Document qdMX035KaLbQZdprx7z4rJReR

prerequisite for regulating, EPA proposed a benzene fencelinc monitoring requirement, a benzene action level (as a COE surrogate), and a root cause analysis and corrective action requirement if the action level is exceeded (collectively, "Fenceline Monitoring Requirements"), ostensibly "[t]c) further address fugitive emissions at the Coke Oven Batteries The statute clearly requires EPA to "tak[c] into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies" and to determine whether it is "necessary" to revise the standards. EPA "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." ("hevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Mil. Rev. D,1: Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). Because there was no necessity with respect to these changes proposed by EPA, the Proposed Rule ignored this mandate and EPA may not legally adopt its proposed Fenceline Monitoring Requirements. A. Fenceline Monitoring is Unnecessary and May Not Legally Be Adopted Having concluded that there have been no developments in practice, processes, and control technologies necessitating additional controls, EPA may not legally adopt new control requirements.4' With respect to SunCoke's IINR facilities, in particular, the Agency offers no basis for requiring Fenceline Monitoring, having concluded that there are no fugitive emissions because the ovens operate under negative pressure. As set forth in greater detail below, because IINR facilities use this unique technology, they must be excluded from any requirements for Fenceline Monitoring that may be adopted. 1. Even If It Were "Necessary" for EPA to Require Fenceline Monitoring at B),P Facilities, The Requirement Should Not Apply to IINR Facilities Hy contrast, in the Refinery MAUI-, EPA "determined that there are' developments in practices, processes and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this [Refincny MAUI- 1 ] source category" and finalized a "fencelinc monitoring work practice standard to improve the management of fugitive emissions." 80 Fed. Reg. 75,182-83 (Dec. 1, 2015). The proposed Fenceline Monitoring Requirements are not appropriate work practice standards for IINR EPA reached that conclusion earlier this year in the Lead Acid Battery RTR and should have similarly done so here. .Sc'e Lead Acid Battery RTR, 88 Fed. Reg. 11,556, 11,566 (Feb. 23, 2023). It explained: We received three comments regarding the proposed fugitive dust minimization work practice standard. Environmental groups generally supported the proposal, but they commented that the EPA must require the use of fencelinc monitoring and corrective action tied to that monitoring as well as full enclosure negative pressure requirements. We disagree that the use of fenceline monitoring and corrective action tied to that monitoring is an appropriate work practice standard for this source category. In that rulemaking, EPA stated that it "did not find that fcncclinc monitoring in the lead acid battery manufacturing source category is a new trend in facility procedures or is generally in use at these facilities " EPA, New Source Performance Standards for I.ead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants And National Emission Standards for Ilazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid }lottery Manufacturing Area Sources, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rules, 87 Fed. Rcg. 10134 (Feb 23, 2022) (Response 4.7) Coupled with the significant economic impacts, EPA made clear that "it was not identified as a development or advancement in emissions reduction control technology or control methods " Id I'he same is true here: fencelinc monitoring is not a new trend in facility procedures or generally in use at IINR facilities 37 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000109-00038 SC_EVERSPLIT0005712