Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0899
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2023-08-16T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM   

DATE:		08/30/2022

TO:	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology Review; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085

FROM:	Donna Lee Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, NC; Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 

SUBJECT:	Conference call with Cokenergy, LLC   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

      A Microsoft(TM) TEAMS conference call was held on August 23, 2022, between the U. S. EPA (EPA) and representatives of Cokenergy, LLC (Cokenergy), to discuss the EPA's 2022 Clean Air Act (CAA) section 114 information request for Cokenergy's heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) and the HRSG's final emissions outlet called the "main stack." The Cokenergy heat recovery operation is located on property owned by Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., and is adjacent to the SunCoke, Inc., coke production operations at their Indiana Harbor (East Chicago, IN) facility. Cokenergy is a project of Primary Energy, Inc. (see https://www.primaryenergy.com/project-dashboard/project-dashboard-cokenergy/), which in turn is owned by SDCL Energy Efficiency Income Trust (SEEIT), an investment company listed on the London Stock Exchange. The Sustainable Development Capital LLP (SDCL) is the investment manager of SEEIT.
      
      Cokenergy stated that their operations are not related to coking, therefore, they should not have to respond to the EPA's CAA section 114 information request. They presented a diagram of operations (attached) and noted their HRSG and main stack operations compared to the SunCoke operations, and the equipment upstream of the HRSGs, including the bypass vent stacks. Cokenergy also clarified that SunCoke utilizes the main stack for conducting their own stack tests.
      
      Cokenergy questioned why they were chosen for the CAA section 114 information request when SunCoke is the source of coke emissions. The EPA stated that SunCoke received and fulfilled a CAA section 114 information request in 2016 for the residual risk and technology review (RTR) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC (Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks). SunCoke also received the recent CAA section 114 information request in 2022 but declined to do the EPA-requested testing on the HRSG's main stack in East Chicago, IN, and to respond to any questions regarding the HRSG operation because the HRSG is owned and operated by Cokenergy. The EPA clarified that in 2016 the coke industry was in a depressed economic state and, as a result, several of the facilities were not operating normally and were in an "extended coking" phase. Therefore, the EPA information collection effort in 2016 was trimmed down and, specifically, SunCoke was asked to perform only one test series on the main stack of one of their other facilities. The EPA further explained that this 2022 CAA section 114 information request is an opportunity for EPA to get more test data, and for Cokenergy, to have data from their operation combined with the previous data as well as to introduce Cokenergy to the regulatory process. 
      
      Cokenergy stated that the main stack is owned by Cokenergy, but SunCoke is the source of coke oven gas and Cokenergy is only recovering the heat from the gas. The EPA asked if Cokenergy can perform stack tests. Cokenergy said yes, they can. Cokenergy said that all the emissions in the main stack are because of SunCoke and that no emissions are coming from the HRSGs process. They said they have a shared arrangement with SunCoke for the main stack, where SunCoke can test the stack when they need to and Cokenergy tests the stack for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) for their permitting purposes. 
      
      The EPA questioned if, in the hypothetical case, there were air toxics regulations established for the main stacks, who would have to purchase and operate the control device, if needed? Cokenergy answered that they would, but they would need a contractual agreement with SunCoke as far as the air toxics emitted. 
      
      The EPA clarified that Cokenergy could provide previously conducted stack tests in response to the CAA section 114 information request. Cokenergy said that they have PM and lead stack tests they could submit, but no other metals or volatiles. They also have SO2 continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data. Cokenergy explained that they operate the baghouse on the main stack for PM control, but the emissions are coming from SunCoke operations.
      
      Cokenergy stated they would not be able to answer some of the questions in the CAA section 114 information request because the questions do not pertain to their operations. The EPA said that they should only answer questions related to the HRSG and main stack and if there is any confusion to let EPA know. The EPA added that Cokenergy should disregard questions they believe are solely SunCoke's responsibility. 
      
      Cokenergy stated they have no control over what SunCoke puts in the coke batteries and, therefore, question why should they have to be the ones to incur costs if they aren't creating the emissions. 
      
      The EPA recognized that this is an unusual situation, but at the end of the day Cokenergy is responsible for the main stack in its Title V permit and that is why the CAA section 114 information request came to Cokenergy to collect more information. 
      
      Cokenergy stated they understood the EPA's position and had nothing more to add. Cokenergy committed to responding to the CAA section 114 information request but indicated they may need an extension for the deadlines. 
      
      The EPA stated that there is general facility information that also is requested in the CAA section 114 information request. For example, whether Cokenergy and its parent company is a small business. Cokenergy responded that yes, they were a small business, with only approximately 40 employees, and do not have a parent company.  
       
                                       
ATTENDEES

EPA
Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS
Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS
David Orlin, EPA/OGC
Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

Cokenergy, LLC./Primary Energy, Inc. 
Seth Acheson, General Manger, Cokenergy, LLC 
Dominick DeFrancesco, Facility Administrator, Primary Energy, Inc.
Luke Ford, Director of Environmental Health and Safety, Primary Energy, Inc.
Thor Ketzback, Counsel, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner Law 

      ATTACHMENT  -  Cokenergy, LLC, Slides from 8/23/22 Meeting with EPA