 24-hour average ByP
battery stack standard in Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks NESHAP so as to identify short-term periods of high opacity that
are not identified from the current rule's requirement for a 24-hour
opacity average. Battery stack opacity is perhaps the best single
indicator of the maintenance status of coke ovens and could be
considered as an indicator of fugitive and excess HAP emissions from
coke oven batteries.
We acquired 1-hour battery stack opacity data as part of the 2022
CAA section 114 test request and also obtained information about work
practices that are performed on ovens to maintain oven integrity, which
minimizes battery stack opacity, in general. We are not proposing a 1-
hour limit in this proposed action because of the processing of large
quantities of data that would be needed to develop a 1-hour emissions
limit for all coke facilities and also to analyze oven wall work
practices reported by coke facilities in the CAA section 114 request
responses to see if there is a correlation between the work practices
and lower opacities in the 1-hour time data. Therefore, we are
soliciting comment and information regarding these issues, including
comments regarding whether or not the EPA should finalize a 1-hour
battery stack opacity standard in the NESHAP in addition to or in lieu
of the current standard that is a 24-hour average, and an explanation
as to why or why not; and what work practices would reduce high opacity
on an hourly basis. The 1-hour opacity and work practice data collected
as part of the 2022 CAA section 114 request are summarized in a
memorandum titled Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations for Coke
Oven Combustion Stacks, Technology Review for NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC)
\31\ that graphically shows the 1-hour data, located in the docket to
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations for Coke Oven
Combustion Stacks, Technology Review for NESHAP for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCCCC). J. Carpenter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
IV, Atlanta, GA; K. Healy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V; D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and G.E. Raymond, RTI
International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. May 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Soaking Emissions From ByP Coke Ovens
The Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
regulates soaking COE from coke ovens via work practice standards.
Under 40 CFR 63.7294, coke oven facilities must prepare and operate
according to a written work practice plan for soaking emissions. The
plan must include measures and procedures to identify soaking COE that
require corrective actions, such as procedure for dampering off ovens;
determining why soaking COE emissions do not ignite automatically and,
if not, then to manually do so; determining whether COE which are not
fully processed in the ovens are leaking into the collecting main and
if there is incomplete coking; and determining whether the oven damper
needs to be reseated or other equipment needs to be cleaned.
Soaking, for the purposes of the NESHAP, means the period in the
coking cycle that starts when an oven is dampered off the collecting
main and vented to the atmosphere through an open standpipe prior to
pushing, and ends when the coke begins to be pushed from the oven.
Visible soaking COE occur from the discharge of COE via open standpipes
during the soaking period due to either incomplete coking or leakage
into the standpipe from the collecting main.
We are asking for comments on the feasibility of capturing and
controlling soaking COE. Soaking COE are most pronounced with ``green''
coke, i.e., coke that has not completed the coking process. Work
practice standards for soaking, covered in 40 CFR 63.7294, do not
include opacity limits or control device requirements and rely on
subjective observations from facility personnel. Furthermore,
operational practices may prevent topside workers from seeing soaking
COE, which is a prerequisite for the current soaking work practice
standards to apply. Currently, EPA Method 303A observations do not
consider soaking COE because intentional standpipe cap opening during
pushing is not considered a leak from the oven and, therefore, is not
included in the visible emissions observation field for oven testing.
We are asking for estimates of COE from soaking to better
understand the scope and scale of these emissions. In addition, we are
asking for comments on options for capturing and controlling the
soaking COE using a secondary collecting main that routes standpipe COE
exhaust to a control device with or without an associated VE, opacity,
or
[[Page 55884]]
emissions limit. We are not proposing controls or an opacity limit in
this current action; however, we solicit comment and information
regarding soaking COE, including comments as to whether or not the EPA
should include such a standard in the NESHAP in the final rule and an
explanation as to why or why not. We also solicit comments on changes
to the soaking work practice requirements currently in the rule.
3. ByP Door, Lids, and Offtakes Leak Limits
Due to improvements in leak control at coke oven facilities, we are
proposing to lower the door leak limits in the NESHAP under the
technology review for the Coke Oven Batteries source category for both
MACT track and LAER track ByP coke facilities. We are proposing for
facilities with coke production capacity of more than 3 million tpy
coke to lower the allowable leaking door limit from the current limit
of 4 percent to 1.5 percent for tall leaking doors (63 percent
reduction) and from 3.3 percent to 1.0 percent for ``not tall'' leaking
doors (70 percent reduction), in leaks as observed from the yard. These
proposed standards would currently only apply to the U.S. Steel
Clairton facility. For Coke Oven Batteries facilities that have coke
production capacity less than 3 million tpy coke, we are proposing an
allowable leaking door limit of 3.0 percent leaking doors observed from
the yard for all sizes of doors (currently the NESHAP includes limits
of 4.0 and 3.3 percent allowable leaking doors for tall and not tall
doors, respectively, as described earlier in this preamble), a 25 and 9
percent reduction, respectively. Both proposed changes to the allowable
limits would ensure continued low emissions from leaking doors. These
reduced levels reflect improvements in performance of the facilities to
minimize leaks from doors.
Due to improvements in operation by the coke facilities, where
actual emissions are much lower than allowable limits in many cases, we
also are proposing to lower the lid and offtake leak allowable limits
in the NESHAP under the technology review for the Coke Oven Batteries
source category. The current NESHAP includes limits of 0.4 percent
leaking lids and 2.5 percent leaking offtakes. We are proposing a
revised leaking lid limit of 0.2 percent leaking lids and for offtakes
a limit of 1.2 percent leaking offtakes (both an approximately 50
percent reduction). Both proposed changes to the limits would ensure
continued low emissions from leaking lids and offtakes. These reduced
levels reflect improvements in performance of the facilities to
minimize leaks from lids and offtakes.
Table 9 shows the estimated allowable emissions (tpy) before and
after lowering the leak limits from doors, lids, and offtakes for each
of eight ByP facilities.
Table 9--Estimated Allowable Emissions Before and After Proposed Changes to the Leak Limits for Leaking Doors, Lids, and Offtakes at Byproduct Coke Oven Facilities
[Coke oven batteries NESHAP]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable emissions (tpy)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With current leak limits With proposed leak limits
Facility ID -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doors \a\ \b\
(%) Lids (%) Offtakes (%) Total (tpy) Doors \c\ (%) Lids (%) Offtakes (%) Total (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC-Tarrant-AL.................................................. 3.4 0.076 0.11 3.6 3.0 0.038 0.052 3.1
BLU-Birmingham-AL............................................... 3.1 0.079 0.099 3.3 2.7 0.039 0.047 2.8
CC-Follansbee-WV................................................ 5.5 0.12 0.25 5.9 5.1 0.059 0.12 5.2
CC-Middletown-OH................................................ 1.8 0.030 0.12 2.0 1.7 0.015 0.060 1.8
CC-BurnsHarbor-IN............................................... 4.3 0.086 0.13 4.5 3.7 0.043 0.065 3.8
CC-Monessen-PA.................................................. 1.3 0.029 0.092 1.4 1.3 0.015 0.044 1.3
CC-Warren-OH.................................................... 2.0 0.034 0.14 2.2 1.9 0.017 0.067 2.0
EES-RiverRouge-MI............................................... 2.2 0.045 0.14 2.4 1.9 0.022 0.067 2.0
USS-Clairton-PA................................................. 17 0.38 1.1 19 11 0.19 0.53 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 41 0.88 2.2 44 33 0.44 1.0 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Door emissions are calculated using the revised equation. See section IV.D.6. of this preamble.
\b\ For doors, two limits apply in the current rule: 4 percent leaking doors for tall ovens (equal to or greater than 6 meters or 29 feet) and 3.3 percent leaking doors for all other shorter
ovens (less than 6 meters).
\c\ For facilities with coke production capacity more than 3 million tpy coke, proposed limits from doors are 1.5 percent leaking doors for tall ovens and 1.0 percent leaking doors for all
other shorter ovens; for facilities with coke production capacity less than 3 million tpy coke, proposed limits from doors is 3.0 percent leaking doors for all doors sizes.
We are asking for comment on these proposed limits and whether
there are other methods available to reduce leaks from doors, lids, and
offtakes, and from charging at coke oven batteries that are not
discussed here. Additional information on the available methods is
included in the memorandum Technology Review for the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source
Categories \32\ (hereafter referred to as the Technology Review
Memorandum), located in the dockets for the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. HNR Oven Door Leaks
a. HNR Leak-Related Monitoring
We are revising the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP for new and existing
HNR doors (40 CFR 63.303(a)(1) and (b)(1)) to require both monitoring
of leaking doors at HNR facilities using EPA Method 303A, which relies
on observing VE emanating from the ovens, and monitoring pressure in
the ovens (and common tunnel), instead of choosing one or the other, as
the current rule allows. We also are adding the 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 (but not
necessarily continuously throughout the oven cycle). We are asking for
comment on these changes.
b. Alternative Monitoring Approaches--HNR Oven Doors
The current method of assessing HNR oven doors for leaks under the
Coke Oven Battery NESHAP (40 CFR
[[Page 55885]]
63.303(b)) is through the use of EPA Method 303 or 303A, methods based
on observing VE emanating from the ovens and seen with the unaided eye,
excluding steam or condensing water, by trained human observers. While
VE has been used as an effective surrogate for monitoring door leaks in
the past, especially for ByP facilities, the EPA is soliciting comments
on whether there are other surrogates or practices which could be
applied to HNR door leaks. For those alternative techniques that could
be applied to measuring door leaks, the EPA is soliciting information
on equivalency studies that have been performed against Method 303 and/
or 303A, and any potential training requirements and/or associated
monitoring procedures for the alternative techniques.
c. Use of Pressure Transducers--HNR Ovens and Common Tunnels
As discussed earlier in this preamble, monitoring pressure in the
ovens and common tunnel to establish negative oven pressure and
establish leaks of 0.0 for HNR doors currently is allowed as an
alternate method to observing leaks with EPA Method 303A under 40 CFR
63.303(b). We are proposing to require both methods, EPA Method 303A
and pressure monitoring, to establish negative pressure in the ovens
and 0.0 leaks. The current practice at HNR facilities is to operate one
pressure monitor per common tunnel that may connect to 15 to 20 ovens
and is, therefore, not very sensitive to pressure loss at one oven.
Despite leaking emissions in one oven, a common tunnel with one
pressure transducer may still show negative pressure within the tunnel.
Also, facilities often only have one pressure transducer per oven,
which might not be sufficient to monitor and establish negative
pressure. We are considering a requirement for HNR facilities to
develop and submit a monitoring plan to their delegated authority to
ensure that there are sufficient pressure monitors in the ovens and
common tunnels to be able to determine that all ovens are operated
under negative pressure. We are not proposing this requirement at this
time, however we are soliciting comment on this potential requirement
and whether the EPA should allow each facility to suggest a site-
specific number of monitors needed as part of the monitoring plan that
they submit to the delegated authority for review and approval or
whether EPA should establish a prescriptive minimum number of pressure
monitors for each of the ovens and common tunnels in the NESHAP.
5. Fenceline Monitoring
We are proposing a fenceline monitoring work practice standard (for
benzene, as a surrogate for COE) under the technology review for the
Coke Oven Batteries source category. Fenceline monitoring refers to the
placement of monitors along the perimeter of a facility to measure
fugitive pollutant concentrations. The fenceline monitoring work
practice standard would require owners and operators to monitor for
benzene, as a surrogate for COE, and conduct root cause analysis and
corrective action upon exceeding an annual average concentration action
level of benzene. Details regarding the proposed requirements for
fenceline monitoring, the action level, and root cause analysis and
corrective action are discussed in this section.
The EPA recognizes that, in many cases, it is impractical to
directly measure emissions from fugitive emission sources at coke
manufacturing facilities. Direct measurement of fugitive emissions can
be costly and difficult. The EPA is concerned about the potential
magnitude of emissions from fugitive sources and the difficulty in
monitoring actual fugitive emission levels.
To improve our understanding of fugitive emissions and to
potentially address fugitive emissions sources at coke facilities, we
required fenceline monitoring for benzene and several other HAP through
the 2022 CAA section 114 request that is described in section II.C. of
this preamble. In the 2022 CAA section 114 requests, five selected
facilities (four ByP facilities and 1 HNR facility) were required to
perform sampling using EPA Methods 325A/B for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, and 1,3 butadiene and Compendium Methods TO-13A
and TO-15A for VOC and PAHs to determine the facility fugitive HAP
concentrations at the fenceline and interior on-site facility grounds.
At the fenceline, facilities were required to sample for six months
(thirteen 14-day sampling periods) (24 hours per day) at monitoring
locations determined by EPA Method 325A, for a combined total of 182
days of sampling with analysis by EPA Method 325B. Facilities were also
required to collect seven 24-hour samples at each fenceline TO monitor
location for a total of at least 21 samples (3 x 7) for TO-13A and at
least 28 samples (4 x 7) of TO-15A. In addition to fenceline
monitoring, facilities were required to sample fugitive emissions
within the interior facility grounds using methods TO-13A and 15A.
Facility interior samples were collected at one location at the HNR
facility and two locations at the ByP facilities for seven 24-hour
periods at each location resulting in a total of 7 TO-13A and TO-15A
samples at the HNR facility and 14 (2 times 7) TO-13A and TO-15A
samples at each ByP facility.
The requirements and decisions that we are proposing in this action
are informed by the fenceline monitoring results reported by facilities
in response to the 2022 Coke Ovens CAA section 114 request,
consideration of dispersion modeling results, and consideration of the
uncertainty with estimating emissions from fugitive emission sources.
Based on the monitoring results and the other considerations, we
determined that it is appropriate under CAA section 112(d)(6) to
require coke oven facilities to monitor, and if necessary, take
corrective action to minimize fugitive emissions, to ensure that
facilities appropriately limit emissions of HAP from fugitive sources.
More specifically, in this action, we are proposing that benzene
concentrations be monitored at the fenceline of each coke oven facility
using EPA Methods 325A/B. For each 2-week time-integrated sampling
period, the facility would determine a delta c, calculated as the
lowest benzene sample value subtracted from the highest benzene sample
value. This approach is intended to subtract out the estimated
contribution from background emissions that do not originate from the
facility. The delta c for the most recent year of samples (26 sampling
periods) would be averaged to calculate an annual average delta c. The
annual average delta c would be determined on a 12-month rolling basis,
meaning that it is updated with every new sample (i.e., every 2 weeks a
new annual average delta c is determined from the most recent 26
sampling periods). This rolling annual average delta c would be
compared against a benzene action level and owners and operators would
be required to conduct root cause analysis and corrective action upon
exceeding the benzene action level.
We are proposing an action level of 3 ug/m\3\ benzene. The proposed
action level was determined by modeling fenceline benzene
concentrations using the benzene emissions inventories used in the
facility-wide risk assessment, assuming that those reported emissions
represented full compliance with all standards, adjusted for additional
control requirements we are proposing in this action.
After modeling each facility, we then selected the maximum annual
average
[[Page 55886]]
benzene fenceline concentration modeled at any facility as the benzene
action level. Thus, if the reported inventories are accurate, all
facilities should be able to meet the benzene fenceline concentration
action level. We note that this analysis does not correlate to any
particular metric related to risk. This approach would provide the
owner or operator with the flexibility to determine how best to reduce
HAP emissions to ensure the benzene levels remain below the fenceline
concentration action level. The details of this proposed approach are
set forth in more detail in this section.
a. Siting, Design, and Sampling Requirements for Fenceline Monitors
The EPA is proposing that passive fenceline monitors collecting 2-
week time-integrated samples be deployed to measure fenceline benzene
concentrations at coke oven facilities. We are proposing that coke oven
facilities deploy passive samplers at a minimum of 12 points circling
the coke oven facility perimeter according to EPA Method 325A.
Fenceline passive diffusive tube monitoring networks employ a
series of diffusive tube samplers at set intervals along the fenceline
to measure a time-integrated \33\ ambient air concentration at each
sampling location. A diffusive tube sampler consists of a small tube
filled with an adsorbent, selected based on the pollutant(s) of
interest, and capped with a specially designed cover with small holes
that allow ambient air to diffuse into the tube at a small, fixed rate.
Diffusive tube samplers have been demonstrated to be a cost-effective,
accurate technique for measuring concentrations of pollutants (e.g.,
benzene) resulting from fugitive emissions in a number of studies
34 35 as well as in the petroleum refining sector.\36\ In
addition, diffusive samplers are used in the European Union to monitor
and maintain air quality, as described in European Union directives
2008/50/EC and Measurement Standard EN 14662-4:2005 for benzene. The
International Organization for Standardization developed a standard
method for diffusive sampling (ISO/FDIS 16017-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Time-integrated sampling refers to the collection of a
sample at a controlled rate over a period of time. The sample then
provides an average concentration over the sample period. For the
diffusive tube samplers, the controlled sampling rate is dictated by
the uptake rate, which is the amount of a compound that can be
absorbed by a particular sorbent over time during the sampling
period.
\34\ McKay, J., M. Molyneux, G. Pizzella, V. Radojcic.
Environmental Levels of Benzene at the Boundaries of Three European
Refineries, prepared by the CONCAWE Air Quality Management Group's
Special Task Force on Benzene Monitoring at Refinery Fenceline (AQ/
STF-45), Brussels, June 1999.
\35\ Thoma, E.D., M.C. Miller, K.C. Chung, N.L. Parsons, B.C.
Shine. 2011. Facility Fenceline Monitoring using Passive Sampling,
J. Air & Waste Manage Assoc. 61: 834-842.
\36\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682; fenceline concentration data
collected for the petroleum refining sector rulemaking can be
accessed via the Benzene Fenceline Monitoring Dashboard at https://awsedap.epa.gov/public/extensions/Fenceline_Monitoring/Fenceline_Monitoring.html?sheet=MonitoringDashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing that the highest concentration of benzene, as an
annual rolling average measured at any individual monitor and adjusted
for background (see ``Adjusting for background benzene concentrations''
in this section), would be compared against the concentration action
level (of 3 ug/m\3\) in order to determine if there are significant
excess fugitive emissions that need to be addressed. We are proposing
that existing sources would need to deploy samplers no later than 1
year after the effective date of the final rule which will enable
facilities to begin generating annual averages after 2 years, and then
within 3 years of the effective date the facilities would need to
demonstrate that they meet the action level or would need to conduct
the root cause analyses and corrective actions. New facilities would be
required to deploy samplers by the effective date of the final rule or
startup, whichever is later, and generate the first annual average 1
year later. We are proposing that coke oven facility owners and
operators would be required to demonstrate compliance with the
concentration action level for the first time 3 years following the
date the final rule is published in the Federal Register, and
thereafter on a 1-year rolling annual average basis (i.e., considering
results from the most recent 26 consecutive 2-week sampling intervals
and recalculating the average every 2 weeks).
b. Benzene as an Appropriate Target Analyte
Passive diffusive tube monitors can be used to determine the
ambient concentration of a large number of compounds. However,
different sorbent materials are typically needed to collect compounds
with significantly different properties. Rather than require multiple
tubes per monitoring location and a full analytical array of compounds
to be determined, which would significantly increase the cost of the
proposed fenceline monitoring program, we are proposing that the
fenceline monitors be analyzed specifically for benzene. Coke oven
facility owners or operators may elect to do more detailed speciation
of the air at the fenceline, which could help identify the process unit
that may be contributing to a high fenceline concentration, but we are
only establishing monitoring requirements and action level requirements
for benzene. We consider benzene to be a surrogate for organic HAP from
fugitive sources at coke ovens facilities for multiple reasons. First,
benzene is ubiquitous at coke oven facilities since it accounts for
about 70 percent of all volatile compounds in the fenceline volatile
emissions. Benzene is also present in emissions from CBRPs, where
benzene is recovered from coke oven gas for sale along with other coke
oven gas components. Second, the primary releases of benzene occur at
ground level as fugitive emissions and the highest ambient benzene
concentrations outside the facility would likely occur near the
property boundary, also near ground level, so fugitive releases of
benzene would be effectively detected at the ground-level monitoring
sites. According to the emissions inventory we have relied on for this
proposed action, 38 percent of benzene emissions from coke oven
facilities result from fugitive emissions from coke batteries and CBRP
equipment. See the emission inventory description in the document
Residual Risk Assessment for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks Source Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule,\8\ and the memorandum titled Fugitive
Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities (hereafter referred to as the
Fugitive Monitoring memorandum),\37\ located in the dockets for the
rules. Lastly, benzene is present in nearly all coke oven facility
equipment exhaust. Therefore, the presence of benzene at the fenceline
is also an indicator of other HAP emitted as part of COE or gas that is
derivative of COE. For this reason and the reasons discussed earlier in
this section, we believe that benzene is the most appropriate pollutant
to monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 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 No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that other compounds, such as naphthalene and other PAH,
would be less suitable indicators of total fugitive HAP for a couple of
reasons. First, they are prevalent in stack emissions as well as
fugitive emissions, so there is more potential for fenceline monitors
to pick up contributions from nonfugitive sources. In contrast, almost
[[Page 55887]]
all benzene comes from fugitive sources, so monitoring for benzene
increases our confidence that the concentration detected at the
fenceline is from fugitive emissions. Second, as compared to benzene,
these other compounds are expected to be present at lower
concentrations and, therefore, would be more difficult to measure
accurately using fenceline monitoring. We request comments on the
suitability of selecting benzene or other HAP, including naphthalene
and other PAH, as the indicator to be monitored by fenceline samplers.
We also request comment on whether it would be appropriate to require
multiple HAP to be monitored at the fenceline, considering the capital
and annual cost for additional monitors that are not passive/diffusion
type, and if so, which pollutants should be monitored.
c. Adjusting for Background Benzene Concentrations
Under this proposed approach, absolute measurements along a
facility fenceline cannot completely characterize which emissions are
associated with the coke oven facility and which are associated with
other background sources outside the facility fenceline. The EPA
recognizes that sources outside the coke oven facility boundaries may
influence benzene levels monitored at the fenceline. Furthermore,
background levels driven by local upwind sources are spatially
variable. Both of these factors could result in inaccurate estimates of
the actual contribution of fugitive emissions from the facility itself
to the concentration measured at the fenceline. Many coke oven
facilities are located in industrial areas that include facilities in
other industries that also may emit benzene. With this spatial
positioning, there is a possibility that the local upwind neighbors of
a coke oven facility could cause different background levels on
different sides of the coke oven facility.
In this proposal, we are proposing to allow the subtraction of
offsite interfering sources (because they are not within the control of
the owner or operators of coke ovens facilities) through site-specific
monitoring plans, but we are not providing this option for onsite, non-
source category emissions. The action levels described in this section
are based on facility-wide emissions, and therefore these nonsource
category sources have been considered in their development. We solicit
comment on alternative approaches for making these adjustments for off-
site contributions to the fenceline concentration of benzene.
d. Concentration Action Level
As mentioned above, the EPA is proposing to require coke oven
facilities to take corrective action to reduce fugitive emissions if
monitored fenceline concentrations exceed a specific concentration
action level on a rolling annual average basis (recalculated every two
weeks). We selected this proposed fenceline action level by modeling
fenceline benzene concentrations using the benzene emissions estimates
reported in response to the 2016 and 2022 CAA section 114 requests and
estimated benzene emissions in the 2017 NEI for the CRBPs (see the
model file description in Residual Risk Assessment for Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category in Support of
the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule). We estimated the
long-term ambient benzene concentrations at each coke oven facility
using the emission inventory and the EPA's American Meteorological
Society/EPA Regulatory Model dispersion modeling system (AERMOD).
Concentrations were estimated by the model at a set of polar grid
receptors centered on each facility, as well as surrounding census
block centroid receptors extending from the facility outward to 50 km.
For purposes of this modeling analysis, we assumed that the nearest
off-site polar grid receptor was the best representation of each
facility's fenceline concentration, unless there was a census block
centroid nearer to the fenceline than the nearest off-site polar grid
receptor or an actual receptor was identified from review of the site
map. In those instances, we estimated the fenceline concentration as
the concentration at the census block centroid. Only receptors (either
the polar or census block) that were estimated to be outside the
facility fenceline were considered in determining the maximum benzene
level for each facility. The maximum benzene concentration modeled at
the fenceline for any coke oven facility is 3 [micro]g/m\3\ (annual
average). For additional details of the analysis, see the Fugitive
Monitoring memorandum.\37\
Due to differences in short-term meteorological conditions, short-
term (i.e., 2-week average) concentrations at the fenceline can vary
greatly. Given the high variability in short-term fenceline
concentrations and the difficulties and uncertainties associated with
estimating a maximum 2-week fenceline concentration given a limited
time period of meteorological data (one year) typically used in the
modeling exercise, we determined that it would be inappropriate and
ineffective to propose a short-term concentration action level that
would trigger corrective action based on a single 2-week sampling
event.
One objective for this monitoring program is to identify fugitive
emission releases more quickly, so that corrective action can be
implemented in a timelier fashion than might otherwise occur without
the fenceline monitoring requirement. We conclude the proposed
fenceline monitoring approach and a rolling annual average
concentration action limit (i.e., using results from the most recent 26
consecutive 2-week samples and recalculating the average every 2 weeks)
would achieve this objective. The proposed fenceline monitoring would
provide the coke oven facility owner or operator with fenceline
concentration information once every 2 weeks. Therefore, the coke oven
facility owner or operator would be able to timely identify emissions
leading to elevated fenceline concentrations. We anticipate that the
coke oven facility owners or operators would elect to identify and
correct these sources early in efforts to avoid exceeding the annual
benzene concentration action level.
An ``exceedance'' of the benzene concentration action level would
occur when the rolling annual average delta c, exceeds 3 [micro]g/m\3\.
Upon exceeding the concentration action level, we propose that coke
oven facility owners or operators would be required to conduct analyses
to identify sources contributing to fenceline concentrations and take
corrective action to reduce fugitive emissions to ensure fenceline
benzene concentrations remain at or below 3 [micro]g/m\3\ (rolling
annual average).
e. Corrective Action Requirements
As described previously, the EPA is proposing that coke oven
facility owners or operators analyze the fenceline samples and compare
the rolling annual average delta c to the concentration action level.
This section summarizes the root cause and corrective action
requirements in this proposed rule. First, we are proposing that the
calculation of the rolling annual average delta c must be completed
within 30 days after the completion of each sampling episode. If the
rolling annual average benzene delta c exceeds the proposed
concentration action level (i.e., 3 mg/m\3\), the facility must, within
5 days of comparing the rolling annual delta c to the concentration
action level, initiate a root cause analysis to determine the primary
cause, and any other contributing cause(s), of the exceedance. The
facility must complete
[[Page 55888]]
the root cause analysis and implement corrective action within 45 days
of initiating the root cause analysis. We are not proposing specific
controls or corrections that would be required when the concentration
action level is exceeded because the cause of an exceedance could vary
greatly from facility to facility and episode to episode since many
different sources emit fugitive emissions. Rather, we are proposing to
allow facilities to determine, based on their own analysis of their
operations, the action that must be taken to reduce air concentrations
at the fenceline to levels at or below the concentration action level,
representing full compliance with Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
requirements for fenceline emissions until the next fenceline
measurement.
If, upon completion of the root cause analysis and corrective
actions described above, the coke oven facility subsequently exceeds
the action level for the next two-week sampling episode following the
earlier of the completion of a first set of corrective actions or the
45-day period commencing at initiation of root cause analysis
(``subsequent exceedance''), the owner or operator would be required to
develop and submit to the EPA a corrective action plan that would
describe the corrective actions completed to date. This plan would
include a schedule for implementation of additional emission reduction
measures that the owner or operator can demonstrate as soon as
practical. This plan would be submitted to the Administrator within 60
days after receiving the analytical results indicating that the delta c
value for the 14-day sampling period following the completion of the
initial corrective action is greater 3 [micro]g/m\3\, or if any
corrective action measures identified require more than 45 days to
implement, or, if no initial corrective actions were identified, no
later than 60 days following the completion of the corrective action
analysis.
The coke oven facility owner or operator is not deemed out of
compliance with the proposed concentration action level at the time of
the fenceline concentration determination provided that the appropriate
corrective action measures are taken according to the timeframe
detailed in an approved corrective action plan.
The EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to establish
a standard time frame for compliance with actions listed in a
corrective action plan.
We expect that facilities may identify ``poor-performing'' sources
(e.g., due to unusual or excessive leaks) using the fenceline
monitoring data and, based on this additional information, would take
action to reduce HAP emissions before they would have otherwise been
aware of the issue through existing inspection and enforcement
measures. By selecting a fenceline monitoring approach and by selecting
benzene as the surrogate for COE, we believe that the proposed
monitoring approach would effectively provide emissions information for
all coke oven facility fugitive emission sources.
f. Additional Requirements of the Fenceline Monitoring Program
We are proposing that fenceline data at each monitor location be
reported electronically for each quarterly period's worth of sampling
periods (i.e., each report would contain data for at least six 2-week
sampling periods per quarterly period). These data would be reported
electronically to the EPA within 45 days of the end of each quarterly
period and would be made available to the public through the EPA's
electronic reporting and data retrieval portal, in keeping with the
EPA's efforts to streamline and reduce reporting burden and to move
away from hard copy submittals of data where feasible. We are proposing
that facilities be required to conduct fenceline monitoring on a
continuous basis at all monitors, in accordance with the specific
methods described above.
In light of the low annual monitoring and reporting costs
associated with the fenceline monitors (as described in the next
section), and the importance of the fenceline monitors as a means of
ensuring the control of fugitives achieves the expected emission
levels, we believe it is appropriate to require collection of fenceline
monitoring data on a continuous basis. However, the EPA recognizes that
fugitive benzene emissions at some monitors may be so low as to make it
improbable that exceedances of the concentration action level would
ever occur. In the interest of reducing the cost burden on facilities
to comply with this rule, if a coke oven facility maintains the
fenceline concentration below 0.3 ug/m\3\ (a concentration that is 10
percent of the benzene action level) at any individual monitor for 2
years, the sampling frequency at that monitor can be reduced by 50
percent (e.g., 2 weeks of sampling for every 4-week period). For each
sample location and monitor that continues to register below 0.3 ug/
m\3\ for an additional 2 years, the sampling may be reduced further to
approximately once per quarter, with sampling occuring every sixth two-
week period (i.e., five two-week periods are skipped between active
sampling periods). If a monitor at the quarterly frequency continues to
maintain a concentration of 0.3 ug/m\3\ for an additional 2 years,
sampling at that monitor may be reduced further to annual sampling.
However, if the concentration at any sample location that is allowed a
reduced frequency of testing increases above 0.3 ug/m\3\ at any time,
sampling would need to immediately return to the original continuous
sampling requirement.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed approach for reducing
fenceline monitoring requirements for facilities that consistently
measure fenceline concentrations below the concentration action level,
and the measurement level that should be used to provide such relief.
The proposed approach would be consistent with the fenceline alternate
sampling frequency for burden reduction (40 CFR 63.658(e)(3)) as well
as the graduated requirements for valve leak monitoring in Refinery
MACT 1 \38\ and other equipment leak standards, where the frequency of
required monitoring varies depending on the percent of leaking valves
identified during the previous monitoring period (See e.g., 40 CFR
63.648(c). The EPA requests comment on the minimum time period
facilities should be required to conduct fenceline monitoring; and the
level of performance, in terms of monitored fenceline concentrations,
that would enable a facility to reduce the frequency of data collection
and reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and
New Source Performance Standards Final Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 80 FR
75178. December 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs for fenceline monitoring are estimated to be $116,000
per year per facility including reporting and recordkeeping and $1.3M
annually for the industry including reporting and recordkeeping (11
affected facilities). The EPA requests comment on these cost estimates.
6. Revised Emissions Equation for Leaking Doors
As part of the technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), we
are proposing to use an updated, revised version of the equation than
that which has historically been used to estimate COE from leaking oven
doors. The revised equation would provide more accurate estimates of
COE from doors that reflects 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
[[Page 55889]]
have occurred since 1981, which is when the equation was first
developed.
A summary of the revised equation and the rationale for its
development follows here. A more detailed explanation can be found in
the memorandum Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from
Oven Doors,\39\ located in the dockets for these rules. We are asking
for comment on the revised equation to estimate coke oven door leaks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2005 RTR for Coke Oven Batteries, COE from leaking oven
doors were estimated using the following equation taken from the
estimating procedures in AP-42 (section 12.2: Coke Production, revised
draft, July 2001).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Compilation of Emission Factors (AP-42). Section 12.2, Coke
Production. See https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/old/ap42/ch12/s02/final/c12s02.pdf.
COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr \41\) +
ND x (PLDbench/100) x (0.023 lb/hr \41\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Emission factors for leaks from yard (0.04 lb/hr) and bench
(0.023 lb/hr) developed from 1981 coke facility data and reported in
AP-42.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
ND = number of doors
PLD = percent leaking doors
Bench = walking platform running next to the ovens (and doors)
Yard = 50 to 100 feet from the oven doors
PLDyard = percent of doors with visible leaks observed
from the yard
PLDbench= percent of doors with visible leaks only
observable from the bench.
Because of safety concerns, observations are not typically taken
from bench and, therefore, this equation has historically included a
default value of 6 percent for the percent leaking doors only able to
be observed from the bench. As reported in the July 2008 update to AP-
42 Chapter 12.2,\42\ this default value was derived from 1981 data,
where the percent leaking doors from the yard was 6.4 percent and the
total percent leaking doors visible from the bench was 12.4 percent,
which included both leaks visible from yard and leaks visible only from
the bench. The difference between 12.4 and 6.4 percent, equal to 6
percent, represented the percent leaking doors only able to be observed
from the bench.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 12.2
Coke Production Final Report, May 2008. Chapter 6, Summary of
Comments and Response for the July 2001 Draft. Response A-3. pg. 6-
5. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch12/bgdocs/b12s02_may08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the current coke industry, the percent leaking doors measured
from the yard is much lower, 2.5 percent or less, based on 2016 and
2022 source tests performed for the CAA section 114 request. The
facility that was used in 1981 to establish the 6 percent leaking doors
that were visible only from the bench was U.S. Steel Clairton-PA, which
had 6.4 percent leaking doors visible from the yard at that time but
now has a facility average of 0.54 percent leaking doors visible from
the yard based on 2016 data and facility average of 0.46 percent
leaking doors visible from the yard based on 2021 data. The default
fixed value of 6 percent leaking doors visible only from the bench
obviously does not reflect changes in practices for door leaks in the
years since 1981 and should be reevaluated so that the total emissions
from doors are not overestimated.
Consequently, for the analyses conducted for this proposed rule, we
revised the equation to include a bench-to-yard ``ratio'' instead of
the 6 percent default value for doors seen leaking from the bench in
the door leak emissions equation. The revised value in the equation
(i.e., adjustment ratio) is still based on the historic values measured
in 1981 but instead of using the 6 percent default value, the equation
includes the ratio of the 1981 value for percent leaking doors visible
only from the bench to the 1981 value for percent leaking doors visible
from the yard. This adjustment ratio was used with current measured
percent leaking doors from the yard to estimate the current percent
leaking doors visible only from the bench. The ratio of bench-only
emissions to yard emissions from 1981 is ((12.4-6.4)/6.4), equal to
6.0/6.4 or 0.94. The adjustment ratio (0.94) was multiplied by measured
data for percent leaking doors measured from the yard to estimate the
bench-only component of door emissions in the equation for COE for
doors. Use of this adjustment ratio in the revised equation below is
being proposed to better reflect operation of all coke ovens:
COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x
(PLDyard x 0.94)/100) x (0.023 lb/hr)
As part of the 2022 CAA section 114 request, we requested two coke
oven facilities to perform EPA Method 303 tests simultaneously from
both the bench and the yard at two batteries at each facility. However,
we did not receive the data until after preparation of this proposal
preamble (data received on June 27, 2023). The EPA intends to complete
analysis of these data in time to address in the final rule. The
facility test reports from the recent method 303 door leak testing are
included in the docket for the proposed rule. We solicit comments
regarding the results of these method 303 tests and how those results
could affect the door leak equation discussed in this section.
E. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to these NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of
these rules in order to ensure that they are consistent with the
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in
which the court vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)
emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing
electronic reporting. Our analyses and proposed changes related to
these issues are discussed as follows.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the court) vacated portions of two provisions in the
EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
With the issuance of the mandate in Sierra Club v. EPA, the
exemptions that were in 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) are null and void. The
EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1)) on March 11, 2021, to reflect
the court order and correct the CFR to remove the SSM exemption.\43\ In
this action, we are eliminating any cross-reference to the vacated
provisions in the regulatory text including 40 CFR 63.7310(a) and Table
1 of the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP and 40
CFR 63.300(e) and 63.310 for the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP. Consistent
with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in these rules that
apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 1
of the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP (the
General Provisions applicability table) as is explained in more detail
below.
[[Page 55890]]
For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We
also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further
described as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ U.S. EPA, Court Vacatur of Exemption From Emission
Standards During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. (86
FR 13819, March 11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account SS periods and, for the reasons explained as follows, has not
proposed alternate standards for those periods. The coke oven industry
has not identified (and there are no data indicating) any specific
problems with removing the SSM provisions due to the nature of the coke
process to operate continuously. If an oven is shut down, it has to be
rebuilt before starting back up, which is the reason why coke ovens are
put in idle mode when not operating. However, we solicit comment on
whether any situations exist where separate standards, such as work
practices, would be more appropriate during periods of startup and
shutdown rather than the current standard.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Therefore, the standards that apply
during normal operation apply during periods of malfunction.
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3 and revising 40 CFR 63.7310(c) text. In 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i),
the general duty to minimize emissions is described. Some of the
language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light
of the elimination of the SSM exemption. With the elimination of the
SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal
operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events. Therefore,
the language the EPA is proposing to revise for 40 CFR 63.7310(c) does
not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). The EPA is also
proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.300(e) in the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
to reflect the elimination of the SSM exemption.
We are also proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. In 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii), requirements are imposed that are
not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.7310(a). The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.300(e) in
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP to reflect the elimination of the SSM
exemption.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. The EPA is also proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.310(b) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart L to reflect the
elimination of the SSM plan requirements. With the elimination of the
SSM exemptions, affected units would be subject to an emission standard
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events
would ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance and thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Consistent with Sierra Club, EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
and (h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to reflect the court order and correct
the CFR to remove the SSM exemption. However, the second sentence of 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains language that is premised on the existence of
an exemption and is inappropriate in the absence of the exemption.
Thus, rather than cross-referencing 63.6(f)(1), we are adding the
language of 63.6(f)(1) that requires compliance with standards at all
times to the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7310(a). The EPA is also
proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.300(e) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP: to
reflect that standards apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Consistent with Sierra Club, EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) on
March 11, 2021, to reflect the court order and correct the CFR to
remove the SSM exemption. However, the second sentence of 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) contains language that is premised on the existence of an
exemption and is inappropriate in the absence of the exemption. Thus,
rather than cross-referencing 63.6(f)(1), we are adding the language of
63.6(f)(1) that requires compliance with standards at all times to the
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7310(a). The EPA is also proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.300(e) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP to reflect that
standards apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a ``no'' in
column 3 and revising 40 CFR 63.7336(b) text. In 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)
performance testing is required. The EPA is instead proposing to add a
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.7322(a), 63.7324(a), and
63.7325(a). In addition, we are revising 40 CFR 63.309(a) and removing
the citation to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) from 40 CFR 63.309(k). The
performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from
the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several
respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded
startup and shutdown periods from being considered ``representative''
for purposes of performance testing. The revised performance testing
provisions require testing under representative operating conditions
and exclude periods of startup and shutdown.
[[Page 55891]]
As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under these
subparts should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions
during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. In 40 CFR 63.7(e), the owner or operator is required to make
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the
Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the
information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to
add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the
requirement to record the information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including a
``no'' in column 3. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.305(f)(4)(i) in
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP to reflect changes to General Provisions due
to general duty and SSM.
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7342(b)(3) text that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).'' We note that
the revisions to 40 CFR 63.305(f)(4)(i) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
will also comport to this change.
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP Applicability table (Table 1) by adding an entry
for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' in column 3. In 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i), the recordkeeping requirements during startup and
shutdown are described. In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise 40
CFR 63.311(f) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP. These recording provisions
are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping
and reporting applicable to normal operations would apply to startup
and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to
startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no
reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown
periods.
We are proposing to revise Table 1 of Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' in column 3. In 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii), the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction
are described. The EPA is proposing to revise and add such requirements
to 40 CFR 63.7342(a)(2)-(4). We are also revising the 40 CFR 63.311(f)
to update the recordkeeping requirements in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP.
The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions and other regulatory text it is replacing in that these
provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this
requirement apply to all malfunction events requiring that the source
record the date, time, cause, and duration of the malfunction and
report any failure to meet the standard. The EPA is also proposing to
add to 40 CFR 63.7342(a)(3) and 40 CFR 63.311(f)(1)(iv) a requirement
that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, whether the failure
occurred during a period of SSM, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(f) in the Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAP. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.7342(a)(4) and 40 CFR
63.311(f)1(iv).
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(f) in Coke
oven Batteries NESHAP. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records to satisfy the
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e),
to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12).
The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans
would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. The EPA is also
proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(f) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP for
similar changes.
[[Page 55892]]
g. Reporting
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(b)(2),
63.311(b)(5), 63.311(d)(2), in Coke oven Batteries NESHAP to reflect
similar changes. In 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i), the reporting requirements
for SSMs are described. To replace the General Provisions reporting
requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40
CFR 63.7341(d)(4) and 40 CFR 63.311(f)(1)(iv) and revise reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.311(b)(2), (b)(5), and (d)(2). The
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in the semiannual reporting period compliance report
already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report
would contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such
events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected
source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an
applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3 and revising the 40 CFR 63.7341(c)(4) text. We would no longer
require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to
correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans
would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore,
eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains
the description of the previously required SSM report format and
submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events would be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(b)(2),
63.311(b)(5), 63.311(d)(2), in Coke Oven Batteries to reflect similar
changes. In 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and 63.311, an immediate report is
described for SSMs when a source failed to meet an applicable standard
but did not follow the SSM plan. We would no longer require owners and
operators to report when actions taken during a SSM were not consistent
with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of coke oven
facilities, under rules for both Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP and Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP source categories,
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 docket for
this action. The proposed rule requires that performance test results
collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \44\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the quarterly and semiannual compliance reports of the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category
and the semiannual compliance certification of the Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP source category, the proposed rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\45\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 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's EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking would increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, would further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, would improve 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 would ultimately reduce 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 \46\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
agency-wide policy \47\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\48\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
[[Page 55893]]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\47\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\48\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The proposed date for complying with the proposed SSM changes is no
later than the effective date of the final rule with the exception of
recordkeeping provisions. For recordkeeping under the SSM, we are
proposing that facilities must comply with this requirement 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule. Recordkeeping provisions
associated with malfunction events shall be effective no later than 180
days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA is requiring
additional information for recordkeeping of malfunction events, so the
additional time is necessary to permit sources to read and understand
the new requirements and adjust record keeping systems to comply.
Reporting provisions are in accordance with the reporting requirements
during normal operations and the semi-annual report of excess
emissions.
The proposed date for complying with the proposed ERT submission
requirements is 180 days after publication of the final rule. The
proposed compliance date for the revisions to the allowable limits for
leaking doors, lids, and offtakes under the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
is 1 year after publication of the final rule. The proposed compliance
date to begin fenceline monitoring is 1 year after the publication date
of the final rule; facilities must perform root cause analysis and
apply corrective action requirements upon exceedance of an annual
average concentration action level starting 3 years after the
publication date of the final rule.
The proposed compliance date for the 15 new MACT limits (based on
the MACT floor, as described in section IV.A. of this preamble), in the
NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks is 1 year
after publication of the final rule. The proposed compliance date for
the two new BTF emission limits for HNR waste heat stacks in the NESHAP
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks is 3 years after
publication of the final rule to allow time for the installation of
ductwork to capture large volumes of battery COE and for acquisition
and installation of control devices to treat the captured air. As
described earlier in this section, the facility that is affected by the
new BTF PM limit is located between three rivers, a state road, and a
railroad track. Therefore, due to the unique configuration of facility,
and the resulting space available to construct control devices and
ductwork to reduce arsenic emissions from bypass stacks creates an
impediment to a typical construction schedule. We estimate that the
facility will need 3 years to complete all this work and comply with
the new PM limit. Consequently, the proposed compliance date for the
BTF PM limit for waste stacks in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and
Battery Stacks NESHAP is 3 years after publication of the final rule.
G. Adding 1-bromopropane to List of HAP
On January 5, 2022, the EPA published a final rule amending the
list of hazardous air pollutants (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, we
are evaluating whether the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112 HAP
list impacts the source category. For the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and Coke Oven Batteries source
categories, we conclude 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. As a result, no changes are being
proposed to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks and Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAPs based on the January 2022 rule adding 1-BP to
the list of HAP. Nevertheless, we are requesting comments regarding the
use of 1-BP and any potential emissions of 1-BP from this source
category.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
Table 10 below summarizes the proposed amendments for emission
sources at coke oven facilities. The fenceline monitoring requirement
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart L and the BTF limit for mercury (Hg) and
non-Hg metals from HNR HRSG B/W heat stacks under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart 5C are expected to require facilities to incur incremental
costs relative to current standards. The proposed lowering of leak
limits for coke oven doors, lids, and offtake systems under 40 CFR part
63, subpart L is not expected to achieve actual emission reductions but
would reduce allowable emissions.
Table 10--Summary of the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts CCCCC and L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions source Current standard Proposed standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 63, subpart L (Coke Oven Batteries)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility-wide Fugitive Emissions... ...................... no requirement............. Fenceline monitoring
work practice
standard for benzene.
Leaking from Coke Oven Doors \a\
Clairton facility..... 3.3-4% limit............... 1-1.5% limit.
All other by-product 3.3-4% limit............... 3% limit.
facilities.
Leaking Lids....................... ...................... 0.4% limit................. 0.2% limit.
Leaking Offtake Systems............ ...................... 2.5% limit................. 1.2% limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 63, subpart 5C (Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks) Regulatory Gaps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HNR HRSG B/W Heat Stacks........... Acid gases, no requirement............. MACT floor limit.
formaldehyde, PAHs.
Hg and non-Hg metals.. no requirement............. BTF limit (one
facility-Vansant,
VA); MACT limit (all
remaining
facilities).
HNR HRSG Main Stack................ Acid gases, Hg, PM no requirement............. MACT floor limit.
metals, PAHs.
Coke Pushing....................... Acid gases, hydrogen no requirement............. MACT floor limit.
cyanide, Hg, PAHs.
By-product Recovery Battery Stack.. Acid gases, hydrogen no requirement............. MACT floor limit.
cyanide, Hg, PM
metals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The higher opacity limit applies to ``tall'' doors (equal to or greater than 6 meters); lower leak limit
applies to other doors.
[[Page 55894]]
A. What are the affected sources?
These proposed amendments to the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching and Battery Stacks affect sources of HAP emissions from
pushing coke out of ovens, quenching hot coke with water in quench
towers, battery stacks of oven combustion gas at ByP coke plants, and
from HRSG and HNR bypass/waste heat stacks at HNR facilities. These
proposed amendments also apply to the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries,
where the affected sources are the visible leaks from oven doors,
charging port lids, and offtake ducts; and from emissions from charging
coal into the coke ovens.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The proposed BTF MACT standards for waste heat stacks at
nonrecovery facilities in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category would achieve an estimated 237 tpy
reduction of PM emissions, 14 tpy reduction of PM2.5
emissions, 4.0 tpy reduction of nonmercury metal HAP emissions, and
0.072 tpy (144 pounds per year) reduction of mercury emissions.
We expect that there will be no other air quality impacts due to
this proposed rulemaking (e.g., from the proposed 15 MACT floor limits
for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
source category). However, the 15 proposed MACT floor standards would
ensure that air quality does not degrade over time.
We also expect that there will be no air quality impacts due to
proposed reduction in allowable emissions from coke oven doors, lids
and offtakes in the Coke Oven Batteries source category, but the
proposed revised standards would ensure that air quality does not
degrade over time.
C. What are the other environmental impacts?
Baghouses and ACI that are used to reduce air emissions of mercury
and nonmercury HAP metals from bypass waste stacks at one HNR facility
have the following environmental impacts: 15.1 million kilowatt-hour
increased electricity use and 761 tons of hazardous dust for disposal.
Baghouses and ACI are commonly used control devices for air emissions
of PM and mercury. Consequently, there is a reduction in air emissions
of 4.0 tpy nonmercury HAP metals and 144 pounds per year mercury.
D. What are the cost impacts?
Cost impacts would occur due to the required source testing every 5
years to demonstrate compliance with the proposed MACT floor and BTF
standards for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks.
Testing costs are estimated to be $3.2 million annualized costs
including reporting and recordkeeping for the 11 operating facilities
in the source category, with an average of $290,000 per year per
facility including reporting and recordkeeping.
Cost impacts would occur due to the control device needed to reduce
HAP emissions to meet the two BTF MACT standards. For the ACI and
baghouses used to achieve the BTF standard for mercury, capital costs
would be $314,000 for activated carbon and the injection systems and
$7.2M for the baghouses along with necessary ductwork; annual costs for
activated carbon and the injection systems would be $1.6M/yr and $3.0M/
yr for the baghouses with necessary ductwork. For nonmercury metal HAP
control, capital costs would be $7.2M for the baghouses along with
necessary ductwork and annual costs would be $3.0M/yr. Total estimated
capital costs for the BTF limit for waste heat stacks (nonmercury metal
HAP and mercury) are $7.5M, with annualized costs of $4.7M (1 affected
facility).
Total costs for fenceline monitoring are estimated to be $116,000
per year per facility including reporting and recordkeeping and $1.3M
annually for the industry including reporting and recordkeeping (11
affected facilities).
Total capital costs for the industry (for 1 facility) are $7.5M and
the estimated annual costs for the industry for all proposed
requirements are about $9.1M/yr (including reporting and recordkeeping)
for 11 affected facilities.
E. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the proposed
rule, which is available in the docket for this action. This proposed
rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866
section 3(f)(1), as amended by Executive Order 14094, since it is not
likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or tribal governments
or communities. The EIA analyzes the cost and emissions impact under
the proposed requirements, and the projected impacts are presented for
the 2025-2036 time period. The EIA analyzes the projected impacts of
the proposed rule in order to better inform the public about its
potential effects.
If the compliance costs, which are key inputs to an economic impact
analysis, are small relative to the receipts of the affected
industries, then the impact analysis may consist of a calculation of
annual (or annualized) costs as a percent of sales for affected parent
companies. This type of analysis is often applied when a partial
equilibrium or more complex economic impact analysis approach is deemed
unnecessary given the expected size of the impacts. The annualized cost
per sales for a company represents the maximum price increase in the
affected product or service needed for the company to completely
recover the annualized costs imposed by the regulation. We conducted a
cost-to-sales analysis to estimate the economic impacts of this
proposal, given that the equivalent annualized value (EAV), which
represents a flow of constant annual values that would yield a sum
equivalent to the present value, of the compliance costs over the
period 2025-2036 range from $8.9 million using a 7 percent discount
rate to $9.6 million using a 3 percent discount rate in 2022 dollars,
which is small relative to the revenues of the steel industry (of which
the coke industry is a part).
There are five parent companies that operate active coke
facilities: Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. U.S. Steel, SunCoke Energy, Inc.,
DTE Energy Company, and the Drummond Company. Each reported greater
than $1 billion in revenue in 2021. The EPA estimated the annualized
compliance cost each firm is expected to incur and determined the
estimated cost-to-sales ratio for each firm is less than 0.5 percent.
James C. Justice Companies owns the idled Bluestone Coke facility, and
the EPA estimated the compliance cost-to-sales ratio, if the facility
were to resume operations, would be less than 0.1 percent. Therefore,
the projected economic impacts of the expected compliance costs of the
proposal are likely to be small. The EPA also conducted a small
business screening to determine the possible impacts of the proposed
rule on small businesses. Based on the Small Business Administration
size standards and business information gathered by the EPA, this
source category has one small business, which would not be subject to
significant cost by the proposed requirements.
Details of the EIA can be found in the document prepared for this
rule titled Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke
[[Page 55895]]
Oven Batteries Technology Review \49\ that is located in the dockets
for these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke
Oven Batteries, Technology Review (EPA-452/R-23-005). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Research
Triangle Park, NC. May 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What are the benefits?
The BTF MACT standards for waste heat stacks at nonrecovery
facilities are expected to reduce HAP emissions (with concurrent
control of PM2.5) and could improve air quality and the
health of persons living in surrounding communities. These standards
are expected to reduce 4.0 tpy of nonmercury HAP metal (including
arsenic and lead) and 144 lbs per year of mercury. These standards are
also projected to reduce PM emissions by 237 tpy, of which 14 tpy is
expected to be PM2.5. The proposed amendments also revise
the standards such that they apply at all times, which includes periods
of SSM, and may result in some unquantified additional emissions
reductions compared to historic or current emissions (i.e., before the
SSM exemptions were removed), and improve accountability and compliance
assurance. In addition, we are also proposing fenceline monitoring,
which would improve compliance assurance and potentially result in some
unquantified additional emission reductions. The risk assessment
(described in section IV.B.) quantifies the estimated health risks
associated with the current emissions, although we did not attempt to
monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. The
EPA remains committed to improving methods for monetizing HAP benefits
by continuing to explore additional aspects of HAP-related risk,
including the distribution of that risk.
G. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 directs EPA to identify the populations of
concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms, which are specifically minority populations, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994). Additionally, Executive Order 14096 built upon and supplemented
that order (88 FR 25,251; April 26, 2023). For this action, pursuant to
the Executive Orders, the EPA conducted an assessment of the impacts
that would result from the proposed rule amendments, if promulgated, on
communities with environmental justice concerns living near coke oven
facilities.
Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice in the Agency's actions, the Agency has carefully considered
the impacts of this action on communities with environmental justice
concerns. The EPA defines environmental justice as ``the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' \50\ The EPA further defines fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' In recognizing that
communities with environmental justice concerns often bear an unequal
burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider
ways of protecting them from adverse public health and environmental
effects of air pollution. For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts,
the EPA relies upon its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' \51\ which provides
recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality
analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time, resource
constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by media and
circumstance. The Technical Guidance states that a regulatory action
may involve potential environmental justice concerns if it could: (1)
Create new disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; (2) exacerbate existing
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; or (3) present opportunities to
address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples through an action under
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
\51\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category
Demographics
The EPA examined the potential for the 14 coke oven facilities to
disproportionately impact residents in certain demographic groups in
proximity to the facilities, both in the baseline and under the control
options considered in this proposal. Specifically, the EPA analyzed how
demographics and risk are distributed both pre- and post-control under
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack NESHAP, enabling
us to address the core questions that are posed in the EPA's 2016
Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory
Analysis. In conducting this analysis, we considered key variables
highlighted in the guidance including minority populations (including
Hispanic or Latino), low-income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples.
The methodology and detailed results of the demographic analysis are
presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities,\52\ which is available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Coke Oven Facilities. C. Sarsony. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To examine the potential for disproportionate impacts on certain
population groups, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis, baseline
risk-based analysis (i.e., before implementation of any controls
proposed in this action), and post-control risk-based analysis (i.e.,
after implementation of the controls proposed in this action). The
proximity demographic analysis is an assessment of individual
demographic groups in the total population living within 10 km (~6.2
miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. The baseline risk-based
demographic analysis is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups in the population living within 10 km and 50 km of
the facilities prior to the implementation of any controls proposed by
this action (``baseline''). The post-control risk-based demographic
analysis is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups in
the population living within 10 km and 50 km of the facilities after
implementation of the controls proposed by this action (``post-
control''). In this preamble, we focus on the 10 km radius for the
demographic analysis because it encompasses all the facility MIR
locations and captures 99 percent
[[Page 55896]]
of the population with baseline cancer risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million from coke ovens source category emissions. The results
of the proximity analysis for populations living within 50 km are
included in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities, which is available in the
docket for this action.
Under the risk-based demographic analysis, the total population,
population percentages, and population count for each demographic group
for the entire U.S. population is shown in the column titled
``Nationwide Average for Reference'' in Table 11 of this preamble.
These national data are provided as a frame of reference to compare the
results of the baseline proximity analysis, the baseline risk-based
analyses, and the post-control risk-based analyses.
The results of the category proximity demographic analysis (see
Table 11, column titled ``Baseline Proximity Analysis for Pop. Living
within 10 km of Coke Oven Facilities'') indicate that a total of 1.3
million people live within 10 km of the 14 Coke Oven facilities. The
percent of the population that is African American is more than double
the national average (27 percent versus 12 percent). The percent of
people living below the poverty level is almost double the national
average (22 percent versus 13 percent).
The category baseline risk-based demographic analysis (see Table
11, column titled ``Pre-Control Baseline''), which focuses on
populations that have higher cancer risks, indicates that the
population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
due to emissions from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category is predominantly white (86 percent versus 60
percent nationally).\53\ The population with cancer risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million is above the national average for percent of
the population living below poverty (17 percent versus 13 percent) and
the percent of the population that is over 25 without a high school
diploma is almost 2 times the national average (21 percent versus 12
percent). The category post-control risk-based demographic analysis
(see Table 11, column titled ``Post-Control'') shows that the controls
under consideration in this proposal would reduce the number of people
who are exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
resulting from emissions from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category by almost 90 percent, from approximately
2,900 to 400 people. The post-control population with risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million (approximately 400 people) live within
10 km of three facilities, two located in Pennsylvania and one in
Virginia. However, over 90 percent of the 400 people with risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million are located around one facility in
Clairton, Pennsylvania. The total post-control population with risks
equal to or greater than 1-in-1 million is predominately white (96
percent). Note that there are only 26 people with post-control risks
greater than 1-in-1 million (MIR of 2-in-1 million) due to emissions
from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category within 10 km of the coke oven facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Note that, since there are only 57 people with a noncancer
HI greater than or equal to 1 living around one facility, we did not
conduct risk-based demographics for noncancer.
Table 11--Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category: Pre-Control and Post-Control
Demographics of Populations Living Within 10 km of Facilities With Cancer Risk Greater Than or Equal to 1-in-1
Million Compared to the National Average and Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Cancer risk >=1-in-1
proximity million within 10 km of
analysis Coke Oven facilities
for -------------------------
Nationwide population
Demographic group average for living
reference within 10 Pre-control Post-
km of Coke baseline control
Oven
facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................ 328M 1.3M 3K 400
Number of Facilities........................................ ........... 14 3 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White....................................................... 60% 59% 86% 96%
197M 789K 2.5K 400
African American............................................ 12% 27% 11% 2%
40M 364K 300 <100
Native American............................................. 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%
2.2M 2.5K <100 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)............ 19% 11% 1% 1%
62M 144K <100 <100
Other and Multiracial....................................... 8% 3% 2% 1%
27M 44K <100 <100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level......................................... 13% 22% 17% 10%
44M 297K 500 <100
Above Poverty Level......................................... 87% 78% 83% 90%
284M 1M 2.4K 300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55897]]
Education by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma................... 12% 14% 21% 7%
40M 194K 600 <100
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma...................... 88% 86% 79% 93%
288M 1.1M 2.3K 400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..................................... 5% 3% 1% 0%
18M 39K <100 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2015-2019 ACS 5-year block group
averages. Total population count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A
person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located
at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to
estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
2. Coke Oven Whole-Facility Demographics
As described in section IV.B.5. of this preamble, we assessed the
facility-wide (or ``whole-facility'') risks for 14 coke oven facilities
in order to compare the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks NESHAP source category risk to the whole facility risks. This
whole-facility demographic analysis characterizes the risks communities
face from all HAP sources at coke oven facilities both before and after
implementation of the controls proposed in this action that result in
reduction of actual emissions. The whole facility risk assessment
includes all sources of HAP emissions at each facility (described in
section III.C.7. of this preamble). Note, no reduction in actual
emissions or risk is expected at the whole facility level apart from
the reduction in actual emissions and risk estimated for the proposed
standards for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
NESHAP source category.
The whole-facility demographic analysis is an assessment of
individual demographic groups in the total population living within 10
km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. In this
preamble, we focus on the 10 km radius for the demographic analysis
because it encompasses all the facility MIR locations and captures 99
percent of the population with baseline cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP source category emissions. The results of the
whole-facility demographic analysis for populations living within 50 km
are included in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities, which is available in the
docket for this action.
The whole-facility demographic analysis post-control results are
shown in Table 12 of this preamble. This analysis focused on the
populations living within 10 km of the coke oven facilities with
estimated whole-facility post-control cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The risk analysis indicated that all emissions
from the coke oven facilities, after the proposed reductions, expose a
total of about 575,000 people living within 10 km of the 14 facilities
to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. About 83
percent of these 575,000 people with a cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million live within 10 km of 3 facilities--2 in Alabama
and 1 in Pennsylvania. The population with cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million living within 10 km of the two facilities in
Alabama is 56 percent African American, which is significantly higher
than the national average of 12 percent. Note that, in the baseline,
there are only 26 people with post-control risks greater than 50-in-1
million within 10 km of the coke oven facilities, therefore, the
demographics of this population is not discussed.
When the coke oven whole-facility populations are compared to the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source
category populations in the post-control scenarios, 573,000 additional
people are estimated to have risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 14
modeled facilities based on whole facility emissions is 50-in-1
million, with COE from coke oven doors (a regulated source in the Coke
Oven Batteries source category) driving the whole facility risk.
While the pre-control and post-control Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category population with risks
>=1-in-1 million (shown in Table 12) is disproportionately White, the
pre-control and post-control whole-facility population with risks >=1-
in-1 million (shown in Table 12) is disproportionately African
American. Specifically, the pre-control and post-control whole-facility
population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million is 26 percent African
American compared to the national average of 12 percent. In addition,
the percentage of the pre-control and post-control whole-facility
population with risks >=1-in-1 million that is below the poverty level
(17 percent) is above the national average (13 percent).
[[Page 55898]]
Table 12--Whole-Facility: Pre-Control and Post-Control Demographics of Populations Living Within 10 km of
Facilities With Cancer Risk Greater Than or Equal to 1-in-1 Million From Coke Oven Whole-Facility Emissions
Compared to the National Average and Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Cancer risk >=1-in-1
proximity million within 10 km of
analysis Coke Oven facilities
Nationwide for pop. -------------------------
Demographic group average for living
reference within 10
km of Coke Pre-control Post-
Oven baseline control
facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................ 328M 1.4M 575K 573K
Number of Facilities........................................ ........... 14 9 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White....................................................... 60% 58% 66% 66%
197M 805K 379K 377K
African American............................................ 12% 27% 26% 26%
40M 381K 151K 151K
Native American............................................. 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
2.2M 2.5K 900 900
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)............ 19% 12% 4% 4%
62M 166K 25K 25K
Other and Multiracial....................................... 8% 3% 3% 3%
27M 45K 19K 19K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level......................................... 13% 22% 17% 17%
44M 310K 100K 100K
Above Poverty Level......................................... 87% 78% 83% 83%
284M 1.1M 475K 474K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma................... 12% 15% 10% 9%
40M 206K 55K 54K
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma...................... 88% 85% 90% 91%
288M 1.2M 520K 519K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated..................................... 5% 3% 1% 1%
18M 44K 6K 6K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2015-2019 ACS 5-year block group
averages. Total population count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A
person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located
at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to
estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.
H. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's
assessment of the potential impacts to human health from emissions at
existing coke ovens sources in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category are discussed in section IV.B. and IV.C.
of this preamble. The proposed BTF limit for mercury at HNR waste heat
stacks, described in section IV.A. of this preamble, would reduce
actual and allowable mercury emissions, thereby reducing potential
exposure to children, including the unborn. Although we did not perform
a risk assessment of the Coke Oven Batteries source category in this
action, we note that COE, which is primarily emitted from this source
category, has a mutagenic mode of action; therefore, changes to the
standards for the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP under the technology
review could reduce the exposure of children to mutagens.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in specific
issues, as follows:
Additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII.
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data;
All aspects of cost and benefit estimates for the proposed
action;
[[Page 55899]]
New methods available to reduce leaks from doors, lids,
and offtakes from coke oven batteries;
The revised equation to estimate coke oven door leaks \39\
discussed in section IV.D.6., above, as well as the recently received
(June 27, 2023) EPA Method 303 data from two batteries at each of two
coke facilities, that are located in the dockets for the rules;
The validity of the assumption of 2 for an acute factor;
Establishing a 1-hour battery stack MACT standard,
including comments regarding whether or not EPA should include such a
standard in the final rule and an explanation as to why or why not;
For fenceline monitoring, we request comment on the
following:
The suitability of selecting benzene or other HAP,
including naphthalene and other PAH, as the indicator to be monitored
by fenceline samplers;
Whether it would be appropriate to require multiple HAP to
be monitored at the fenceline, considering the capital and annual cost
for additional monitors that are not passive/diffusion type, and if so,
which pollutants should be monitored;
Alternative approaches for making adjustments for off-site
contributions to the fenceline concentration of benzene; whether it is
appropriate to establish a standard time frame for compliance with
actions listed in a corrective action plan and whether the approval of
the corrective action plan should be performed by to state, local and
tribal governments;
The proposed approach for reducing fenceline monitoring
requirements for facilities that consistently measure fenceline
concentrations below the concentration action level and the measurement
level that should be used to provide such relief;
Suggestions for other ways to improve the fenceline
monitoring requirements; and
The minimum time period facilities should be required to
conduct fenceline monitoring before allowing a reduction in monitoring
frequency due to low fenceline concentration levels;
The level of performance, in terms of monitored fenceline
concentrations, that would enable a facility to reduce the frequency of
data collection and reporting; and
The costs associated with changes in equipment or
practices resulting from an exceedance of the fenceline action level;
Whether we have successfully ensured that the provisions
we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption;
Whether any situations exist where separate standards,
such as work practices, would be more appropriate during periods of
startup and shutdown rather than the current standard;
The content, layout, and overall design of the templates
for quarterly and semiannual compliance reports;
The use of other surrogates, practices, or techniques to
determine leaks from HNR ovens, that could be applied to HNR door leaks
as an alternatives to EPA Method 303A, to include alternative
monitoring approaches or techniques. For those alternative techniques
that could be applied to measuring HNR door leaks, we are soliciting
information on equivalency studies that have been performed against EPA
Method 303 and/or 303A, and any potential training requirements.
The use of either additional pressure transducers to
monitor for negative pressure inside HNR common tunnels and ovens
(including comments on number and placement of monitors) or a
requirement for an approved monitoring plan; or a requirement for both
additional monitors and an approved plan.
The measures or monitoring methods for limiting soaking
emissions from ByP ovens (including the definition of soaking).
Changes to Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP to require both leak
monitoring and pressure monitoring instead of a choice between the two,
and whether pressure monitoring should be measured at least during key
points in the whole oven cycle, possibly more often.
Other potential approaches to establish emissions
standards for the HRSG main stacks and bypass stacks, including: (1)
whether the EPA should consider the emission points all combined (i.e.,
HRSG main stack plus HRSG bypass stack emissions) and establish
standards based on the best five units or best five facilities
including emissions following the HRSGs and their control devices and
emissions from the bypass over a period of time (e.g., per year or per
month); or (2) a standard that is based in part on limiting the number
of hours per year or per month that bypass stack can be used.
The accuracy of revenue and employment data included in
the EIA;
The accuracy of the cost-to-sales ratios calculated in the
EIA and whether the BTF limit for Hg and non-Hg metals could put
SunCoke's Vansant facility at risk of closure;
Other ongoing rulemaking efforts (such as integrated iron
and steel manufacturing, taconite iron ore processing) that may impact
facilities in this source category and the cumulative regulatory burden
of rules affecting these facilities;
Potential interactions between this proposed action and
potential timelines and changes to facilities installing carbon capture
and/or using hydrogen, or how the regulation might affect steel
decarbonization efforts; and
Potential impacts, if any, on: U.S. manufacturing, the
creation or retention of jobs (and the quality of those jobs) and
supply chains; National Security; renewable and clean energy projects;
projects funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and
Science Act; aerospace manufacturing; telecommunications; critical
infrastructure for national defense, and global competitiveness.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the source category websites at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission, or https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information
for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities and sources in
the source categories.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
[[Page 55900]]
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 (through
the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the source category websites at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis, Economic
Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven Batteries
Technology Review, is available in the dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information
collection request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared have been
assigned EPA ICR numbers 1995.09 and 1362.14. You can find a copy of
the ICRs in the dockets for this rule, and they are briefly summarized
here.
We are proposing amendments to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP that require compliance testing for 15 MACT
and 2 BTF limits and to the Coke Oven Battery NESHAP that require
fenceline monitoring. Furthermore, the amendments also require
electronic reporting and remove the SSM exemptions in both NESHAPs. We
are also incorporating other revisions (e.g., facility counts) that
affect reporting and recordkeeping for coke oven facilities. This
information would be collected to assure compliance with the CAA.
For ICR: NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) (OMB Control Number 2060-0521).
Respondents/affected entities: Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCC).
Estimated number of respondents: 14 facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAPs is estimated to be 32,500 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the
requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be $4,230,000 (per year),
of which $1,060,000 (per year) is for this proposal, and $3,043,000 is
for other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAPs in
addition to $125,000 for the operation and maintenance of leak
detectors and continuous opacity monitors. The total rule costs reflect
an overall increase of $1,280,000 (per year) from the previous ICR due
to the compliance with 17 additional MACT/BTF limits, transition to
electronic reporting, and elimination of SSM requirements.
For ICR: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries (40 CFR part 63, subpart L)
(OMB Control Number 2060-0253).
Respondents/affected entities: Coke Oven Batteries source category.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart L).
Estimated number of respondents: 14 facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAPs is estimated to be 63,000 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the
requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be $7,795,000 (per year),
of which $530,000 (per year) is for this proposal and $7,410,000 is for
other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAPs. The total
rule costs reflect an increase of $1,070,000 (per year) from the
previous ICR, due to revised HNR facility counts, transition to
electronic reporting, addition of fenceline monitoring, and elimination
of SSM requirements.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than September 15, 2023.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Small
entities that may be impacted by this rulemaking include Coke
facilities located within an integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility under NAICS 331110 (Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing) with 1,500 or fewer employees, or facilities under NAICS
324199 (All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, with 500
or fewer workers. None of the facilities currently in operation that
are potentially affected by this rulemaking proposal under these size
definitions are ``small businesses'' and therefore will not have a
significant economic impact. Additional details of the analysis can be
found in the document prepared for this rule titled Economic Impact
Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
[[Page 55901]]
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk
and Technology Review; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Coke Oven Batteries Technology Review.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not
exceed $100 million or more.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to these NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children. Due to control of mercury and nonmercury metal HAP at
waste heat stacks at nonrecovery facilities, we believe the health of
children living nearby would be improved. This action's health and risk
assessments for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
source category are contained in section IV. of this preamble and
further documented in The Residual Risk Assessment or the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack Source Category in Support of the
2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket
for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085). However, EPA's Policy on
Children's Health applies to this action.
Although we did not perform a risk assessment of the Coke Oven
Batteries source category in this action, we note that COE, which is
primarily emitted from this source category, has a mutagenic mode of
action; therefore, changes to the standards for the Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP under the technology review could reduce the exposure of
children to mutagens.
Information on how this policy was applied is available under
``Children's Environmental Health'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded this action is not
likely to have any adverse energy effects because energy use is
projected to increase by only 15 million kilowatt-hours to operate
control devices to achieve the proposed air emissions reductions in HAP
metals (see section V.C. of this preamble, ``What are the other
environmental impacts?'').
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the RTR for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also
contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
For Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP, we conducted searches for EPA Methods
EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 18, 22 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, EPA Methods 303, 303A of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. No
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA
Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 22, 303, and 303A. For Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP, searches were conducted for EPA
Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 23, 26, 26A, 29 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, EPA Method 160.1 in 40 CFR part 136.3, appendix A,
EPA Methods 316 and 320 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. No applicable
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G,
5D, 316, and 160.1.
During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided)
of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that
are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a
potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements
of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific,
engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for a particular VCS.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10-1981--Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.'' The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B
for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas.
This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is
available from ASME at https://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763.
This method determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of
exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases
covered in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons, however the use
in this rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide.
The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D7520-16,
``Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the
Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' which is an instrumental method to
determine plume opacity in the outdoor ambient environment as an
alternative to visual measurements made by certified smoke readers in
accordance with EPA Method 9. The concept of ASTM D7520-16, also known
as the Digital Camera Opacity Technique or DCOT, is a test protocol to
determine the opacity of visible
[[Page 55902]]
emissions using a digital camera. This method is based on previous
method development using digital still cameras and field testing of
those methods. The purpose of ASTM D7520-16 is to set a minimum level
of performance for products that use DCOT to determine plume opacity in
ambient environments.
The DCOT method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with
the following caveats:
During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in section
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in
40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data
sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and this letter
is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. This method
describes procedures to determine the opacity of a plume, using digital
imagery and associated hardware and software, where opacity is caused
by PM emitted from a stationary point source in the outdoor ambient
environment. The opacity of emissions is determined by the application
of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera, analysis software,
and the output function's content to obtain and interpret digital
images to determine and report plume opacity.
The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number: (610) 832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 at
[email protected].
The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6420-18,
``Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' which provides on-site
analysis of extracted, unconditioned, and unsaturated (at the
instrument) gas samples from stationary sources. The ASTM D6420-18
method employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer
to identify and quantify 36 volatile organic compounds (or sub-set of
these compounds). The ASTM method incorporates a performance-based
approach, which validates each analysis by placing boundaries on the
instrument response to gaseous internal standards and their specific
mass spectral relative abundance; using this approach, the test method
may be extended to analyze other compounds.
This ASTM D2460-18 method is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known and the target
compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. It should not be
used for methane and ethane because atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM
D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. The ASTM D6420-
18 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610)
832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 at [email protected].
The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16,
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and
Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario
Hydro 3 Method)'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29
(portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring mercury.
Note: This applies to concentrations approximately 0.5-100 mg/
Nm\3\.
The ASTM D6784-16 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number: (610) 832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 at
[email protected].
The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-
12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 320. This ASTM method is an FTIR-based field
test method used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple
target analytes from stationary source effluent. The method provides
near real time analysis of extracted gas samples from stationary
sources. The method employs an extractive sampling system to direct
stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the
identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. The test method
is potentially applicable for the determination of compounds that (1)
have sufficient vapor pressure to be transported to the FTIR
spectrometer and (2) absorb a sufficient amount of infrared radiation
to be detected.
In the 9/22/08 NTTA summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined
equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised
version of ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting
the results from direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder,
but still lacks the caveats we placed on the D6348-03(2010) version.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-12e1 ``Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
(FTIR) Spectroscopy'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at
this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the
standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the following
conditions must be met:
The test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D 6348-12e1, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
In ASTM D6348-12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5).
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must
be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a
target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and
the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or
analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value
for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that
compound by using the following equation:
Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in Stack)/(%R) x 100
The ASTM D6348-12e1 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number: (610) 832-
[[Page 55903]]
9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 at [email protected].
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found in the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks: National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for Coke Oven Batteries: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, available in the EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0051 dockets for this proposed rule.
The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV:
Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/
B-08-002). This EPA document is dedicated to meteorological measurement
systems and their support equipment, and is designed to provide clear
and concise information and guidance to the State/Local/Tribal air
pollution control agencies that operate meteorological monitoring
equipment and systems. New monitoring rules require that meteorological
data be collected at all National Core network stations, as stated in
the CFR Chapter 40 Section 58, Appendix D.3.b. Thus, there is a need
for updated information to guide agencies as they implement the new
network. Since the last version of Volume IV was written, there have
been a number of breakthroughs in instrument development and support
equipment, which are reflected in this revision (2.0). A copy of this
handbook can be obtained from the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100FOMB.txt or from the dockets to these rules (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on communities with environmental justice concerns.
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.
As discussed in section V.G. of this preamble, the population with
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to emissions from all
sources of HAP at coke oven facilities is disproportionately (26
percent) African American compared to the national average (12 percent
African American). About 83 percent of the 575,000 people with a cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million live within 10 km of 3
facilities--two in Alabama and one in Pennsylvania. The population with
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million living within 10
km of the two facilities in Alabama is 56 percent African American,
which is significantly higher than the national average of 12 percent.
In addition, the population with risks >=1-in-1 million due to
emissions from all sources of HAP at coke oven facilities that is below
the poverty level (17 percent) is above the national average (13
percent).
The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns. The impacts of these proposed rules are to limit
allowable emissions from coke ovens sources in 40 CFR part 63, subparts
CCCCC and L. In addition, proposed BTF standards for HNR waste heat
stacks would limit actual emissions for mercury and nonmercury metal
HAP \26\ from these sources.
While the proposed measures do not significantly decrease the
number of those below the poverty level and those over 25 years of age
without a high school diploma who have risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from pushing, quenching, and
battery stacks sources (Table 12), the proposed standards for the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category achieve a
reduction in the disparity for these groups (Table 12). Specifically,
of the people living within 10 km of a coke oven facility with risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category, the
percentage who are below the poverty level is estimated to decrease
from 17 percent to 10 percent under the proposed standards and the
percentage who are over 25 without a high school diploma is estimated
to decrease from 21 percent to 7 percent under the proposed standards.
The EPA also is proposing that coke oven facilities conduct fenceline
monitoring for benzene and report these data electronically to the EPA
so that it can be made public and provide fenceline communities with
greater access to information about potential emissions impacts.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in section V.G. of this preamble and in the document Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities
located in the dockets for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0051) and described above in section V.G.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-16620 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
