Document NQZ6R6pxpmQqyKJN9Op9GJdw

MM COIIE A DIVISION OF CIRUMMOND COMPANY, INC_ March 31, 2025 U.S. Fnvironmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., \\V Washington, DC 20460 Submitted by Electronic Mail to: Re: Presidential Exemption: 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 (89 FR 55684; July 5, 2024) (Coke Ovens Rule): ABC Coke. AI3C Coke hereby requests a Presidential Exemption under Clean Air Act section 1 12(i)(4) for AI3C Coke from compliance with the standards and limitations in the National Emission Standards for I laiardous Air Pollutants i-or Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review, 89 Fed. Reg. 55684 (July 5, 2024) (the "Coke Ovens Rule"). ABC Coke is currently the only merchant coke producer in the United States supplying industries such as the iron making and other coke utilizing industries. Without ABC Coke. these critical U.S. industries would be forced to access foreign suppliers adding significantly to their cost of production. On July 5, 2024, EPA promulgated the final Coke Ovens Rule, which establishes: (1) New maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for acid gases (AG), dioxin and furans (D/F), formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide (I ICN). mercury (I Ig), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAID, and volatile organic I IAP (VOl lAP) from coke oven pushing operations: (2) MACT and work practice standards for AG, DiF, I ICN, I Ig, PAIL particulate matter (PM). I IAP metals, and VOI 1AP from coke oven battery stacks: (3 ) New facility fcncclinc emission monitoring and corrective action requirements, and (4) 1,owered limits for leaks from coke oven doors, lids, and offtakes. The American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCC1) and Coke Oven Environmental Task Force WOLFF) filed a petition for administrative reconsideration and stay of the Coke Ovens Rule, urging FPA to reconsider numerous aspects of the Coke Ovens Rule and to stay the effective date pending promulgation of Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000066-00001 SC_EVERSPLIT0024963 Presidential F.xemption Request March 31, 2025 Page 2 replacement rcgulations. ' On March 12, 2025, F.PA announced it will reconsider several NF.SIIAPs affecting a broad range of American industry, including the Coke Ovens Rulc. Clcan Air Act scction 1 12(i)(4) provides that the President may exempt any stationary sourcc from compliance with any standard or limitation under section 1 12 for up to two years if the President determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so. Scction 1 12(i)(4) further provides that an exemption may be extended one or more additional periods, each additional period not to exceed two years. ARC Coke is requesting a two-year Presidential Exemption for each of the following Coke Ovens Rulc requirements: 1. Fencclinc monitoring, root cause and corrective action, and relatcd reporting requirements (see 63.314 and 63.311(j) through (1) (currently with a July 7, 2025 compliance date): 2. Limits for allowable leaks from coke oven battery doors, lids, and offtakes and relatcd reporting requirements (see 63.302(a)(4). 63.302(d), 63.304(b)(8), and 63.31 1(b) through (i)) (currently with a July 7. 2025 compliance date), and 3. New MACT and work practice standards for coke oven pushing and battery stacks and related testing and reporting requirements (see 63.7283(d), 63.7290(b) through (0, 63.7296(c) through (0, 63.7300(c)(4), 63.7320(a), 63.7321, 63.7333, and 63.7341(0) (currently with January 5. 2026 and July 7, 2026 compliance dates). A Presidential Exemption is warranted for the reasons detailed below. I. This Request is Timely This rcquest has been submitted by the March 31. 2025 date indicated in EPA's { \ .- 1 I fact sheet. II. The Technology Needed to Implement the Coke Ovens Rule is Not Available A. Fenceline Monitoring Requirements For the reasons set forth in the ACCCUCOFTF petition i-or reconsideration, the fenceline monitoring benzene action level in the Coke Ovens Rulc is overly stringent and is not based on modeling showing the correct highest benzene concentration at the facility fcncelinc using allowable (vs. actual) emissions. As a result, new and currently unavailable emission controls and lcak detection repair technology would be necessary to comply with the unlawful action level. Due to the complex nature of coke facilities, developing new control strategics and technologies would involve engineering suitable capture and control systems at multiple locations. The technologies needed to identify and engineer controls suitable for each location arc not currently demonstrated or available for the coke byproducts recovery industry. 11-he ACCCI"COETF's comments on the proposed rule and petition for reconsideration and stay arc hereby incorporated by reference in support of this request See ACCCl/COETF Petition for Reconsideration and Stay of the National Emission Standards for I la7ardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Cokc Ovcn Batteries: Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review (Sept. 3, 2024), C'OE-IF Comments on the Proposed Rule National Emission Standards for I la7ardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries: Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review (Oct 2, 2023), available at haps. / '1.171.171Vregulations govicommentIPAii()-OA R-2003 -0051-13 SO Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000066-00002 SC_EVERSPLIT0024964 Presidential Exemption Request March 31, 2025 Page 3 Likewise, the "root cause" investigation and corrective action requirements add significant complexity and technology challenges, considering the many miles of piping and thousands of valves and flanges at a coke facility. Methods to further reduce benzene emissions arc not currently demonstrated for coke facilities and would include redesign or modification of process vessels, tar decanters, gas blanketing and vapor collection systems, replacing sections of coke oven gas piping, and redesign of tar and light oil loadout systems to reduce fugitive emissions and or leak rates. B. Revised Standards f'or Coke Oven Battery Doors, Lids, and Offtakes The Coke Ovens Rule lowers the long-standing allowable leak limits for coke battery doors, lids, and offtakes and, i-or the first time, imposes more stringent leak rate allowahles on a single coke facility based on annual coke production. I Iowever, industry commenters informed EPA that there have been no changes or improvements in leak control practices across the industry, which means facilities cannot consistently achieve the lower leak rate limits without developing new leak control methods or technologies. For coke oven doors, this requires a technical evaluation to identify new ways to reduce the number of already very low door leaks in order to comply with the new Coke Ovens Rule limits. This may include replacing door machines, rebuilding or replacing oven doors, and redesigning door-jamb cleaning mechanisms, or other currently unidentified means to control leaks around coke oven doors. For cokc battery lids and offiakes, this requires research and trials on new ways to reduce leaks to comply with the revised limits. Control methods could include redesigning or replacing lids or developing different scaling materials. None of technologies needed to comply with these new standards arc currently available or demonstrated in the coke byproduct recovery industry. C. New MAC'. and Work Practice Standards for Coke Oven Pushing and Battery Stacks The Coke Ovens Rule imposes numerous new MACT and work practice standards covering multiple hazardous air pollutants (I IAP), which EPA claimed are in response to the D.C. Circuit decision in Louisiana Environmental Action ,Vetwork v. EPA (LEAN). 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020). However, the technologies that would be needed to control these I IAP arc not available and have not bccn demonstrated to work for the coke byproduct recovery industry, either in the US or internationally. The very short 18-month compliance period (i.e., January 5, 2026) in the Coke Ovens Rule is one-half the time allowed under the Clean Air Act and was based on EPA's incorrect and unsupported assumption that facilities would only need to do testing to confirm EPA's assumption that all coke facilities can meet the new MACT limits. EPA failed to address specific concerns and data submitted by commenters showing that facilities caning meet the new standards without costly and undemonstrated control technologies. EPA also did not address data submitted by commenters showing raw material coal) and process variability that affect emission performance. Even assuming that facilities arc ultimately able to research and develop the new technologies needed to implement these new MACT standards, facilities need much longer than the 18-month compliance period under the Coke Ovens Rule. A Presidential Exemption is warranted for several reasons: The technologies used in some other industries to control these I lAP have not been demonstrated to work in the coke byproduct recovery industry. Controlling multiple pollutants and retrofitting controls into existing equipment and operations adds technical and engineering complexity due to interactions of the requirements for control, including pollutant interactions, flow rates, chemistry, and temperatures. Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000066-00003 SC_EVERSPLIT0024965 Presidential Fxemption Request March 31, 2025 Page 4 The Coke Ovens Rule includes first-time emission limits for hydrogen cyanide (IICN), however, it is widely acknowledged that there are no existing technologies available to control IICti. Air pollution control vendors indicate that any potential solution for control of I ICN is not technically feasible for coke battery combustion stack or pushing emissions. The coke battery undcrfiring system is naturally drafted, with the underfirc gas stream predominantly located underground. Added equipment such as heat exchangers, sorbent injection systems, etc., result in static pressure loss, necessitating installation of an induced draft fan. The impacts of added fans and equipment need to be studied to ensure adequate berating of the batteries, as well as enough physical space to install additional equipment, which may not he feasible. This poses obstacles and engineering challenges for any new acid-on equipment, which could include construction of a new battery combustion stack. Changes to the undcrfiring system requires coke battery outages, during which purchased natural gas is needed to keep the battery hot. All coke production would cease; and battery refractory brick and other equipment could suffer unanticipated damage, which takes more time and expense to correct. Limited available physical space within coke oven battery areas requires vertical construction, adding complexity and time to all related construction, and may be infeasible altogether. Adding controls on mobile pushing emission control devices involves unique engineering challenges compared to non-mobile sources. III. An Exemption is in the National Security Interests f the United States Steel is one of the most important building materials in America and an essential component for all types of buildings, transportation infrastructure, and military hardware. Currently, approximately 70tirro of steel is made using metallurgical coke, a high-quality fuel and reductant used in blast furnaces to separate iron from iron ore to make steel. A strong, competitive coke and steel manufacturing industry is vital to building and maintaining critical infrastructure and military readiness. A Presidential Exemption would advance all of the following national security interests while EPA goes about reconsidering and revising the Coke Ovens Rule: (1) maintaining a strong domestic steelmaking industry; (2) avoiding regulatory mandates that lead to coke and steel shortages, oil-shoring of coke production, and resulting supply chain impacts; (3) promoting economic and job growth made possible by the coke and steel industries; and (4) avoiding wasteful commitments of resources on regulatory mandates that provide no discernable public health or environmental benefit. Without a Presidential Exemption, the coke production industry would be faced with an estimated S1.3 billion in new capital costs, plus more than 5220 million in annual operating costs. Coke facilities would be forced to install new, unproven pollution control technologies in an effort to comply with the new standards, even though compliance may not he feasible using available technology. The cost associated with the Coke Ovens Rule would substantially impact local and national economies and would undermine the coke and steel sectors' vital role in producing the iron and steel needed to support critical infrastructure, defense, and national security. The importance of avoiding these harms to the coke and steel industry is emphasized in a December 6, 2023 letter from eight U.S. Senators including then-Senator JD Vance to EPA warning that the Coke Ovens Rule and two other rules aimed at the steel sectors ".. . would dramatically undermine the domestic steel industry and national security while driving production overseas likely resulting in no net reduction in Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000066-00004 SC_EVERSPLIT0024966 Prcsiticntial Exemption Request March 31, 2025 Page 5 emissions from the steel industry globally. Liktwist, in a Junc 14, 2024 letter yix IJ.S. Senators again including thcn-Scnator Vancc urgod EPA to recom,ider the Cokc Ovem, Rule and two other rulcs aimed at the steel industry, varning Chat ". . . the steel industry vill be freed to proceed with planning and spending for ungroven technologics and work practices whilc the final provisions of the rulcs rcmain uncenain. Given Chat these rcgulations Will impact ncarly evcry aspeel of the imegrated iron and steelmaking process, it is imperative thai EPA grant both the petitions for reconsideration and requests for stay of the piles."' Similar concems wcrc raiscd in a letter to EPA from Congres Mcmbers Crawford and Mrvan of the Congrcsional Stccl C EILICUS. 1V. Conclusion Thank you for consideration of this Presidcntial Exemption request. If additional information is needed. please comact John Slewart al Sinecrely, John Stewart Fm-ironi-ne/nal Department Manager Office: 205-849-1348 Cell: 205-480-8591 RIM COHE A DIVISION OF DRUMMOND COMPANY. INC cc: J. I Iowanitz, JC:DII, (61 A. 'Fardif, EPA ()AR (d; S. I larnilton, EPA OAR (d; P. EPA OAQPS (d; P. 1.a iter, EPA OAQPS I.cttcr from 1.j.S Senators Vancc, Brown, Hraun, Manchin, Cascv, Klolluehar, Capito, and Young to Administrator Rcgan, p 1 (I)ec- 6, 2023) (Att A). 3 I .etter from 1.j.S Senators Vancc, Brown, Hraun, Casey, Klobuchar, and Young to Administrator Rcgan, p. 2 (Junc 14, 2024) (Att. 13) '4 Letter from Congressmen Crawford and Mrvan to Administrator Rcgan, p 1 (I)ec- 18, 2023) (Att. C) Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000066-00005 SC_EVERSPLIT0024967