[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 http://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