Document 3JzY97YeLqJzpNzmqVvzYM9aO

2. Meeting EPA's 18-month compliance deadline is impossible. When EPA established 17 new I IAP emission limits--purportedly based on MALT--it wrongly concluded that SunCoke could comply with the new floor emission limits with its existing controls. [23 This conclusion was not supported by the data.121 SunCokc has exceeded the new limits. EPA's overconfidence in SunCoke's ability to comply with the new emission limits caused the agency to commit a cascade of costly errors. For example, in overestimating SunCoke's ability to comply, EPA underestimated the time SunCoke needs to achieve full compliance with the new limits (assuming full compliance is even possible). The expedited timeline, in turn, needlessly increases SunCoke's costs to comply with the new limits, which EPA significantly underestimated in the first place. It is impossible for SunCokc to meet the 18-month compliance deadline imposed by EPA. Contrary to EPA's conclusion that no new technology needs to be installed to meet the Final Rule's emission limits meeting the requirements of the Final Rule will require engineering, design, and installation of brand new, state of the art technology. No matter how much SunCoke spends, the work of designing, engineering, and installing the new technology cannot be done in the 18-month timeline. Assuming compliance is even feasible, EPA overestimated SunCoke's ability to comply with the new emission limits and underestimated the amount of time that SunCoke needs to comply. EPA gave SunCoke only "18 months after publication of the final rule."[2' This places SunCoke in the difficult position of having to immediately design, engineer, and install new controls, at exorbitant cost, or risk enforcement in 18 months. For SunCoke to use 11111 H2 controls, for example, it would need to significantly expand the scope of its controls. The cost of the basic carbon injection system S3 million. That 12CiD is smaller and has more challenges. SunCoke knows that upgrades and modifications to its existing system would need to be made before SunCoke could put in carbon injection and have it function without compromising operation and 5O2 control. SunCoke does not know what upgrades and modifications would be, but it believes they would cost far more than S3M for the carbon injections system. Even if the court ultimately concludes that EPA lacked legal authority to set the new .MCI floor limits, the ruling could offer little more than cold comfort to SunCoke. By the time SunCoke could obtain a favorable ruling, it would have already spent the time and money designing and installing the required, expensive controls. That time and money is unrecoverable. And installation of such controls would benefit nobody in light of EPA's determination that the existing PQBS rule "provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health."126 EPA should grant a 705 stay to avoid inflicting unnecessary, irreparable harm on SunCoke. I? See 89 Fed Reg. at 55707 ("Based on the data we had at proposal, we expected all sources could meet the 17 new MALI' floor limits without additional controls "); hi. at 55710 ("[H]ased on the data submitted to the EPA by the industry, all facilities should be able to meet the MALI' floor limits developed for the previously unregulated IIAP and unregulated sources of HAP without the installation of additional controls.") ' 4 See 89 Fed Reg at 55710 ("Commenters who raised claims of exorbitant costs to meet the new MALI' floors did not provide any additional data contradicting the EPA's findings: thus, the EPA does not find any support for these claims "). SunCoke collected additional data, but EPA did not consider it j2 ' 89 Fcd. Rcg at 55721 j2t. hi. at 55685. - 33 - Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000109-00093 SC_EVERSPLIT0005767