Document gDLJE96mBRyqNQD5jNQgyjRB9

USCA Case #24-1287 Document #2077531 Filed: 09/30/2024 Page 9 of 81 result was 4.77E-06, which is 159% of the MACT floor Emit. So if the Final Rule were in effect in 2006, HH1 would have failed. 2:3. Although EPA did incorporate some of the additional data that SunCoke provided during the notice and comment period, it did not consider all the data. According to EPA, it chose to consider only data "within five years prior to 2016 . . . that matched the requirements for testing in the CAA section 114 requests." 89 Fed. Reg. at 55715. In doing so, EPA ignored relevant data demonstrating that the new limits cannot be met with existing controls. 24. By ignoring relevant data, EPA significantly overestimated SunCoke's ability to comply with the numerical MACT floor limits. In overestimating SunCoke's ability to comply, EPA underestimated the time SunCoke needs to achieve full compliance with the new Emits. EPA also significantly underestimated SunCoke's costs of compliance. And it did not consider employing work practice standards or surrogate Emits in lieu of numeric emission limits, despite testing results in the parts per billion or at or below detection. (Page 9 of Total) 9- Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000109-00108 SC_EVERSPLIT0005782