» £% \
w
^4 PRO^
Economic Impact Analysis for the Final
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
-------
ii
-------
EP A-452/R-24-013
May 2024
Economic Impact Analysis for the Final 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
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Health and Environmental Impacts Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
in
-------
CONTACT INFORMATION
This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be addressed to the
Air Economics Group in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(email: OAQPSeconomics@epa.gov).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the help of the Research Triangle Institute in preparing the compliance cost and
emission reductions for the regulatory options analyzed in this EIA.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1.1 Legal Basis for this Rulemaking 1-2
1.1.2 Regulatory History 1-4
1.1.3 Economic Basis for this Rulemaking 1-5
1.2 Industry Background 1-6
1.2.1 Production Overview 1-6
1.2.1.1 Byproduct Cokemaking 1-7
1.2.1.2 Heat and Nonrecovery (HNR) Cokemaking 1-8
1.2.2 Use of Coke in Steel Production 1-9
1.2.3 Coke Facilities in the United States 1-11
1.2.4 Trends and Projections 1-12
1.3 Final Amendments 1-13
1.3.1 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L (COB) Technology Review 1-13
1.3.2 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L (COB) Fenceline Monitoring 1-14
1.3.3 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 5C (PQBS) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 1-15
1.3.4 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 5C (PQBS) Regulatory Gaps 1-15
1.3.5 Opacity of HNR B/W Stacks 1-16
1.3.6 Summary of Final NESHAP Amendments 1-16
2 Emissions and Engineering Costs Analysis 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Emissions Reduction Analysis 2-2
2.3 Engineering Cost Analysis 2-2
2.3.1 Fenceline Monitoring 2-3
2.3.2 Other Final Amendments 2-3
2.4 Uncertainties and Limitations 2-6
3 Economic Impact Analysis and Distributional Assessments 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Economic Impact Analysis 3-1
3.3 Employment Impact Analysis 3-3
3.4 Small Business Impacts Analysis 3-5
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: U.S. Coke Facilities 1-12
Table 1-2: U.S. Coke Production, Consumption, Imports, and Exports (thousand short tons), 2011-2021 1-13
Table 1-3: Identified Regulatory Gaps in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 5C Sources 1-16
Table 1-4: Summary of the Final Amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, Subparts 5C and L NESHAP 1-17
Table 2-1: Annualized Costs per Year for the Final NESHAP Amendments (2023 dollars) 2-5
Table 2-2: Total Costs for the Final NESHAP Amendments, 2025-2036 (2023 dollars) 2-5
Table 2-3: Present-Value, Equivalent Annualized Value, and Discounted Costs for Final NESHAP Amendments,
2025-2036 (million 2023 dollars, discounted to 2023) 2-6
Table 3-1: Coke Facility Owner Sales and Employment, 2021 3-3
Table 3-2: Total Annualized Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Coke Facility Owners 3-3
Table 3-3: SB A Size Standard by Ultimate Parent Company 3-6
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -1: The Byproduct Coke Production Process 1 -7
Figure 1-2: Schematic of a Byproduct Recovery Coke Battery 1-8
Figure 1-3: Cross-section of HNR Coke Oven 1-9
Figure 1-4: Share of BF/BOF and EAF Steel in the U.S., 2001-2023 1-11
vii
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the coke ovens
industry. The final rule updates two NESHAP that regulate emissions from coke oven source
categories: Coke Oven Batteries (COB) (40 CFR part 63, subpart L) and Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks (PQBS) (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC, or "5C"). This document presents
the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the final rule, which affects the standards for both
source categories.
A coke oven battery consists of a group of ovens connected by common walls and is used
to convert coal to coke. Coke is used in blast furnaces for the conversion of iron ore to iron,
which can be further refined to produce steel. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart L (COB) NESHAP
addresses leaks from coke oven doors, lids, offtake systems1, and charging for two groups of
facilities based on whether chemicals are recovered from the coke process exhaust. The 40 CFR
part 63, subpart 5C (PQBS) NESHAP regulates emissions from coke oven processes known as
pushing and quenching in addition to emissions from battery stacks. Pushing is the process of
removing the coke from the oven after the coal has been coked. During quenching, the coke is
cooled with water.
The final rule completes the technology review for the COB source category and the
residual risk and technology review (RTR) for the PQBS source category. The final amendments
update some of the emissions standards and add fenceline monitoring requirements under the
COB source category NESHAP and address regulatory gaps under the PQBS source category
NESHAP. For both the COB and PQBS source category NESHAP, the EPA is also finalizing
revisions to startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions and requiring electronic
reporting.
Coke plants primarily emit coke oven emissions, which is a separately listed HAP under
CAA section 112(b)(1). Coke oven emissions are a mixture of coal tar, coal tar pitch, volatiles
(benzene, toluene, xylenes, napthalene), creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and
1 Offtake systems include the standpipe and standpipe caps, goosenecks, stationary jumper pipes, mini-standpipes,
and standpipe and gooseneck connections.
1-1
-------
particulate matter (PM).2 Coke ovens also emit acid gases (hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen
chloride), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), formaldehyde, mercury (Hg), and other PM non-Hg HAP
metals (such as lead and arsenic).
The final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 Section 3(f)(1), as
amended by E.O. 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. This EIA analyzes the projected cost and
emissions impact under the final requirements for the 2025-2036 time period. This EIA analyzes
the projected impacts of the final rule in order to better inform the public about its potential
effects.
1.1.1 Legal Basis for this Rulemaking
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which Congress modified as part of the 1990
CAA Amendments, provides the legal authority for this final rule. Section 112 of the CAA
establishes a two-stage process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from new and
existing stationary sources in various industries or sectors of the economy (i.e., source
categories). Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the
second stage involves assessing whether additional standards are needed to address any
remaining risk associated with HAP emissions from the source category. This second stage is
referred to as the "residual risk review." In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA requires
the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every eight years and revise them as
necessary, taking into account any "developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies." This review is commonly referred to as the "technology review."
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
2 U.S. EPA. 2016. Coke Oven Emissions. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
09/documents/coke-oven-emissions.pdf.
1-2
-------
classified as either major sources or area sources depending on the amount of HAP the source
has the potential to emit.3
Major sources are required to meet the levels of reduction achieved in practice by the
best-performing similar sources. CAA section 112(d)(2) states that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of HAP emissions reduction achievable after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts.
These standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards. MACT standards are based on emissions levels that are already being achieved by the
best-controlled and lowest-emitting existing sources in a source category or subcategory. CAA
section 112(d)(3) establishes a minimum stringency level for MACT standards, known as the
MACT "floor." For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set
standards based on generally available control technologies (GACT) or management practices in
lieu of MACT standards. In certain instances, CAA section 112(h) states that the EPA may set
work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards.
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the MACT floor.
Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor (BTF)
standards. CAA section 112(d)(2) requires the EPA to determine whether the more stringent
standards are achievable after considering the cost of achieving such standards, any non-air-
quality health and environmental impacts, and the energy requirements of additional control.
For major sources and any area source categories subject to MACT standards, the second
stage in the standard-setting process focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining {i.e.,
"residual") risk pursuant to CAA section 112(f) and concurrently conducting a technology
review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA is required under CAA section 112(f)(2) to
evaluate residual risk within eight years after promulgating a NESHAP to determine whether
risks are acceptable and whether additional standards beyond the MACT standards are needed to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or prevent adverse environmental
effects.4 For area sources subject to GACT standards, there is no requirement to address residual
3 "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."
4 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
1-3
-------
risk, but technology reviews are required. Technology reviews assess developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies and revise the standards as necessary without regard to risk,
considering factors like cost and cost-effectiveness. The EPA is required to conduct a technology
review every eight years after a NESHAP is promulgated. Thus, the first review after a NESHAP
is promulgated is a residual risk and technology review (RTR) and the subsequent reviews are
just technology reviews.
The EPA is also required to address regulatory gaps {i.e., "gap-filling") when conducting
NESHAP reviews, meaning it must establish missing standards for listed HAP that are known to
be emitted from the source category {Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA,
955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020)). Any new MACT standards related to gap-filling must be
established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), or, in specific circumstances, under CAA
sections 112(d)(4) or (h).
1.1,2 Regulatory History
The COB source category NESHAP was promulgated in 1993. The rule addresses
emissions from oven doors, lids, offtake systems, and charging for two groups of facilities based
on whether chemicals are recovered from the coke process exhaust. The two types of facility are
byproduct recovery facilities and heat and nonrecovery (HNR) facilities. These facilities are
described in Section 1.2. The COB source category NESHAP includes two compliance "tracks"
that facilities can choose from: (1) the MACT track and (2) the lowest achievable emissions rate
(LAER) track. The LAER track provides an extended compliance timeline but requires steeper
emissions reductions. The EPA finalized the RTR for the MACT track in 2005 but has not
completed the RTR for the LAER track. The 2005 RTR for the MACT track identified
unacceptable levels of remaining risk and increased the stringency of the standards for battery
doors, lids, and offtake systems.
The PQBS source category NESHAP was promulgated in 2003 and applies to coke plants
that are major sources of HAP emissions. For pushing processes (when coke is removed from the
oven), the rule sets opacity limits and control device PM emissions limits. During quenching
emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health in consideration of all health
information as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.
1-4
-------
processes (when coke is cooled with water), the rule requires facilities to use water meeting
certain criteria, meet limits for total dissolved solids in the quench water, equip quench towers
with control devices known as baffles, and inspect and repair baffles on an ongoing basis. For
battery stacks, the rule established opacity limits and requires the installation and operation of
continuous opacity monitors. In addition, all batteries and battery controls are required to follow
an operation and maintenance plan.
1,1.3 Economic Basis for this Rulemaking
Many regulations are promulgated to correct market failures, which otherwise lead to a
suboptimal allocation of resources within a market. Air quality and pollution control regulations
address "negative externalities" whereby the market does not internalize the full opportunity cost
of production borne by society as public goods such as air quality are unpriced.
While recognizing that the optimal social level of pollution may not be zero, HAP
emissions impose costs on society, such as negative health and welfare impacts, that are not
reflected in the market price of the goods produced through the polluting process. For this
regulatory action the good produced is coke for use in steel manufacturing. If the process of
making coke pollutes the atmosphere, the social costs imposed by the pollution will not be borne
only by the polluting firm but rather by society as a whole. Thus, the producer is imposing a
negative externality, that is, generating a social cost on society through these emissions. The
equilibrium market price of coke may, consequently, fail to incorporate the full opportunity cost
to society of consuming the coke. Absent a regulation or some other action to limit emissions,
producers will likely not internalize the negative externality of their emissions and will impose
external social costs. This final regulation works towards addressing this potential market failure
by increasing the likelihood of facilities detecting HAP emissions in excess of specified
thresholds, allowing for earlier corrective action and preventing pollution increases that could
otherwise occur.
1-5
-------
1.2 Industry Background5
Coke is metallurgical coal that has been baked into a charcoal-like substance that burns
more evenly and has more structural strength than coal. Coke is primarily used as an input for
producing steel in blast furnaces at integrated iron and steel mills. The U.S. produced 12.5
million short tons of coke in 2021.6
1.2,1 Production Overview
There are two types of coke facilities: byproduct recovery, which recover chemicals from
coke oven gas in an on-site chemical plant, and nonrecovery, which do not recover chemicals but
may recover heat. One of the primary differences between byproduct recovery and HNR
facilities is that the ovens at byproduct recovery facilities operate under positive pressure,
whereas at HNR facilities the ovens operate under negative pressure. The heat recovery facilities
use the heat from coke oven gas to produce electricity in on-site heat recovery steam generators
(HRSG). These facilities use bypass stacks when HRSG are bypassed for maintenance, repair, or
malfunction, whereas nonrecovery facilities without heat recovery use waste heat stacks at all
times when the facility is operational. Both the bypass and waste heat stacks release coke oven
gas from the coke ovens and are collectively referred to as HNR B/W stacks. Coke facilities are
either integrated into a larger iron and steel manufacturing facility or as stand-alone "merchant
coke" facilities. Merchant facilities sell their product to steel manufacturers nationally.
Cokemaking involves heating coal in the absence of air, resulting in the separation of the
non-carbon elements of the coal. The process bakes the coal into a charcoal-like substance for
use as fuel in blast furnaces at integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities and cupolas at
iron foundries. The cokemaking process includes the following steps: (1) coal preparation and
charging, (2) coking and pushing, (3) quenching, and (4) byproduct or heat recovery (depending
on the type of facility). Figure 1-1 summarizes the process for byproduct cokemaking.
5 This section is partially adapted from: U.S. EPA. (2002). Economic Impact Analysis of Final Coke Ovens
NESHAP: Final Report. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/documents/coke-
ovens_eia_neshap_final_08-2002.pdf.
6 U.S. Energy Information Administration (2022). Quarterly Coal Report. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/.
1-6
-------
By-Products Foundry Cupola
Figure 1-1: The Byproduct Coke Production Process
Source: U.S. EPA. (2002). Economic Impact Analysis of Final Coke Ovens NESHAP: Final Report. Available at:
https://www.epa.gOv/sites/default/files/2020-07/documents/coke-ovens_eia_neshap_final_08-2002.pdf.
1.2.1.1 Byproduct Cokemaking
In byproduct cokemaking, coal is converted to coke in long, narrow coke ovens that are
constructed in groups with common side walls, called batteries (typically consisting of 10 to 100
ovens). Figure 1-2 provides a schematic of a byproduct coke battery. Metallurgical coal is
pulverized and fed into the oven through ports at the top of the oven, which are then covered.
The coal undergoes destructive distillation in the oven at 1,650 to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for
15 to 30 hours. A slight positive back-pressure maintained on the oven prevents air from entering
the oven during the coking process. After coking, the hot coke is then pushed from the coke oven
into a railroad car and transported to a quench tower at the end of the battery where it is cooled
with water ("quenched") and screened to a uniform size. The raw coke oven gas is removed
through an offtake system to a separate byproduct (chemical) recovery plant regulated under 40
CFR part 61, subpart L, where byproducts, such as benzene, toluene, and xylene are recovered.
The cleaned gas is then used to underfire the coke ovens and for fuel elsewhere in the plant.
1-7
-------
Figure 1-2: Schematic of a Byproduct Recovery Coke Battery
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. (1994). Metallurgical Coke: Baseline Analysis of the U.S. Industry
and Imports. Publication No. 2745. Washington, DC: U.S. ITC.
1.2.1.2 Heat and Nonrecovery (HNR) Cokemakmg7
In an HNR facility, the oven is horizontal and operates under negative pressure. All of the
volatiles in the coal are burned and provide heat to fuel the coking process. Primary air is
introduced through ports in the oven doors and partially combusts the volatiles in the oven. Other
air is introduced through sole flues which run under the coal bed. A cross-section of an HNR
coke oven is shown in Figure 1-3. Hot gasses are sent through common tunnels to an HRSG, in
the case of a heat recovery plant (where high-pressure steam is produced for heating purposes or
electricity generation), or to a B/W stack. The common tunnels are equipped with afterburners to
destroy any remaining organic chemicals.
7 This section is adapted from:
Towsey et al. (2013). Comparison of Byproduct andHeatrecoverv Cokemaking Technologies. Association for
Iron and Steel Technology. Available at: https://accci.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/comparison-of-
byproduct-and-heatrecovery-cokemaking-technologies-07-22-2021.pdf
1-8
-------
Primary
air
Coke
Oven
cavity
Secondary
air inlets
Figure 1-3: Cross-section of HNR Coke Oven
Source: Towsey et al. (2013). Comparison of Byproduct and Heat Recovery Cokemaking Technologies. Association
for Iron and Steel Technology. Available at: https://accci.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/comparison-of-
byproduct-and-heatrecovery-cokemaking-technologies-07-22-2021.pdf.
1.2.2 Use of Coke in Steel Production
Coke is charged into the top of an iron-smelting blast furnace along with iron ore,
limestone, and other flux products.8 Hot air is blasted into the bottom of the furnace which
ignites the coke. The burning coke melts the iron and provides fuel for the chemical reaction in
the furnace. Coke releases carbon as it burns, which combines with the iron. Carbon bonds with
oxygen in the iron ore to reduce the iron oxide to pure iron.9 The molten iron is fed (along with
steel scrap and other raw materials) to a basic oxygen furnace to produce steel. Producing steel in
an integrated iron and steel (II& S) manufacturing facility requires about 630 kg of coke per ton
8 "Flux" is a name for any substance introduced in the blast furnace to remove impurities in the molten iron in the
form of slag. Typical flux materials in the blast furnace include limestone, silica, and dolomite.
(https://www.britannica.com/technology/flux-metallurg>', accessed 3/16/2023.)
9 U.S. EPA. (2002). Economic Impact Analysis of Final Integrated Iron and Steel SESll. 1 /'. Available at:
https://www.epa.gOv/sites/default/files/2020-07/documents/iron-steel_eia_neshap_final_09-2002.pdf.
1-9
-------
of metric steel produced.10 II&S facilities manufactured 29 percent of steel produced in the U.S.
in 2023.11 Electric arc furnaces (EAFs, sometimes referred to as mini-mills) produced the rest.
EAFs produce steel using scrap steel as the main input and eliminate the need for coke in
the production of steel. The EAF process has been gaining prevalence, especially domestically.
EAFs produce fewer emissions, have lower initial costs, use generally smaller operations, and
are more efficient than the traditional process. The U.S. has a long history of steelmaking and
steel consumption, and a mature stock of steel and steel scrap that has supported the transition to
EAF production. Developing regions (China and India, for instance) tend to have newer
infrastructure and less steel recycling, often along with a greater supply of iron ore or cheap coal,
which favors the continued investment in integrated steelmaking. The integrated process is still
the dominant steelmaking process globally, accounting for 70 percent of global production.12
Figure 1-4 shows the shift in the U.S. towards EAF steelmaking over the last 20 years. EAFs
produced about 70 percent of U.S. steel in 2021 compared to less than 50 percent in 2000. This
trend is expected to continue: a 2021 International Energy Administration (TEA) report projects
that, by 2050, EAFs in the United States will make up about 90 percent of steel production.13 The
increased usage of EAF in U.S. steel manufacturing over time will likely continue to reduce the
need for coke in U.S. steel manufacturing.
10 https ://corsacoal. com/about-corsa/coal-in-
steelmaking/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20about%20630%20kilograms,quality %20of%20raw%20materials
%20usedhttps://corsacoal.com/about-corsa/coal-in-
steelmaking/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20about%20630%20kilograms,quality%20of%20raw%20materials
%20used. Accessed 2/1/2023.
11 USGS (2024). USGS Mineral Commodity Summary 2024. Available at:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-iron-steel.pdf.
12 World Steel Association. (2022). 2022 World steel in Figures. Available at: https://worldsteel.org/wp-
content/uploads/W orld-Steel-in-Figures-2022-1 .pdf.
13IEA. (2020). Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap: Towards more sustainable steelmaking. Paris, France: OECD
Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/3dcc2alb-en.
1-10
-------
100%
90%
10%
0%
-------
Table 1-1: U.S. Coke Facilities
Ultimate Parent Company
Facility
Facility Type
Capacity
(million
short tons)
Status
Burns Harbor, IN
1.4
Active
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Follansbee, WV
Monessen, PA
Byproduct
Recovery
N/A
0.35
Closed
Active
Middletown, OH
0.35
Closed
Warren, OH
0.55
Active
DTE Energy Company
River Rouge, MI
Byproduct
Recovery
0.8
Active
Drummond Company
ABC-Tarrant, AL
Byproduct
Recovery
0.73
Active
James C. Justice Companies Inc.
Bluestone-Birmingham, AL
Byproduct
Recovery
0.35
Idle
East Chicago, IN
1.22
Active
SunCoke Energy, Inc.
Franklin Furnace, OH
Heat and
Nonrecovery;
Heat Recovery
Steam
1.1
Active
Granite City, IL
Generator
0.65
Active
Middletown, OH
0.55
Active
Vansant, VA
Nonrecovery
0.72
Active
U.S. Steel
Clairton, PA
Byproduct
Recovery
4.3
Active
Source: Company websites.
1.2.4 Trends and Projections
As discussed in Section 1.2.2, U.S. steel production has shifted substantially from
integrated iron and steel manufacturing (that use coke as an input) to EAF facilities over the last
20 years, and this trend is expected to continue in the future. However, integrated iron and steel
facilities are still the predominant method of steel production globally. Table 1-2 shows trends in
U.S. coke production, consumption, imports, and exports from 2011 to 2022. U.S. coke
consumption has dropped by a third over the last 10 years and imports have fallen by an order of
magnitude. U.S. production has fallen by less than consumption as exports have increased to
make up part of the difference. As U.S. coke demand continues to fall as steel production shifts
1-12
-------
further to EAFs, coke exports may continue to rise to absorb some of the excess coke production
capacity.
Table 1-2: U.S. Coke Production, Consumption, Imports, and Exports (thousand short
tons), 2011-2021
Year
Production
Consumption
Imports
Exports
2011
15,000
16,000
1,400
970
2012
15,000
15,000
1,100
970
2013
15,000
14,000
140
840
2014
15,000
14,000
77
950
2015
14,000
13,000
140
860
2016
12,000
11,000
230
1,000
2017
13,000
12,000
58
1,200
2018
14,000
13,000
120
1,200
2019
13,000
12,000
120
970
2020
10,000
10,000
160
680
2021
13,000
11,000
120
2,100
2022
11,000
9,200
67
2,300
Source: EIA. Quarterly Coal Reports, 2011-2024. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/.
Note: Numbers rounded to two significant digits.
1.3 Final Amendments
The final rule completes the technology review for the 40 CFR part 63, subpart L (COB)
NESHAP and the RTR for the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 5C (PQBS) NESHAP. The EPA will
undertake the LAER track risk review rulemaking as we plan future activities in the steel sector.
This section summarizes the final amendments to the COB and PQBS source category NESHAP.
1,3.1 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L (COB) Technology Review
The COB source category NESHAP addresses leaks from coke oven doors, lids, offtake
systems, and from charging. Work practices minimize leaks from coke oven doors, lids, offtakes,
and charging at byproduct recovery coke facilities. The EPA is finalizing revised byproduct
facility leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes to reflect current performance of the affected
facilities (discussed in the next paragraph). The EPA also finalized the use of a different equation
than has historically been used to estimate coke oven emissions from leaking oven doors and
required that HNR facilities test daily to demonstrate 0 percent leaking coke oven doors as well
as to continue to monitor pressure in ovens or common tunnels. These changes are not expected
1-13
-------
to result in incremental cost or emission impacts and are discussed in more detail in the preamble
to the final action.
The current leak limit for coke oven doors is 3.3-4 percent leaking doors, depending on
the size of the battery (4 percent for "tall" batteries (equal to or greater than 6 meters (20 feet) or
more), 3.3 percent for other batteries). The EPA is finalizing revised leak limits for doors, lids,
and offtakes (where leaks are determined by visible emissions observed using EPA Method 303).
For door leak limits, the EPA is finalizing limits for two sub-categories of facilities.
For byproduct recovery facilities with production capacity greater than three million tons
per year (tpy) of coke, the EPA is a finalizing a revised limit of 2.5 percent leaking doors for tall
doors and 1.7 percent leaking doors for other doors. This limit only affects U.S. Steel's Clairton
facility. For all other byproduct recovery facilities, the EPA is finalizing a revised limit of 3.8
percent leaking doors for tall doors and 3.1 percent leaking doors for other doors
Finally, the EPA is finalizing lower leak limits for lids from 0.4 percent leaking lids to
0.31 percent; and for offtake systems, from 2.5 percent leaking offtakes to 2.1 percent leaking
offtakes. The EPA expects all facilities can meet the revised leak limits without incurring
additional cost as a result of this final change. The final compliance date for revisions to the
allowable limits for leaking doors, lids, and offtakes under the COB NESHAP is one year after
publication of the final rule.
1,3.2 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L (COB) Fenceline Monitoring
The EPA is finalizing a fenceline monitoring requirement pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) for the COB source category. This requirement includes a work practice action level
for benzene of 7 micrograms per cubic meter (ng/m3). If a facility exceeds the action level, it
must perform a root cause analysis and take corrective action to lower emissions. The final
requirements for fenceline monitoring and corrective action apply only to byproduct coke oven
facilities and not at HNR facilities because these facilities operate under negative pressure,
already have very low fugitive benzene emissions, and the NESHAP requires monitoring to
ensure no fugitive emissions at these facilities
The fenceline monitoring requirements allow facilities to reduce sampling frequency by
50 percent at individual monitors if the reading from a monitor falls below 0.7 ng/in3 for two
1-14
-------
years, with further frequency reductions possible every two years thereafter up to eight years
total, to qualify for a sampling frequency of once a year as long as the monitor maintains a
benzene level below 0.7 |ag/m3. If at any point a monitor measures a concentration above 0.7
Hg/m3, then the facility must immediately return to the original monitoring frequency.
The final compliance date to begin fenceline monitoring is one 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 three
years after the publication date of the final rule.
The estimated cost for fenceline monitoring is approximately $107,000 per facility per
year for testing, operation, and maintenance of fenceline monitors, and recordkeeping and
reporting (R&R) (approximately $640,000 industry-wide for the six affected facilities). Any
costs associated with changes in equipment or practices that would result from exceedance of the
fenceline standard have not been estimated. It is unknown which facilities and sources would
cause an exceedance and how well the current practices are being performed at each facility for
each source.
1.3.3 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 5C (PQBS) Risk and Technology Review (RTR)
Technologies for controlling HAP from PQBS sources include baghouses or scrubbers
for coke pushing and baffles for coke quenching. The EPA has not identified cost-effective
options to further reduce HAP emissions as part of the PQBS source category NESHAP
technology review. The EPA is finalizing that risks due to emissions of HAP from the PQBS
source category are acceptable and that the current PQBS source category NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
1.3.4 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 5C (PQBS) Regulatory Gaps
The EPA also identified 25 regulatory gaps for the PQBS source category (see Table 1-3)
and is finalizing a MACT floor standards that address each gap. It is expected that all facilities
can meet these new MACT floor standards without additional emissions control; therefore, the
only costs of these final standards are from compliance testing and R&R. The final compliance
date for these new MACT standards is one year after publication of the final rule.
1-15
-------
Table 1-3: Identified Regulatory Gaps in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 5C Sources
Emissions Source
HAP
Number of
Regulatory
Gaps
HNR HRSG B/W Heat Stacks
Acid gases, formaldehyde, Hg, PM
non-Hg metal, PAH, VOHAP
6
HNR HRSG Main Stack
Acid gases, formaldehyde, Hg, PM
non-Hg metals, PAH
5
Coke Pushing
Acid gases, dioxins and furans
(D/F), formaldehyde, HCN, Hg,
PAH,VOHAP
7
Byproduct Recovery Battery Stack
Acid gases, D/F, PAH, HCN, Hg,
PM non-Hg metals, VOHAP
7
Total Number of Regulatory Gaps
25
Based on consideration of public comments and revised cost estimates, the EPA is not
promulgating beyond-the-floor standards for HNR facilities without heat recovery steam
generators. Instead, these units will need to comply with the same MACT floor standards that the
EPA is promulgating for heat nonrecovery heat recovery steam generator bypass stacks for
facilities with heat recovery steam generators.
1.3.5 Opacity of HNR B/W Stacks
The final rule includes a 20 percent opacity limit for HNR B/W stacks under the PQBS
NESHAP. This limit is currently required by state permit at the one HNR facility with
continuous bypass. The opacity limit in the final NESHAP will ensure continued compliance for
this source as well as the other HNR B/W sources with intermittent bypass. In the final rule,
weekly testing is required for HNR waste heat stacks, which operate continuously. For HNR
bypass stacks, which operate intermittently, testing is required weekly if and when bypass occurs
longer than one hour so as to enable testing using the procedures in EPA Method 9 and so as to
not prolong emitting bypass exhaust solely for the purpose of testing. The compliance date for
opacity limit on HNR B/W stacks is one year after publication of the final rule.
1.3.6 Summary of Final NESHAP Amendments
The final NESHAP amendments are summarized in Table 1-4. The fenceline monitoring
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart L are expected to require facilities to incur
1-16
-------
incremental costs relative to current standards. The final 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 reduce allowable emissions. The MACT standards under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart 5C for currently unregulated sources are expected to cause incremental costs at
affected facilities for compliance testing and R&R. The projected cost and emissions impacts of
the final amendments are presented in the next chapter.
Table 1-4: Summary of the Final Amendments to the 40 CFR part 63, Subparts 5C and L
NESHAP
Emissions Source
Current Standard
Final Standard
40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L (COB)
Fenceline Monitoring for Byproduct Coke Ovens
no requirement
work practice action level for
benzene
Leaking from Coke Oven Doors3
Clairton Facility
Other Byproduct Facilities
HNR Facilities
3.3-4% limit
choice
1.7-2.5% limit
3.2-3.8% limit
0% limit required
Leaking Lids
Leaking Offtake Systems
0.4% limit
2.5% limit
0.32% limit
2.1% limit
40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 5C (PQBS) Regulatory Gaps
HNR HRSG B/W Heat Stacks
Acid Gases, Formaldehyde, PAH,
Hg, PM non-Fig Metals, VOHAP
Opacity
no requirement
MACT floor standard
20%
HNR HRSG Main Stack
Acid Gases, Formaldehyde, Hg, PMnon-HgMetals,
PAH
no requirement
MACT floor standard
Coke Pushing
Acid Gases, D/F, Formaldehyde, HCN, Hg, PAH,
VOHAP
no requirement
MACT floor standard
Byproduct Recovery Battery Stack
Acid Gases, D/F, PAH,HCN, Hg, PM non-Hg metals,
VOHAP
no requirement
MACT floor standards
a Higher opacity limit applies to "tall" (equal to or greater than 6 meters) doors; lower leak limit applies to other
doors.
1-17
-------
2 EMISSIONS AND ENGINEERING COSTS ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we present estimates of the projected emissions reductions and
engineering costs associated with the final NESHAP amendments for the 2025 to 2036 period.
The projected costs and emissions impacts are based on facility-level estimates of the costs of
meeting the final emission limits and the expected emission reductions resulting from installing
the necessary controls. The baseline emissions and emission reduction estimates are based on
facility stack testing data and information and assumptions about existing and newly-installed
controls.
The impacts of regulatory actions are evaluated relative to a baseline that represents the
world without the regulatory action. In this EIA, we present results for the final amendments to
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart L (COB) NESHAP and the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 5C (PQBS)
NESHAP. Throughout this document, we focus the analysis on the final requirements that result
in quantifiable compliance cost or emissions changes compared to the baseline.
For the analysis, we calculate the potential cost and emissions impacts of the final
NESHAP amendments from 2025 to 2036. The initial analysis year is 2025 as we assume the
final action will be finalized in early to mid-2024. Compliance with the new MACT limits under
the PQBS NESHAP and fenceline monitoring under the COB NESHAP is thus expected to begin
in early 2025. The final analysis year is 2036, which allows us to provide 12 years of regulatory
impact estimates after the final amendments are assumed to fully take effect.
We assume the number of facilities active in the source category remains constant during
the analysis period. This assumption introduces uncertainty as there is one currently idle facility,
Bluestone Coke (both Cleveland-Cliffs' facilities in Middletown, Ohio, and Follansbee, West
Virginia have closed). The Bluestone facility is discussed in detail in Section 1.2.3 and Section
3.2. The estimates in this section, unless otherwise noted, assume the Bluestone Coke remains
idle during the analysis period. In specific cases, we also provide estimates of cost assuming this
facilities resume operation. The specific provisions of the final NESHAP amendments are
described in Section 1.3.
2-1
-------
2.2 Emissions Reduction Analysis
There are no quantified air quality impacts from this rule. However, the promulgated 17
new MACT floor limits for the PQBS NESHAP source category will ensure that emissions of
these HAP do not increase and help ensure that air quality in the vicinity of coke oven facilities
does not degrade over time. In addition, the promulgated reduction in allowable emissions from
coke oven doors, lids, and offtakes in the COB source category will ensure that emissions of
HAP do not increase and that air quality does not degrade over time. We also are promulgating
fenceline monitoring, which would improve compliance assurance and potentially result in some
unquantified additional emission reductions. Lastly, we also are requiring that standards apply
during periods of SSM.
The EPA has not quantified emission reductions associated with this final rule because all
affected facilities are expected to already have HAP emissions levels that are below the final
limits (based on the data available to the EPA). However, the EPA anticipates that this final
rule's new requirements will increase the likelihood of facilities successfully detecting any HAP
emissions in excess of the specified thresholds, allowing for earlier corrective action and thus
preventing pollution increases that could otherwise occur.
2.3 Engineering Cost Analysis
This section presents estimated impacts for each provision of the final amendments. No
capital costs are expected to be incurred under this final rule. Costs are limited to the annualized
costs of increased compliance testing, and associated costs of R&R. Compliance testing for HAP
covered by the final amendments occurs initially (in early 2025) to demonstrate compliance and
every five years thereafter and is annualized over a 5-year period in calculating annualized costs.
The compliance costs estimates are the costs to directly affected firms and facilities (or
"private investment"), and thus are not true social costs. Detailed discussion of these costs,
including all calculations and assumptions made in estimating compliance testing and R&R
costs, can be found in the technical memo produced for the final rule in the docket.18
18 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 - Final Rule. D. L. Jones, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and G. Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
2-2
-------
2.3.1 Fenceline Monitoring
The EPA is finalizing a fenceline monitoring requirement pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) for byproduct coke oven facilities in the COB source category (40 CFR part 63,
subpart L). This requirement includes a work practice action level for benzene. If a facility
exceeds the action level, it must perform a root cause analysis and take corrective action to lower
emissions. The estimated cost for fenceline monitoring is approximately $107,000 per facility
per year. This includes testing costs, operation and maintenance of fenceline monitors, and R&R
costs. Assuming six active facilities, the industry-wide cost of this requirement is expected to be
$640,000 per year but could increase if the Bluestone Coke resumes operation. Firms are not
expected to require capital purchases to meet the requirement.
Facilities will be required to commence fenceline monitoring within one year of the
publication date of the final rule. The fenceline monitoring requirements allow facilities to
reduce fenceline sampling at any monitor if the monitor is at or below a concentration 0.7 |ig/m3
for two years, with further reductions every additional two years for a total of six additional
years, to ultimately achieve a once a year testing schedules. These final provisions are described
in Section 1.3.2. If facilities meet the action level in the early years of the analysis period,
fenceline monitoring costs may be overstated in the later years of the analysis period. If facilities
fail to meet the action level, they may incur additional costs not estimated here.
2.3.2 Other Final Amendments
The EPA is finalizing MACT floor standards that address 25 currently unregulated HAP
(see Table 1-3). It is expected that each affected facility can meet these standards without
installing additional emission controls or changing existing work practices. The only expected
costs are for compliance testing and associated R&R.
The EPA is also finalizing amendments to leak limits for leaking coke oven doors, lids,
and offtake systems under 40 CFR part 63, subpart L (COB). The affected facilities currently
meet the final leak limits, so these amendments are not expected to require changes to work
practices or other additional costs.
The final rule includes a 20 percent opacity limit for HNR B/W stacks under the PQBS
NESHAP. It is expected that each affected facility can meet these limits without installing
2-3
-------
additional emission controls or changing existing work practices. The only expected costs are for
compliance testing and associated R&R.
This section presents summary cost tables for the final amendments. Table 2-1 and Table
2-2 present estimated annualized costs and estimated costs by year based on when costs are
likely to be incurred.
Table 2-3 presents total costs for each year discounted to 2023 in 2023 dollars, along with
the present-value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV) over the analysis period, using 2
percent, 3 percent, and 7 percent discount rate. The 2 percent discount rate is consistent with the
guidance in OMB Circular A-4, which was updated in November 2023. We provided estimates
using a 3 percent and 7 percent rate at proposal, consistent with the previous guidance in OMB
Circular A-4. These are provided again for consistency with the proposal. The EAV represents a
flow of constant annual values that would yield a sum equivalent to the PV. The estimated PV of
the compliance costs over the 12-year period from 2025 to 2036 is about $41 million ($3.9
million EAV) using a 2 percent discount rate, about $39 million ($3.9 million EAV) using a 3
percent discount rate, and about $30 million ($3.7 million EAV) using a 7 percent discount rate.
2-4
-------
Table 2-1: Annualized Costs per Year for the Final NESHAP Amendments (2023 dollars)
Per Year
MACT Testing and R&R Costs $3,300,000
HNR Testing and R&R Costs $130,000
Fenceline Monitoring and R&R Costs $640,000
Total Annualized Cost $4,000,000
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded to two significant digits unless otherwise
noted.
Table 2-2: Total Costs for the Final NESHAP Amendments, 2025-2036 (2023 dollars)
Year
MACT Testing
and R&R Costs
HNR Testing and
R&R Costs
Fenceline
Monitoring and
R&R Costs
Total
2025
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2026
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2027
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2028
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2029
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2030
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2031
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2032
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2033
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2034
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2035
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
2036
$3,300,000
$130,000
$640,000
$4,000,000
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded to two significant digits unless otherwise
noted.
2-5
-------
Table 2-3: Present-Value, Equivalent Annualized Value, and Discounted Costs for Final
NESHAP Amendments, 2025-2036 (2023 dollars, discounted to 2023)
Year
Discount Rate
2%
3%
7%
2025
3,800,000
3,800,000
3,500,000
2026
3,800,000
3,700,000
3,300,000
2027
3,700,000
3,600,000
3,100,000
2028
3,600,000
3,500,000
2,900,000
2029
3,600,000
3,300,000
2,700,000
2030
3,500,000
3,300,000
2,500,000
2031
3,400,000
3,200,000
2,300,000
2032
3,300,000
3,100,000
2,200,000
2033
3,300,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2034
3,200,000
2,900,000
1,900,000
2035
3,200,000
2,800,000
1,800,000
2036
3,100,000
2,700,000
1,700,000
PV
41,000,000
39,000,000
30,000,000
EAV
3,900,000
3,900,000
3,700,000
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded to two significant digits unless otherwise
noted.
2.4 Uncertainties and Limitations
Throughout this EIA, we considered a number of sources of uncertainty, both
quantitatively and qualitatively, regarding the costs of the final NESHAP amendments. We
summarize the key elements of our discussions of uncertainty here:
• Projection methods and assumptions: The number of facilities in operation is
assumed to be constant over the course of the analysis period. This is a particular
source of uncertainty with respect to the idled facility, Bluestone Coke. If this facility
were to resume operation, the projected costs of the final amendments could increase.
Alternatively, one or more of the currently active facilities could close due to
unforeseen economic circumstances and no longer need to incur the costs associated
with the final rule. We also assume 100 percent compliance with these final rules and
existing rules, beginning when a source becomes affected. Additionally, new control
technology may become available in the future at lower cost, and we are unable to
predict exactly how industry will comply with the final rules in the future.
2-6
-------
• Years of analysis: The years of the cost analysis are 2025, to represent the first year
facilities are compliant with the final MACT limits and fenceline monitoring
requirements, through 2036, to present 12 years of potential regulatory impacts, as
discussed earlier in this chapter. Extending the analysis beyond 2036 would introduce
substantial and increasing uncertainties in the projected impacts of the final
regulations.
• Compliance Costs: To the extent that any opportunity costs are not included in the
estimates of monitoring and R&R costs, the compliance costs presented above for this
final action may be underestimated. Also, the fenceline monitoring requirements
allow facilities to reduce fenceline sampling if they remain below the action level for
an extended period of time. These final provisions are described in Section 1.3.2. If
facilities meet the action level in the early years of the analysis period, fenceline
monitoring costs may be overstated in the later years of the analysis period. On the
other hand, if these provisions result in corrective action being undertaken by
facilities, both costs and emissions impacts would be understated.
2-7
-------
3 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS
3.1 Introduction
The final NESHAP amendments are projected to result in environmental control
expenditures and work practice adjustments to comply with the rule. The national-level
compliance cost analysis in Section 2.3 does not speak directly to potential distributional impacts
of the final rule, which may be important consequences of the action. This section is directed
towards complementing the compliance cost analysis and includes an analysis of potential firm-
level impacts of the estimated regulatory costs and a discussion of potential employment and
small entity impacts.
With regard to emissions reductions, this rule has no quantifiable emission reductions or
other benefits. The EPA has not quantified any benefits associated with this final rule because all
covered facilities are expected to already have HAP emissions levels that are below the final
limits, based on facility data available to the EPA. However, the EPA anticipates that this final
rule's new requirements will increase the likelihood of facilities successfully detecting any HAP
emissions in excess of the specified thresholds, allowing for earlier corrective action and thus
preventing pollution increases that could otherwise occur. The potential public health benefits
associated with such prevention are difficult to estimate, given that they correspond to
hypothetical scenarios of emissions beyond those indicated by current facility data; thus, benefits
are not quantified in the EPA's analysis.
3.2 Economic Impact Analysis
Although facility-specific economic impacts (production changes or closures, for
example) cannot be estimated by this analysis, the EPA conducted a screening analysis of
compliance costs compared to the revenue of firms owning coke facilities. The EPA often
performs a partial equilibrium analysis to estimate impacts on producers and consumers of the
products or services provided by the regulated firms. This type of economic analysis estimates
impacts on a single affected industry or several affected industries, and all impacts of this rule on
industries outside of those affected are assumed to be zero or inconsequential.19
19 U.S. EPA. (2016). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses.
3-1
-------
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 relative to receipts 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 (assuming demand stays constant). We conducted a cost-to-sales
analysis to estimate the economic impacts of this final rule, given that the EAV of the
compliance costs is about $3.9 million in 2023 dollars (using a two percent discount rate), which
is small relative to the revenues of the steel industry. Other than the simple cost-to-sales analysis
described earlier in this section, we do not have the data to assess potential price impacts or
distributional consequences of the potential pass-through of regulatory costs to consumers of
intermediate and final products for which coke is an input.
As discussed in Section 1.2, six firms own the 14 coke facilities in the U.S. (see Table 3-
1). Of these six firms, four are publicly-traded companies that reported revenue in 2021 greater
than $1 billion. Drummond Company, a privately-held company based in Birmingham, AL,
owns the ABC Coke facility in Tarrant, AL.20 Online sources list Drummond's 2021 revenue and
employment as $3.3 billion and 5,600, respectively.21 The sixth (James C. Justice Companies,
Inc.) is a holding company that owns Bluestone Coke, which has been idle since October 2021
when the health department in Jefferson County, AL denied Bluestone's request to renew its
permit.22 Bluestone recently entered into a consent decree that could allow it to resume
operations conditional on paying fines and upgrading the facility to control air emissions
(industry experts estimate Bluestone may need capital improvements in excess of $150 million in
order to reopen).23 It is unclear when or if the Bluestone facility will reopen. Given the private
status of James C. Justice Company, Inc., there is additional uncertainty around the revenue and
employment information presented compared to the other firms.
20 https://www.forbes.com/companies/drummond/7slF5cd6366926fc. Accessed 3/21/2024.
21 https://www.zoominfo.eom/c/drummond-company-inc/33201072. Accessed 3/21/2024.
22 https://www.propublica.org/article/bluestone-jim-justice-north-birmingham. Accessed 3/21/2024.
23 https://www.propublica.org/article/bluestone-jim-justice-north-birmingham-consent-decree. Accessed 3/21/2024.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1: Coke Facility Owner Sales and Employment, 2021
Parent Company
HQ Location
Legal Form
Sales (million USD)
Employment
U.S. Steel
Pittsburgh, PA
Public
$20,275
24,500
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Cleveland, OH
Public
$20,444
26,000
SunCoke Energy, Inc.
Lisle, IL
Public
$1,460
1,133
DTE Energy Company
Detroit, MI
Public
$14,960
10,300
Drummond Company
Birmingham, AL
Private
$3,300
5,600
James C. Justice Companies, Inc.
Roanoke, VA
Private
$316
520
Total
$59,055
69,253
Sources: Dun & Bradstreet/Hoover's online database and Zoomlnfo online database.
Table 3-2 presents total annualized cost relative to sales for the final NESHAP
amendments. Firm revenues have been converted to 2023 dollars to accord with the dollar-year
of the cost estimates. Total annualized costs of the final amendments are small compared to total
revenue for each firm (less than 0.2 percent for SunCoke Energy, Inc and less than 0.1 percent
for the remaining parent companies). These costs include the costs of fenceline monitoring for
byproduct facilities and additional compliance testing. These costs also include the expected
annualized costs of compliance testing at Bluestone Coke if the facility were to re-open. Based
on these estimates, the maximum necessary price increase caused by the final regulation is small
relative to the size of the firms that own facilities in the source category, and the potential
economic impacts of the final rule are likely to be small.
Table 3-2: Total Annualized Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Coke Facility Owners
Ultimate Parent Company
2021 Revenue
(million 2023 dollars)
Total Annualized Cost
(million 2023 dollars)
TAC-Sales Ratio
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
$22,529
$0.59
0.00%
DTE Energy Company
$16,489
$0.17
0.00%
Drummond Company
$1,764
$0.24
0.01%
James C. Justice Companies
$348
$0.19
0.06%
SunCoke Energy, Inc
$1,610
$2.57
0.17%
U.S. Steel
$22,353
$0.46
0.00%
3.3 Employment Impact Analysis
This section presents a qualitative overview of the various ways that environmental
regulation can affect employment. Employment impacts of environmental regulations are
generally composed of a mix of potential declines and gains in different areas of the economy
over time. Regulatory employment impacts can vary across occupations, regions, and industries;
by labor and product demand and supply elasticities; and in response to other labor market
3-3
-------
conditions. Isolating such impacts is a challenge, as they are difficult to disentangle from
employment impacts caused by a wide variety of ongoing, concurrent economic changes. The
EPA continues to explore the relevant theoretical and empirical literature and to seek public
comments in order to ensure that the way the EPA characterizes the employment effects of its
regulations is reasonable and informative.
Environmental regulation "typically affects the distribution of employment among
industries rather than the general employment level".24 Even if impacts are small after long-run
market adjustments to full employment, many regulatory actions have transitional effects in the
short run.25 These movements of workers in and out of jobs in response to environmental
regulation are potentially important and of interest to policymakers. Transitional job losses have
consequences for workers that operate in declining industries or occupations, have limited
capacity to migrate, or reside in communities or regions with high unemployment rates.
As indicated by the potential impacts on the owners of coke facilities discussed in Section
3.2, the final requirements are unlikely to cause large shifts in coke or steel production and
prices. As a result, demand for labor employed in coke production activities and associated
industries (such as the steel industry) is unlikely to see large changes but might experience
adjustments as there may be increases in compliance-related labor requirements such as labor
associated with the manufacture, installation, and operation of compliance-related equipment as
well as changes in employment due to quantity effects in directly regulated sectors and sectors
that consume coke (though any potential quantity effects are expected to be minimal). For this
final rule, however, we do not have the data and analysis available to quantify these potential
labor impacts.
24 Arrow, K. J., Cropper, M. L., Eads, G. C., Hahn, R. J., Lave, L. B., Noll, R. J.,. . . Stavins, R. N. (1996). Benefit-
Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation: A Statement of Principles. American Enterprise
Institute Press. Available at: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/-benefitcost-analysis-in-
environmental-health-and-safety regulation_161535983778.pdf.
25 Office of Management and Budget. (2015). 2015 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal
Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Available at: whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/inforeg/inforeg/2015_cb/2015 -cost-benefitreport.pdf.
3-4
-------
3.4 Small Business Impacts Analysis
To determine the possible impacts of the final NESHAP amendments on small
businesses, the firms that own affected coke facilities are categorized as small or large using the
Small Business Administration's (SBA's) general size standards definitions. Coke facilities fall
under two six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Facilities
located within an integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility fall under NAICS 331110 (Iron
and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing); all other facilities fall under NAICS 324199 (All
Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing). The SBA size standards for these NAICS
codes indicate that a business is small if it employs 1,500 or fewer workers if classified under
NAICS 331110 and 950 or fewer workers if classified under NAICS 324199.26
The primary operations of a facility determine which NAICS a facility is classified
under. Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel own coke facilities that are located within integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facilities, so we classified these firms using the larger (1,500
employee) small business size threshold. All other firms are classified using the 950-employee
size threshold. Table 3-3 shows the size standard applying to each firm. Based on the SBA
standards and the company employment figures shown in Table 3-1, the only firm that owns a
potentially affected coke facility that can be considered a small business is the James C. Justice
Companies, which owns the idled Bluestone Coke facility.
26 U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Standards, Effective March 17, 2023. Available at:
https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Accessed March 21, 2024.
3-5
-------
Table 3-3: SBA Size Standard by Ultimate Parent Company
Ultimate Parent Company
Facility
Located within
Integrated Steel
Manufacturing
Facility
Applicable Size
Standard
(employees)
Burns Harbor, IN
Yes
Follansbee, WV
No (closing)
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Monessen, PA
Middletown, OH
Warren, OH
No
Yes
No
1,500
DTE Energy Company
River Rouge, MI
No
950
Drummond Company
ABC-Tarrant, AL
No
950
James C. Justice Companies Inc.
Bluestone-Birmingham, AL
No
950
East Chicago, IN
No
Franklin Furnace, OH
No
SunCoke Energy, Inc.
Granite City, IL
Middletown, OH
Vansant, VA
No
No
No
950
U.S. Steel
Clairton, PA
Yes
1,500
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Standards, Effective March 17, 2023. Available at:
https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Accessed March 21, 2024.
Classifying the James C. Justice Companies as a small entity is subject to uncertainty
since the classification is based upon modeled employment information from Dun &
Bradstreet/Hoover's online database. There is additional uncertainty in the estimates of revenue
and employment for this firm since it is a privately-held company. That said, Bluestone Coke is
currently idled and not projected to incur any cost under the final amendments. If the facility
were to resume operations, it would incur approximately $190,000 in annualized testing costs for
fenceline monitoring, MACT compliance testing, and R&R. As shown in Table 3-2, this is a
small percentage of the company's 2021 revenue as estimated by Dun & Bradstreet/Hoover's
online database. Further, as discussed in Section 3.2, Bluestone Coke is expected to require
capital investment far more than this testing cost in order to re-open the facility. Therefore, it is
not expected that the costs associated with the final amendments would have a substantial impact
on Bluestone Coke in the event that the facility were to re-open. Therefore, this final action will
not have a "Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities" (SISNOSE).
3-6
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-452/R-24-013
Environmental Protection Health and Environmental Impacts Division May 2024
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |