From: 
Jones, DonnaLee <Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 17, 2020 7:41 PM
To: 
Jay Cornelius <jcornelius@abccoke.com>; Bill Osborn <bosborn@abccoke.com>; Katie.Kistler@aksteel.com; Chris.Potts@aksteel.com; Patrick Smith <patrick.smith@mscarbonllc.com>; Rich.Zavoda@arcelormittal.com; Marian.Gammon@arcelormittal.com; 'Charles Jones' <cjones@bluestonecoke.com>; Brenna M Harden <brenna.harden@dteenergy.com>; Robert B Sanch <robert.sanch@dteenergy.com>; Katie Batten <kmbatten@suncoke.com>; kesingleton@suncoke.com; BJTunno@uss.com; JSScheetz@uss.com
Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>; David Ailor (dailor@accci.org) <dailor@accci.org>
Subject: 
Coke industry review of data for Method 303, Flares, By-product Chemical, and Pushing Fugitives


Hello all - These are the final (four) files! Yeh. Thank you again for all your work to provide review of the data. Please review and return before the December holiday break, if at all possible. 

The following are the instructions that are also included in each file, as appropriate. Also, some remaining EPA questions and comments follow here.

FILE #1: METHOD 303 DATA - SUBPART L
CokeOvens-Method303_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx
The EPA used ICR Enclosure 1&2 information for facilities who responded to the ICR and developed emission factors from these data for the remaining facilities.
We have used the equations in the 2003 subpart L RTR Risk document to estimate EPA Method 303 (lb/yr and lb/hr) emissions.
Please review and provide comment on the `M303 Emissions' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable.  
FILE #2: FLARES
Coke_Flare_Emissions_for Industry review_11-17-2020.xlsx
We are using 2017 data for flares based on EPA's Emission Inventory System (EIS) data but have provided 2014 NEI data and comparison of 2014 to 2017 for your information.
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-faq
 
Please review and provide comment on the `2017 EIS Flare HAP Totals' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable. 
FILE #3: BY-PRODUCT CHEMICAL PLANT EMISSIONS
Coke_Byproduct Chemical Plant_Emissions-for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx
We are using 2017 data for by-product chemical plant emissions based on EPA's 2017 Emission Inventory System (EIS) data, the precursor of the NEI.
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-faq
Please review and provide comment on the `By-product Chemical HAP' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable. 
FILE #4: PUSHING FUGITIVES
Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx
We are using 1998 pre-control stack test data for PAH and HAP Metals, and emission factors along with 2016 Coke ICR stack test data for Acid Gas, Semi-Vol, and Dioxin/Furan emission factors, as applicable. 
Please review and provide comment on the `Calculation' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable.
EPA Questions/Comments
By-Product Industry
Currently the Blast Furnace Coke (ByP) D/F and Semi-Vol pushing emission factors are based only on AKS-Middletown-OH and AM-Monessen-PA data only, no AM-BurnsHarbor data. The EPA is waiting for a detailed analytical rationale from COETF/AM-BH for not excluding the AM-BH pushing data.
If COETF/AM-BH provides an analytical rationale for not excluding all of the data in the Semi-Vol, PAH, and D/F pushing tests, and if EPA decides the AM-BH data is okay to be used, then the D/F and Semi-Vol emission factors will need to be updated and thus the Blast Furnace Coke (ByP) fugitive pushing emissions (tpy) will change.
Heat and Nonrecovery
The EPA is waiting for response from SunCoke to the following questions. 
(1) "Is EPA's current methodology of using lb/ton wet coal charged and converting to lb/ton coke produced using Erie Coke's wet coal to coke ratio value okay? Please confirm or provide suggested new methodology.
(2) "If the lb/ton coke methodology is OK, did SunCoke have a wet coal to coke ratio value you want to use instead of the Erie Coke value of 1.27 that is currently being used in EPA's methodology? If so, please provide or confirm the Erie coke value is okay to use."
Responses to the questions may result in changes to the Acid Gas, D/F and Semi-Vol emission factors and thus the HNR fugitive pushing emissions (tpy) will change.
Again, have a good Tday holiday.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:  (919)  541-5251  Fax  (919)  541-3207
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.



<< CokeOvens-Method303_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Flare_Emissions_for Industry review_11-17-2020.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Byproduct_Chemical Plant_Emissions-for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx >>


