Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0138
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-10-08T04:00Z

NMA Meeting with EPA on August 17, 2009

Meeting Note to the Docket

Participant List

EPA:

Robert Wayland

Bill Maxwell

Mary Johnson

Sonja Rodman

Rebecca Kane

NMA:

Benjamin Brandes, Director of Air Quality, NMA

John Cline, attorney at law

Discussion Topics

On August 17, 2009, representatives from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency participated in a meeting at the request of
representatives of the National Mining Association (NMA).  NMA discussed
certain issues of concern regarding the Standards of Performance for
Coal Preparation and Processing Plants (40 CFR part 60 subpart Y), as
proposed in a May 27, 2009, supplemental action.  One issue raised by
NMA relates to the their request that EPA distinguish between the
regulatory requirements for coal preparation plants associated with coal
mines (i.e., the “producers”) and for coal preparation plants at
coal-fired power plants and large industrial sources such as cement
manufacturing and coke ovens (i.e., the “users”).  NMA supported
their request for subcategorization with the following points:

Best demonstrated technology (BDT) for coal preparation plants
associated with coal mines should not be dictated by the best available
control technology (BACT) levels of control that most new coal-fired
power plants as well as large industrial coal-fired sources are subject
to under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program

Because coal preparation plants associated with coal mines have a
greater number of affected facilities than coal preparation plants at
coal-fired power plants and large industrial sources, resource
requirements to maintain and demonstrate compliance could be inequitable
for coal preparation plants associated with coal mines

Coal preparation plants associated with coal mines are already subject
to dust control requirements under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA)

NMA expressed concern with the proposed requirement that a fugitive dust
emissions control plan be prepared and complied with.  They are
especially concerned with the requirement that the plan address “all
other” fugitive dust sources.  NMA has requested that each affected
facility to be addressed in the fugitive dust emissions control plan be
identified by EPA.

NMA questioned the ability of EPA Method 9 to accurately read low levels
of opacity such as those upon which the proposed opacity limits were
based.  NMA also indicated that they believe more emissions data is
necessary to establish standards and they would be interested in
discussing with EPA the design of a potential test program.