From:
"Jones, DonnaLee" <Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov>
Sent:
Tue, 11 Oct 2022 12:49:48 
To:
"Ford; Luke" <lford@primaryenergy.com>; "Coke.ICR2@rti.org" <Coke.ICR2@rti.org>
Cc:
French, Chuck <French.Chuck@epa.gov>; Orlin, David <Orlin.David@epa.gov>; Coke ICR2 <Coke.ICR2@rti.org>
Subject:
RE: CAA section 114 request for Coke Ovens RTR - email for Cokenergy
Hi. See my answers below. Be aware that EPA is not required to state why data is needed to exert our authority under CAA section 114. We do this out of courtesy to the sources (companies) to provide background so that the recipients know how their data will be used. However, it is not a legally necessary component of CAA section 114.
 
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.

From: Ford, Luke <lford@primaryenergy.com> 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 3:57 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee <Jones.Donnalee@epa.gov>; Coke.ICR2@rti.org
Subject: CAA section 114 request for Coke Ovens RTR - email for Cokenergy
 
Dr. Jones, 
 
Thank you for your response to our September 23rd letter, concerning Cokenergy's explanation of stack testing problems.  We are working through Enclosure 1 and have a few questions for you about the Section 114 request (the Request).  
 
ICR Docket:
*	Has the Request been assigned an EPA docket number?  Is it part of an existing ICR docket? We will handle docket submissions. We wont be posting any facility information to the docket until we get close to proposal, which is sometime in 2023. 
 
Purpose of the Request:  
*	The Request's cover letter and Enclosure 1 to the Request state inconsistent purposes for the Request.  Both identify (i) EPA's residual risk and technology review of NESHAP subpart CCCCC, and (ii) obtaining information to inform development of emissions standards for currently unregulated HAPs, as two purposes for the Request.  Where they differ is that the cover letter identifies two purposes not referenced in Enclosure 1:  a technology review for NESHAP subpart L, and obtaining information to inform "potential or new emissions standards for co-located Coke Oven By-Product Recovery (Chemical) Plants."  We would appreciate clarification of which list of purposes is correct. All of the above. The answers to some questions will be used for risk and some for technology review. We do whole facility risk when we model risk, so that includes sources in the source category undergoing risk review as well as other sources at the facility that are not undergoing risk review. We are currently required by one court order to perform the risk and technology review for subpart 5C, and technology review for subpart L. We are required by another court order applying to all EPA subpart 112 rules (includes 5C and L) to address unregulated HAP. The part about "by-product chemical recovery plants" does not refer to nonrecovery facilities nor Cokenergy. It does apply to other coke plants, specifically by-product coke plants. We used the same file for all coke facilities. We had just finished a mail out of Enclosure 1 to 8 coke facilities on 6/29/22 when we tried to tailor Enclosure 1 for Cokenergy. We missed a few things to change/remove, which you found. I believe we identified information in enclosure 2 that was not applicable to Cokenergy in our previous correspondence. If you find anything in Enclosure 1 that you believe only applies to coke by-product plants, let me know. 
*	Our facility is not subject to subpart CCCCC or subpart L, it does not generate emissions of any HAP, and it is not a "co-located Coke Oven By-Product Recovery (Chemical) Plant".  Yet, at our August 23rd Teams meeting, we understood EPA to say that Cokenergy's facility falls within the scope of EPA's current regulatory review.  Is that correct?  If so, we would appreciate clarification of which of the stated purposes EPA believes relates to our facility. We plan to develop regulations for heat recovery plants using coke exhaust either as a previously unregulated source under subpart 5C or in a new section 114 source category. I previously sent you the SunCoke test reports for a heat recovery main stack which documented HAP emissions. Did you see that file and did you read my statement about likely similar emissions at similar operation of coke facilities by SunCoke and, therefore, similar coke exhaust? 
 
We appreciate your assistance with these questions.  
As I said initially, the EPA does not need to identify currently applicable regulations in order to request data under CAA section 114. Note CAA section 114 is not subsumed under nor dependent upon CAA section 112 (HAP rules). If there are no HAP as you say from the Cokenergy main stack, then your test reports will show this. 
 
Best of luck with your testing. We appreciate your efforts on the 114 request.
 
Sincerely,
 
Luke E. Ford
Director EH&S
Primary Energy 
3210 Watling St.
MC 2-991
East Chicago, IN 46312
 
Email  lford@primaryenergy.com 
Office   (219) 397-4626
Mobile  (773) 447-8257

