Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0150
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-10-08T04:00Z

Standards of Performance for 

Coal Preparation and Processing Plants

(40 CFR 60 subpart Y)

Response to Comments Received on

Proposed Amendments

(Published April 28, 2008; 73 FR 22901)

and

Supplemental Proposal

(Published May 27, 2009; 74 FR 25304)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

September 2009

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "2-5" \h \z \t "Heading 1,1"   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622224" 1.0
 INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc238622224 \h  1  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622225" 2.0  APRIL 28, 2008 SUBPART Y AMENDMENT
PROPOSAL	  PAGEREF _Toc238622225 \h  9  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622226" 2.1	Decision to Amend Subpart Y	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622226 \h  9  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622227" 2.1.1	Adequacy of Information Collected
for Rulemaking	  PAGEREF _Toc238622227 \h  9  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622228" 2.1.2	Adequacy of Best Demonstrated
Technology (BDT) Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc238622228 \h  9  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622229" 2.2	Subpart Y Applicability	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622229 \h  10  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622230" 2.2.1	Coal Preparation Plant Definition	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622230 \h  10  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622231" 2.2.2	Coal Preparation Plant Threshold
Throughput	  PAGEREF _Toc238622231 \h  11  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622232" 2.2.3	Subpart Y Amendments Applicability
Date	  PAGEREF _Toc238622232 \h  12  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622233" 2.3	Subpart Y Thermal Dryer Standards	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622233 \h  12  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622234" 2.3.1	Thermal Dryers Processing
Non-Bituminous Coals	  PAGEREF _Toc238622234 \h  12  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622235" 2.3.2	Thermal Dryer BDT Determination	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622235 \h  13  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622236" 2.3.2.1	Consideration of Alternative Coal
Drying Technologies as BDT	  PAGEREF _Toc238622236 \h  13  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622237" 2.3.2.2	Consideration of Add-on
Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions Control Technologies as BDT	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622237 \h  14  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622238" 2.3.4	Thermal Dryer PM Emissions Limits	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622238 \h  15  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622239" 2.3.4.1	Promulgation of PM Emission Limits
Based on Fabric Filters as BDT	  PAGEREF _Toc238622239 \h  15  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622240" 2.3.4.2	Establish Separate Emissions
Limits for PM2.5, PM10, and Condensible PM	  PAGEREF _Toc238622240 \h 
15  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622241" 2.3.4.3	Selection of Proposed Emission
Limit Value	  PAGEREF _Toc238622241 \h  16  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622242" 2.3.4.4	Continuous Achievability of
Proposed Emission Limit Value	  PAGEREF _Toc238622242 \h  17  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622243" 2.3.4.5	Modified and Reconstructed Sources
  PAGEREF _Toc238622243 \h  18  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622244" 2.3.5	Thermal Dryer Opacity Limit	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622244 \h  18  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622245" 2.3.6	Thermal Dryer SO2 and NOx Emissions
Limits	  PAGEREF _Toc238622245 \h  19  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622246" 2.3.7	Thermal Dryer Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) Emissions Limit	  PAGEREF _Toc238622246 \h  19  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622247" 2.3.8	Thermal Dryers with In-line Coal
Mills	  PAGEREF _Toc238622247 \h  19  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622248" 2.4	Subpart Y Coal Processing, Conveying,
Storage and Transfer System Standards	  PAGEREF _Toc238622248 \h  20  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622249" 2.4.1	Affected Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622249 \h  20  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622250" 2.4.1.1	Coal Processing and Conveying
Equipment	  PAGEREF _Toc238622250 \h  20  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622251" 2.4.1.2	Coal Unloading Activities	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622251 \h  21  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622252" 2.4.1.3	Coal Storage Piles	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622252 \h  22  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622253" 2.4.1.4	Plant Roads	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622253 \h  22  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622254" 2.4.1.5	Coal Hauling Trucks and Railcars	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622254 \h  23  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622255" 2.4.1.6	Coal Sampling Systems	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622255 \h  23  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622256" 2.4.1.7	Coal Mine Portable Screens	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622256 \h  23  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622257" 2.4.2	Subcategorization of Standards by
Coal Rank	  PAGEREF _Toc238622257 \h  24  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622258" 2.4.2.1	Relationship of Coal Rank to Coal
Dust Emissions Control	  PAGEREF _Toc238622258 \h  24  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622259" 2.4.2.2	Coal Rank Subcategorization
Inconsistent with Existing Policy	  PAGEREF _Toc238622259 \h  24  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622260" 2.4.2.4	Anthracite Coal	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622260 \h  25  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622261" 2.4.2.4	Blended Coals	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622261 \h  25  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622262" 2.4.2.5	Impact on Facility Fuel
Flexibility	  PAGEREF _Toc238622262 \h  26  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622263" 2.4.3	BDT Determination	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622263 \h  26  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622264" 2.4.3.1	Equivalency of Fabric Filter and
Chemical Suppression Control Systems	  PAGEREF _Toc238622264 \h  26  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622265" 2.4.3.2	Consideration of Alternative Coal
Dust Control Technologies as BDT	  PAGEREF _Toc238622265 \h  27  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622266" 2.4.4	Fabric Filters (Baghouses)	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622266 \h  28  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622267" 2.4.4.1	Fabric Filter Safety	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622267 \h  28  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622268" 2.4.4.2	Fabric Filter Performance	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622268 \h  28  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622269" 2.4.4.3	Fabric Filter Dust Disposal	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622269 \h  28  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622270" 2.4.5	Conveyor System Enclosures	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622270 \h  29  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622271" 2.4.5.1	Enclosure Fugitive Dust Emission
Points	  PAGEREF _Toc238622271 \h  29  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622272" 2.4.5.2	Enclosure Safety	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622272 \h  29  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622273" 2.4.6	PM Emission Limits	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622273 \h  29  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622274" 2.4.6.1	Applicability of PM Emission
Limits	  PAGEREF _Toc238622274 \h  29  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622275" 2.4.6.2	Fenceline Ambient Air Monitoring
of Coal Preparation Facilities	  PAGEREF _Toc238622275 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622276" 2.4.6.3	Condensible PM Emission Limits	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622276 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622277" 2.4.6.4     Selection of Proposed PM
Emission Limit Level	  PAGEREF _Toc238622277 \h  30  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622278" 2.4.7	Opacity Limits	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622278 \h  31  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622279" 2.4.7.1	Method 9 Accuracy and Limitations	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622279 \h  31  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622280" 2.4.7.2	Selection of Proposed Opacity
Limit Level	  PAGEREF _Toc238622280 \h  32  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622281" 2.4.7.3	Fabric Filters	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622281 \h  32  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622282" 2.4.7.4	Fugitive Emissions Sources	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622282 \h  32  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622283" 2.4.7.5	Coal Storage Silos	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622283 \h  33  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622284" 2.4.8	Work Practice Standards	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622284 \h  33  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622285" 2.4.8.1	Alternative to Opacity Standards	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622285 \h  33  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622286" 2.4.8.2	Coal Storage Piles	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622286 \h  34  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622287" 2.4.8.3	Coal Truck Dumps	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622287 \h  35  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622288" 2.4.9	Modified/Reconstructed Sources	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622288 \h  35  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622289" 2.4.9.1	Routine Equipment Maintenance and
Repair	  PAGEREF _Toc238622289 \h  35  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622290" 2.4.9.2	Modified Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622290 \h  35  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622291" 2.4.9.3	Reconstructed Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622291 \h  36  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622292" 2.4.10	Consistency with Relevant
Requirements in Nonmetallic Mineral Processing NSPS	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622292 \h  37  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622293" 2.5	Subpart Y Implementation Requirements	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622293 \h  38  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622294" 2.5.1	PM Emissions Performance Testing	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622294 \h  38  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622295" 2.5.1.1	Need for PM Performance Test	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622295 \h  38  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622296" 2.5.1.2	Performance Testing of Small
Fabric Filters	  PAGEREF _Toc238622296 \h  38  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622297" 2.5.1.3	PM Performance Test Interval	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622297 \h  38  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622298" 2.5.1.4	Use of Method 17 as Alternative PM
Test Method	  PAGEREF _Toc238622298 \h  39  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622299" 2.5.2	Visible Emissions Monitoring	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622299 \h  40  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622300" 2.5.2.1	Periodic Visible Emissions
Monitoring Frequency	  PAGEREF _Toc238622300 \h  40  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622301" 2.5.2.2	Visible Emissions Monitoring
Frequency for Fogging Systems and Passive Enclosure Containment System
(PECS)	  PAGEREF _Toc238622301 \h  40  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622302" 2.5.2.3	Method 22 Observation Period	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622302 \h  41  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622303" 2.5.2.4	Method 9 Performance Test Trigger	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622303 \h  41  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622304" 2.5.2.5	Wet Process Visible Emission
Monitoring Exemption	  PAGEREF _Toc238622304 \h  42  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622305" 2.5.2.6	Alternative Site-Specific Test
Method	  PAGEREF _Toc238622305 \h  42  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622306" 2.5.3	Bag Leak Detector System (BLDS)	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622306 \h  43  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622307" 2.5.3.1	BLDS Cost Impact	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622307 \h  43  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622308" 2.5.3.2	BLDS Operation under Adverse
Weather	  PAGEREF _Toc238622308 \h  43  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622309" 2.5.4	PM Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMS)	  PAGEREF _Toc238622309 \h  43  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622310" 2.5.5	Continuous Opacity Monitor System
(COMS)	  PAGEREF _Toc238622310 \h  44  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622311" 2.5.6	Recordkeeping	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622311 \h  45  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622312" 2.5.6.1	General	  PAGEREF _Toc238622312 \h
 45  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622313" 2.5.6.2	Fogging Systems	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622313 \h  45  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622314" 2.5.6.3	Dust Suppressant System
Non-operating Periods	  PAGEREF _Toc238622314 \h  46  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622315" 2.6	Analyses of Cost, Non-air, and Energy
Impacts	  PAGEREF _Toc238622315 \h  46  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622316" 2.6.1	Adequacy of Cost Analysis	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622316 \h  46  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622317" 2.6.2	Adequacy of Non-air Impacts and
Energy Requirement Analyses	  PAGEREF _Toc238622317 \h  47  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622318" 2.7	Relationship of Subpart Y with Other
Rules	  PAGEREF _Toc238622318 \h  47  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622319" 2.7.1	Part 70 Title V Permits	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622319 \h  47  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622320" 2.7.2	Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
Plants NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart OOO)	  PAGEREF _Toc238622320 \h  48  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622321" 2.7.3	Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Rules	  PAGEREF _Toc238622321 \h  49  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622322" 2.8	Proposed Regulatory Text
Clarifications	  PAGEREF _Toc238622322 \h  49  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622323" 3.0  May 27, 2009, Supplemental Subpart Y
Amendment Proposal	  PAGEREF _Toc238622323 \h  51  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622324" 3.1	Subpart Y Applicability	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622324 \h  51  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622325" 3.1.1	Regulated Pollutants	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622325 \h  51  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622326" 3.1.1.1	SO2, NOx or CO Endangerment
Finding	  PAGEREF _Toc238622326 \h  51  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622327" 3.1.1.2	Standards for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions	  PAGEREF _Toc238622327 \h  53  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622328" 3.1.2	Addition of Coal Refuse to
Definition of “Coal”	  PAGEREF _Toc238622328 \h  54  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622329" 3.1.3	Subpart Y Amendments Applicability
Dates	  PAGEREF _Toc238622329 \h  54  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622330" 3.1.4	Affected Facilities - General	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622330 \h  55  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622331" 3.1.5	Affected Facilities at Existing Coal
Preparation Plants	  PAGEREF _Toc238622331 \h  56  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622332" 3.2	Subpart Y Subcategorization	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622332 \h  56  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622333" 3.3	Subpart Y Coal Drying Standards	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622333 \h  59  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622334" 3.3.1	Affected Coal Dryers	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622334 \h  59  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622335" 3.3.1.1	Indirect Thermal Coal Dryers	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622335 \h  59  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622336" 3.3.1.2	Fluidized-bed Thermal Coal Dryers	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622336 \h  60  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622337" 3.3.1.3	New Coal Dryer Projections	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622337 \h  60  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622338" 3.3.2	Coal Drying BDT Determination	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622338 \h  60  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622339" 3.3.2.1	BDT Analysis for Coal Drying	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622339 \h  60  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622340" 3.3.2.2	BDT for Coal Drying	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622340 \h  64  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622341" 3.3.3	Coal Dryer Emission Limits Standards
Format	  PAGEREF _Toc238622341 \h  65  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622342" 3.3.4	Coal Dryer PM Emission Limits	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622342 \h  66  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622343" 3.3.4.1	Filterable PM (FPM) and
Condensable PM (CPM) Standards	  PAGEREF _Toc238622343 \h  66  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622344" 3.3.4.2	PM Control Technology Terminology	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622344 \h  67  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622345" 3.3.4.3	New Coal Dryer PM Emission Limit
“Margin of Compliance”	  PAGEREF _Toc238622345 \h  67  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622346" 3.3.4.4	Reconstructed Coal Dryer PM
Emission Limits	  PAGEREF _Toc238622346 \h  68  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622347" 3.3.4.5	Modified Coal Dryer PM Emission
Limits	  PAGEREF _Toc238622347 \h  69  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622348" 3.3.5	Coal Dryer SO2 Emission Limit	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622348 \h  69  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622349" 3.3.5.1	BDT Determination Cost Analysis	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622349 \h  69  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622350" 3.3.5.2	BDT Determination Control
Technology Options	  PAGEREF _Toc238622350 \h  70  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622351" 3.3.5.3	SO2 Emission Limit Levels	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622351 \h  71  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622352" 3.3.6	Coal Dryer Combined NOx /CO Emission
Limit	  PAGEREF _Toc238622352 \h  72  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622353" 3.3.7	Coal Dryer VOC Emissions Limit	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622353 \h  73  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622354" 3.3.8	Applicability to Coal Dryers at
Cement Manufacturing Plants	  PAGEREF _Toc238622354 \h  74  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622355" 3.3.9	Applicability to Coal Dryers at
Steel Manufacturing Plants	  PAGEREF _Toc238622355 \h  76  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622356" 3.4	Subpart Y Coal Processing, Conveying,
Storage and Transfer System Standards	  PAGEREF _Toc238622356 \h  77  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622357" 3.4.1	Affected Sources	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622357 \h  77  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622358" 3.4.1.1	Coal Unloading Activities -
Subpart Y Proposal Contrary to EPA Policy	  PAGEREF _Toc238622358 \h  77
 

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622361" 3.4.1.2	Coal Storage Piles	 79

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622362" 3.4.1.2.1	Authority to Regulate Coal
Storage Piles under Subpart Y	79 

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622363" 3.4.1.2.2	Site-specific Coal Pile Emission
Characteristics	  PAGEREF _Toc238622363 \h  80  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622364" 3.4.1.2.3	Inclusion of Open Storage Piles
in Definition of “Coal Storage System”	  PAGEREF _Toc238622364 \h 
81  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622365" 3.4.1.2.4	Coal Piles Loaded in Trucks,
Railcars, and Ships	  PAGEREF _Toc238622365 \h  82  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622366" 3.4.1.3	Coal Preparation Plant Roadways	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622366 \h  83  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622367" 3.4.1.4	Coal Sampling Systems	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622367 \h  85  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622368" 3.4.2	Relationship of Subpart Y
Requirements to Other Rules	  PAGEREF _Toc238622368 \h  85  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622369" 3.4.2.1	Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart OOO)	  PAGEREF _Toc238622369 \h  85  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622370" 3.4.2.2	Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA)	  PAGEREF _Toc238622370 \h  87  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622371" 3.4.3	BDT Determination	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622371 \h  87  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622372" 3.4.4	PM Emission Limits	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622372 \h  88  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622373" 3.4.4.1	Applicability of PM Emission
Limits	  PAGEREF _Toc238622373 \h  88  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622374" 3.4.4.2	Selection of Proposed PM Emission
Limit Level	  PAGEREF _Toc238622374 \h  88  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622375" 3.4.5	Opacity Standards	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622375 \h  88  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622376" 3.4.5.1	Opacity Standards for Open Storage
Piles and Roadways	  PAGEREF _Toc238622376 \h  88  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622377" 3.4.5.2	Proposed Opacity Limit Level	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622377 \h  90  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622378" 3.4.5.2.1	Insufficient Representative Data
  PAGEREF _Toc238622378 \h  90  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622379" 3.4.5.2.2	Continuous Achievability of
Opacity Limit	  PAGEREF _Toc238622379 \h  90  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622380" 3.4.5.2.3	Selection of Proposed Opacity
Limit Level	  PAGEREF _Toc238622380 \h  91  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622381" 3.4.5.2.4	Alternative to Opacity Limit	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622381 \h  93  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622382" 3.4.6	PM Emissions Controls and Work
Practice Standards	  PAGEREF _Toc238622382 \h  93  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622383" 3.4.6.1	Coal Conveyors	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622383 \h  93  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622384" 3.4.6.2	Coal Storage Piles	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622384 \h  94  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622385" 3.4.6.2.1	Work Practice Standards	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622385 \h  94  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622386" 3.4.6.2.2	Enclosure of Coal Storage Piles	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622386 \h  94  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622387" 3.4.6.3	Coal Preparation Plant Roadways	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622387 \h  95  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622388" 3.4.6.3.1	Coal Haul Road Exemption	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622388 \h  95  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622389" 3.4.6.3.2	Truck Washes	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622389 \h  96  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622390" 3.4.6.3.3	Weather-Related Exemptions	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622390 \h  96  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622391" 3.4.6.4	Coal Truck Dumps	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622391 \h  96  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622392" 3.4.6.5	Affected Facilities in Enclosed
Buildings	  PAGEREF _Toc238622392 \h  97  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622393" 3.4.6.6	Site-Specific Fugitive Emission
Control Plan	  PAGEREF _Toc238622393 \h  98  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622394" 3.4.6.6.1	Need for Plan in Subpart Y	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622394 \h  98  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622395" 3.4.6.6.2	Plan Requirements	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622395 \h  99  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622396" 3.4.6.6.3	Plan Implementation	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622396 \h  100  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622397" 3.4.6.6.4	Plan Submittal Date	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622397 \h  101  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622398" 3.4.7	Reconstructed and Modified Sources	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622398 \h  102  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622399" 3.4.7.1	Coal Storage Piles	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622399 \h  102  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622400" 3.4.7.2	Coal Preparation Plant Roadways	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622400 \h  102  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622401" 3.5	Subpart Y Testing and Monitoring
Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc238622401 \h  103  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622402" 3.5.1	PM Emissions Testing	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622402 \h  103  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622403" 3.5.1.1	PM Performance Test Frequency	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622403 \h  103  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622404" 3.5.1.2	Small Fabric Filters PM
Performance Test Exemption	  PAGEREF _Toc238622404 \h  104  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622405" 3.5.1.3	Performance Test Delay for
Non-operating Affected Sources	  PAGEREF _Toc238622405 \h  104  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622406" 3.5.1.4	Use of Method 17 as Alternative PM
Test Method	  PAGEREF _Toc238622406 \h  105  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622407" 3.5.1.5	Performance Testing of Multiple
Similar Affected Facilities	  PAGEREF _Toc238622407 \h  105  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622408" 3.5.2	Visible Emissions Testing	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622408 \h  107  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622409" 3.5.2.1	Need for Method 9 Performance
Tests	  PAGEREF _Toc238622409 \h  107  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622410" 3.5.2.2	Method 9 Accuracy and Limitations	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622410 \h  107  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622411" 3.5.2.3	Method 9 Observation Period	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622411 \h  108  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622412" 3.5.2.4	Method 9 Repeat Performance Test
Frequency	  PAGEREF _Toc238622412 \h  108  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622413" 3.5.2.5	Method 9 Application to Affected
Sources in Enclosures	  PAGEREF _Toc238622413 \h  111  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622414" 3.5.3	Periodic Visible Emissions
Compliance Monitoring	  PAGEREF _Toc238622414 \h  112  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622415" 3.5.3.1	Visible Emissions Monitoring
Procedure	  PAGEREF _Toc238622415 \h  112  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622416" 3.5.3.2	Coal Truck Dump Monitoring	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622416 \h  114  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622417" 3.5.4	CEMS	  PAGEREF _Toc238622417 \h  116
 

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622418" 3.5.5	COMS Alternative	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622418 \h  118  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622419" 3.5.6	Digital Opacity Compliance System
Alternative	  PAGEREF _Toc238622419 \h  119  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622420" 3.5.6.1	Digital Opacity Compliance System
in Subpart Y Rulemaking	  PAGEREF _Toc238622420 \h  119  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622421" 3.5.6.2	Digital Opacity Compliance System
Implementation	  PAGEREF _Toc238622421 \h  119  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622422" 3.5.7	Process and Control Device Operation
Monitoring	  PAGEREF _Toc238622422 \h  120  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622423" 3.5.7.1	Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Systems (BLDS)	  PAGEREF _Toc238622423 \h  120  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622424" 3.5.7.2	Wet Scrubber Operating Parameters	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622424 \h  121  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622425" 3.5.7.3	Coal Dryer Temperature Monitoring	
 PAGEREF _Toc238622425 \h  121  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622426" 3.5.8	Recordkeeping and Reporting	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622426 \h  121  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622427" 3.5.8.1	General	  PAGEREF _Toc238622427 \h
 121  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622428" 3.5.8.2	Electronic Compliance Data
Reporting to EPA Data Base	  PAGEREF _Toc238622428 \h  123  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622429" 3.6	Petroleum Coke	 125

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622430" 3.6.1	Applicability of Subpart Y to
Petroleum Coke Producers	  PAGEREF _Toc238622430 \h  125  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622431" 3.6.2	Applicability of Subpart Y to
Petroleum Coke Users	  PAGEREF _Toc238622431 \h  127  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622432" 3.6.3	Petroleum Coke Calciners are not
Coal Thermal Dryers	  PAGEREF _Toc238622432 \h  127  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622433" 3.6.4	Definition of Fugitive Emissions	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622433 \h  127  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622434" 3.7	Subpart Y Amendments Impact Analyses	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622434 \h  128  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622435" 3.7.1	Cost and Economic Analyses	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622435 \h  128  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622436" 3.7.2	Environmental Impacts of Chemical
Dust Suppressant Use	  PAGEREF _Toc238622436 \h  129  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622437" 3.7.3	Information Collection Request (ICR)
Burden Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc238622437 \h  130  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622438" 3.8	Regulatory Text Clarifications	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622438 \h  131  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622439" 3.8.1	Subpart Y Title	  PAGEREF
_Toc238622439 \h  131  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622440" 3.8.2	Use of Term “Coal Handling”	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622440 \h  131  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622441" 3.8.3	Subpart Y Rule Citation Errors	 
PAGEREF _Toc238622441 \h  132  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc238622442" 3.9	Other Comments	  PAGEREF _Toc238622442
\h  132  

 

List of Tables

  TOC \h \z \t "Title_Table,1"   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc237056728" 1-1	List
of Commenters on Amendments to 40 CFR 60 subpart Y Proposed April 28,
2008 (73 FR 22901)	  PAGEREF _Toc237056728 \h  2  

 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc237056729" 1-2	List of Commenters on Amendments to 40
CFR 60 subpart Y Proposed May 27, 2009 (74 FR 25304)	  PAGEREF
_Toc237056729 \h  6  

 



Acronyms and Abbreviations

BACT

Best Available Control Technology

BLDS

Bag Leak Detector System 

BDT

Best Demonstrated Technology

CAA

Clean Air Act

CAM

Compliance Assurance Monitoring

CEMS

Continuous emission monitoring system

CO

Carbon monoxide

COMS

Continuous opacity monitoring system

CPM

Condensable particulate matter

EPA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FPM

Filterable particulate matter

gr/dscf

grains per dry standard cubic foot

Mg

Mg/day  

ICR

Megagrams

Megagrams per day

Information Collection Request

MSDS

Material Safety Data Sheets

MSHA

Mine Safety and Health Administration

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NESHAPS

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFPA

National Fire Protection Association

NSPS

New Source Performance Standards

NOx

Nitrogen oxides

O&M

Operation and maintenance

OSHA 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PECS

Passive enclosure containment system

PM

PM2.5

PM10

Particulate matter 

PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 μ

PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 μ

PSD

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

scfm

Standard cubic feet per minute

SO2

SMCRA

Subpart OOO

Subpart Y

Sulfur dioxide

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

Nonmetallic mineral processing NSPS under 40 CFR 60 subpart OOO

Coal preparation and processing plants NSPS under 40 CFR 60 subpart Y

ton/day

tons per day

ton/yr

μ

tons per year

micrometers 

VOC

Volatile organic compounds

WDEQ

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

1.0  INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) proposed on
April 28, 2008 (see 73 FR 22901), amendments to the new source
performance standards (NSPS) for coal preparation and processing plants
in 40 CFR 60 subpart Y (hereafter referred to in this document as
“Subpart Y”).  Initially, a 45-day period ending June 12, 2008, was
provided for the public to submit comments to EPA regarding the proposed
Subpart Y amendments.  In response to a request from commenters, EPA
extended the public comment period an additional 30 days, and the
comment period ended July 12, 2008.

A total of 42 sets of comments were received by EPA regarding the April
28, 2008, proposed Subpart Y amendments.  Some of the comment sets were
signed or submitted on behalf of multiple commenters.  Also, in some
cases duplicate comment sets from the same commenter were submitted to
the EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket.  Table 1-1 lists the names of the
commenters, the commenters’ affiliations, and the Air and Radiation
Docket entry number for each of the comment sets submitted to EPA.  Some
commenters also submitted supplemental information and data to support
their comments.

After reviewing and considering the comments on the April 28, 2008,
proposed Subpart Y amendments, EPA decided to publish, and request
additional public comment on, a supplemental Subpart Y amendment
proposal.  This supplemental Subpart Y amendment proposal was published
on May 27, 2009 (see 74 FR 25304).  The supplemental Subpart Y amendment
proposal included: 1) revisions to the particulate matter (PM) emissions
and opacity limits originally proposed for thermal dryers, pneumatic
coal-cleaning equipment, and coal handling equipment (includes coal
processing, conveying, storage and transfer operations); 2) revisions
expanding the applicability of Subpart Y thermal dryer standards to both
direct contact and indirect contact thermal dryers drying all coal
ranks; 3) revisions expanding the applicability of Subpart Y pneumatic
coal-cleaning equipment standards to cleaning of all coal ranks; 4) a
new sulfur dioxide (SO2) and a new combined nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions limit for thermal dryers; 5) revisions to
the definition of “coal” to include petroleum coke and coal refuse;
6) addition of new work practice standards to control coal dust
emissions from open storage piles and roadways within with coal
preparation and processing plants, and 7) revisions to the monitoring
requirements.

A total of 44 sets of comments were received by EPA regarding the May
27, 2009, supplemental Subpart Y amendment proposal.  Table 1-2 lists
the names of the commenters, the commenters’ affiliations, and the EPA
Office of Air and Radiation Docket entry number for each of the comment
sets submitted to EPA regarding the supplemental Subpart Y amendment
proposal.

This document presents EPA’s response to each substantive comment
received by EPA on the proposed amendments to Subpart Y.  The comment
summaries are grouped by topic in two sections.  Section 2 presents
responses to the comments received by EPA on the original April 28,
2008, Subpart Y amendment proposal notice.  Section 3 presents responses
to the comments received by EPA on the May 27, 2009, supplemental
Subpart Y amendment proposal notice.

Table 1-1. List of Commenters on Amendments to 40 CFR 60 subpart Y
Proposed April 28, 2008 (73 FR 22901)

Docket No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260	Date Received	Commenter Name and Affiliation

012 (see note a) 	May 15, 2008	Erin Chalmers

Associate Attorney

Sierra Club

Timothy Ballo

Associate Attorney

Earthjustice

Joe Lovett

Attorney

Appalachian Center for Law and the Environment

Cindy Rank

Mining Committee Chair

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy

Bill McCabe

Environmental Justice Organizer

Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards

Vivian Stockman

Project Coordinator

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Mary Anne Hitt

Executive Director

Appalachian Voices

013	May 20, 2008	Terry L. O’Clair, P.E.

Director

North Dakota Department of Health

Division of Air Quality

014 (see note b)	May 19, 2008	Quilla Earth Miralia, Esq.

Executive Director

Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, Inc.

015 (see note c)	May 23, 2008	Anonymous Public Comment

016	June 2, 2008	Jeffrey Lieberman

Private citizen

018	June 12, 2008	Anna M. Schorr

Environmental Engineer

Corporate Office, Nucor Corporation

019	June 10, 2008	Tim W. Warden

President/CEO

Engart Dust Extraction Technology

A Division of Englo Incorporated

021	July 9, 2008	Sandi Tabor

General Counsel

Lignite Energy Council

022	July 11, 2008	Robert D. Bessette

President

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)

023 (see note b)	July 15, 2008	Anonymous Public Comment

024	July 14, 2008	Ronald W. Pircon

President and CEO

Benetech, Inc

025, 042 (see note d)	July 14, 2008	Stuart Sanderson

President

The Colorado Mining Association

026	July 14, 2008	Benjamin L. Brandes

Director of Air Quality

National Mining Association

027, 066 (see note d)	July 14, 2008	Christopher M. Hobson

Senior Vice President

Southern Company

028, 033	July 15, 2008	Linda Hilbert

Consumers Energy Company

029, 054, 067 (see note d)	July 14, 2008	Craig Eckberg

NRG Energy Inc.

030	July 14, 2008	Frank W. Rambo and Megan H. Berge

Baker Botts, LLP

on behalf of Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group

031	July 11, 2008	Joseph D. Friedlander

Environmental Manager

The North American Coal Corporation

032, 065 (see note d)	July 10, 2008	Beth Goodnough

Director of Regulatory Affairs

Western Fuels-Wyoming, Inc.

034	July 14, 2008	Shawn Glacken

Senior Vice President, Environmental Services

Luminant Power (formerly TXU Power)

035, 059 (see note d)	July 14, 2008	F. William Brownell, Craig. S.
Harrison, and Lauren E. Freeman

Hunton & Williams LLP

on behalf of Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)

036	July 1, 2008	Beth Goodnough

Director of Regulatory Affairs

Western Fuels-Wyoming, Inc.

on behalf of Dry Fork Mine

037	July 10, 2008	David A. Finley

Administrator

State of Wyoming, Air Quality Division

038	July 11, 2008	Dean Metcalf

Director

Xcel Energy

039	July 11, 2008	William L. Boger

Environmental Manager

Foundation Coal West, Inc

040	July 14, 2008	Stephen F. Smith

Executive Director

Texas Mining and Reclamation Association

041	July 14, 2008	G. William Kalb

TraDet, Inc

043	July 15, 2008	Glen Warrington

President

Dust Solutions

044	July 14, 2008	Larry Volmer

Holland and Hart, LLP

on behalf of Newmont Mining Corporation and Newmont USA Limited

045	July 14, 2008	Andrew T. O’Hare

VP Regulatory Affairs

Portland Cement Association (PCA)

046	July 11, 2008	Gina Rau

Environmental Manager

Headwaters, Inc

047	July 14, 2008	Abbie S. Krebsbach,

Environmental Manager

Montana Dakota Utilities Co

048	July 14, 2008	Danny C. Cox

Director Engineering and Permitting

ICG, LLC

049	July 14, 2008	James C. Ashby

Manager, Environmental Affairs

Mettiki Coal, LLC

050	July 14, 2008	Ben Brandes

Director of Air Quality

National Mining Association

051	July 14, 2008	John R. Cline

Troutman Sanders LLP

on behalf of Peabody Energy Company

052	July 14, 2008	Ursula Kramer, Co-Chair (Tuscon, AZ)

Bob Hodanbosi, Co-Chair (Ohio)

National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)

053	July 14, 2008	Alice Edwards

Acting Directory, Air Quality Division

State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

055	July 14, 2008	William Scott

Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris, and Sisk, PA

On behalf San Juan Coal Company and BHP Navajo Coal Company

056, 068 (see note d)	July 14, 2008	Erin Chalmers

Associate Attorney

Sierra Club

Timothy Ballo

Associate Attorney

Earthjustice

Joe Lovett

Attorney

Appalachian Center for Law and the Environment

Cindy Rank

Mining Committee Chair

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy

Bill McCabe

Environmental Justice Organizer

Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards

Vivian Stockman

Project Coordinator

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Mary Anne Hitt

Executive Director

Appalachian Voices

057	July 14, 2008	Mark G. Premo

Vice President

Chevron Mining Inc

058, 062 (see note d)	July 14, 2008	Monica Williams

Environmental Engineer

Thunder Basin Coal Company

060	July 14, 2008	Pamela F. Faggert,

Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

061	July 18, 2008	James A. (Jim) Murray

Private citizen

063	July 8, 2008	Christopher F. Blazek

Vice President Marketing

Benetech, Inc.

064 (see note e)	June 23, 2008 	Joe Murphy

Private citizen

069	July 22, 2008	Marion Loomis

Executive Director

Wyoming Mining Association

Notes:

a. Request for extension of public comment period.

b. Comment is not relevant to the proposed Subpart Y amendments.

c. Comment is incomplete

d. Duplicate copies of same comments entered in docket.

e. Comment was incorrectly posted to the wrong docket and is not
relevant to the proposed Subpart Y amendments.

Table 1-2. List of Commenters on Amendments to 40 CFR 60 subpart Y
Proposed May 27, 2009 (74 FR 25304)

Docket No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260	Date Received	Commenter Name and Affiliation

082	May 28, 2009	K. Mathews

Private Citizen

084	June 26, 2009	Benjamin L. Brandes

Director, Air Quality

National Mining Association

085	July 10, 2009	James C. Ashby

Manager, Environmental Affairs

Mettiki Coal, LLC

086	July 13, 2009	Dennis R. Vaughn

Air Quality Specialist 

San Juan Coal Company

Paul Nazaryk

Environmental Affairs Coordinator

BHP Navajo Coal Company

087	July 13, 2009	Christopher M. Hobson

Senior Vice President Research and Environmental Affairs

Southern Company

088	July 13, 2009	Phillip M. Gonet

President

Illinois Coal Association

089	July 13, 2009	Robert D. Bessette

President

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)

090	July 13, 2009	David Friedman

Director  Environmental Affairs

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA)

091	July 13, 2009	Debra J. Jezouit and Megan H. Berge

Baker Botts, LLP

on behalf of Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group

092	July 13, 2009	Tim Rust

Private Citizen

093	July 13, 2009	Andrew T. O’Hare

Vice President of Regulatory Affairs

Portland Cement Association (PCA)

094	July 13, 2009	Terry L. Steinert

Environmental Compliance Manager

Koch Carbon, LLC

095	July 13, 2009	Benjamin L. Brandes

Director, Air Quality

National Mining Association

096, 097 (Attachment), 125 (Attachment)	July 13, 2009	Peter Morgan

Sierra Club and Earthjustice

on behalf of Sierra Club, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards,
Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, Ohio Valley
Environmental Coalition, and Appalachian Voices

098	July 13, 2009	Steve McMillen

Baker Botts LLP

on behalf of Oxbow Calcining LLC, Oxbow Midwest Calcining LLC, and Oxbow
Carbon and Minerals LLC

099, 132 (see note a)	July 13, 2009	F. William Brownell, Craig S.
Harrison, and Lauren E. Freeman

Hunton and Williams LLP

on behalf of Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)

100, 101 (Attachment), 102 (Attachment), 128 (see note a)	July 13, 2009
Vera Pardee

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

103	July 13, 2009	Lawrence W. Kavanagh

Vice President

Environment and Technology

American Iron and Steel Institute

Bruce A. Steiner

President

American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute

104	July 13, 2009	Christopher G. Swanberg

Vice President

Environmental, Health, and Safety

CVR Energy, Incorporated

105	July 13, 2009	Matthew Todd

American Petroleum Institute (API)

106	July 13, 2009	Curtis D. Lesslie

Director of Environmental Affairs

Ash Grove Cement Company

107	July 13, 2009	Stuart Sanderson

President

The Colorado Mining Association

108	July 13, 2009	Beth Goodnough

Director Regulatory Affairs

Western Fuels—Wyoming, Incorporated

109	July 13, 2009	Pamela F. Faggert

Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer

Dominion Resources Services, Incorporated

110	July 13, 2009	Debra Nelson

Environmental Engineer

Great River Energy

111	July 13, 2009	Kathleen C. Antoine

Environmental Director

HOVENSA LLC

112	July 13, 2009	Bill K. Caylor

President

Kentucky Coal Association

113	July 13, 2009	Jeremy Nichols

Director, Climate and Energy Program

WildEarth Guardians

114	July 13, 2009	Richard Rosvold

Manager, Air Quality Environmental Services Department

Xcel Energy Services, Inc.

115	July 13, 2009	George Ellis

President

Pennsylvania Coal Association (PCA)

116	July 13, 2009	Donald McCloskey

Director, Environmental Strategy and Policy 

PSEG Services Corporation

on behalf of PSEG Fossil LLC (PSEG Fossil)

117	July 13, 2009	Jessica A. Hall 

Crowell and Moring LLP

on behalf of Peabody Energy Company

118	July 13, 2009	Charles Bennett

Environmental Support 

Marathon Petroleum Company LLC (Marathon)

119	July 13, 2009	Michael G. Cashin

Senior Environmental Policy Advisor 

Minnesota Power (MP) (Allete)

120	July 13, 2009	Farley R. Wood

Director, Environmental Compliance

Murray Energy Corporation

121	July 13, 2009	James A. Kiger

Environmental Manager 

Oxbow Mining, LLC

122	July 13, 2009	Wendy S. Hutchinson

Regulatory Affairs Manager 

Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC)

123	July 13, 2009	Craig S. Campbell

Vice President, Environment and Government Affairs

Lafarge North America Inc. (Lafarge)

124	July 13, 2009	Marion Loomis

Executive Director 

Wyoming Mining Association (WMA)

126	July 13, 2009	David A. Finley

Administrator, Air Quality Division 

Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ)

127	July 13, 2009	Stephen L. Rowland

Chief Operating Officer 

Rain CII Carbon LLC

129 (see note b)	July 24, 2009	F. William Brownell, Craig S. Harrison,
and Lauren E. Freeman

Hunton and Williams LLP

on behalf of Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)

130	July 13, 2009	Roel A. Muñoz

Environmental Superintendent – Air Programs

Houston Refining LP

131b	August 5, 2009	Sherry L. Fisher

Environmental Policy Advisor

Hunton and Williams LLP

Notes:

a. Duplicate copies of same comment entered in the docket.

b. Comment received after comment period ended on July 13, 2009.

2.0  APRIL 28, 2008   SUBPART Y AMENDMENT PROPOSAL 

2.1	Decision to Amend Subpart Y

2.1.1	Adequacy of Information Collected for Rulemaking

Comment:  One commenter (019) stated that EPA should reconsider amending
Subpart Y until EPA has a more detailed understanding of the newer
technologies that are currently available to control emissions from coal
preparation plants.  EPA should look forward to the newer innovative
technologies and strive to improve the position of the United States
(U.S.) in its environmental awareness and control techniques to further
reduce the airborne coal dust emissions.  The commenter described
enclosures vented to fabric filters as an “old and outdated
technology” and indicated that basing standards on the use of this
technology is not in the best interest of the citizens of the U.S.,
especially where the environment is concerned.

Response:  Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that
the Administrator shall, at least every 8 years, review and, if
appropriate, revise the NSPS promulgated for a given source category
following the procedures required under section 111.  To meet this
legislative directive, EPA reviewed the existing NSPS for coal
preparation and processing plants in 40 CFR 60 subpart Y, determined
that amendments to the rule were appropriate, and published a proposal
notice on April 28, 2008 (see 73 FR 22901).  In response to comments on
that original proposal of Subpart Y amendments, EPA obtained additional
information about coal dryer emission control devices and demonstrated
control technologies used for reducing fugitive coal dust emissions from
various coal-handling operations.  This information included more
information about the performance and safety of using enclosures vented
to fabric filters to control fugitive coal dust emissions, and
information about newer control technology applications to coal
preparation and processing plants such as fogging systems and passive
enclosure containment systems (PECS).  Based on this additional
information, on May 27, 2009, EPA published a supplemental proposal
notice (see 74 FR 25305 and Section 3 of this document) and solicited
public comment on revised amendments to Subpart Y.  Because more than 8
years have passed since EPA last reviewed the Subpart Y standards, there
is no justification for delaying this review of Subpart Y or the
revisions to Subpart Y that this review has demonstrated are
appropriate.

2.1.2	Adequacy of Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT) Analysis

Comment:  Five comments were received (026, 032, 040, 042, and 044)
stating reasons the commenters believe that EPA’s determination of BDT
used to develop the proposed Subpart Y amendments was inadequate. 
First, EPA’s process for determining BDT, as required by CAA section
111, was an abbreviated analysis that failed to follow the fundamental
statutory requirements for making such determinations.  To compensate
for limited emissions test data and related information specific to coal
preparation facilities, EPA assumed, without the requisite
demonstration, that its alternative data and information were
representative of the coal preparation industry throughout the nation. 
EPA proposed standards of performance without the substantive support
necessary to justify those limitations and whether such limitations
could be achieved at affected facilities on a consistent basis.  Given
the analytical flaws and data deficiencies which characterize this
rulemaking, before finalizing any amendments to Subpart Y EPA must: (1)
consider all “adequately demonstrated technologies” and their
respective levels of “achievable” emissions; (2) determine those
“achievable” levels with emissions information that is demonstrated
to be “representative” throughout the coal preparation industry; and
(3) determine BDT with due consideration of the statutory factors. 
Commenters stated that a standard of performance is not the maximum
degree of emission reduction technologically achievable.

Response:  EPA published a supplemental proposal on May 27, 2009, which
differs in several respects from the April 28, 2008, proposal addressed
by this comment.  Among other things, the supplemental proposal includes
a revised BDT analysis for coal processing, conveying, storage and
transfer systems.  It also differs from the original proposal in that it
did not propose to require that owners and operators of affected
facilities use a specific control technology (e.g., an enclosure vented
to a fabric filter or a chemical suppressant) to reduce fugitive
emissions from processing, conveying, storage and transfer systems (see
74 FR 25305).  Comments on the supplemental proposal are addressed in
Section 3 of this document.  The amendments to Subpart Y proposed in the
supplemental proposal are based on a proposed determination that any of
four technologies, including fogging systems and PECS, are adequately
demonstrated technologies that may constitute BDT for coal processing,
conveying, and storage and transfer systems.  The degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of each of these control
technologies was determined using test data and other information
specific to use of the control technologies at existing coal preparation
and processing plants.  The process used by EPA to identify BDT is
explained in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal.  This process and
the resulting determinations are consistent with the statutory
requirements of CAA section 111.

2.2	Subpart Y Applicability

2.2.1	Coal Preparation Plant Definition

Comment:  One commenter (016) requested that EPA consider amending the
definition of “coal preparation plant” to clarify EPA’s intention
to apply Subpart Y to coal preparation plants located at any type of
industrial site that meet the applicability criteria specified in the
rule (definition of coal preparation plant, construction/modification
date, and throughput threshold).  The commenter suggested using the
following definition, “Coal preparation plant means any facility
(excluding underground mining operations) which prepares coal by one or
more of the following processes: breaking, crushing, screening, wet or
dry cleaning, and thermal drying including, but not limited to,
facilities found at the following locations: at aboveground coal mining
operations, at coal processing operations and at end users of coal at
industrial sites” (Revision to existing definition suggested by
commenter shown in italics). 

Response:  Entities potentially subject to Subpart Y include aboveground
coal breaking, crushing, screening, wet or dry cleaning, and thermal
drying at coal mine sites as well as industrial sites at which any of
these coal processes are conducted.  Applicability of Subpart Y to these
entities depends on the process coal throughput and the date of process
construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA reviewed the existing
Subpart Y definition for the term “coal preparation plant” and
decided to revise the title of the term to be “coal preparation and
processing plant,” but not to change the definition of the term.  The
existing Subpart Y definition has been properly interpreted to apply the
rule to both the mine and industrial sites intended by EPA to be subject
to the rule.  As explained in the response to comment 3.8.1, the
affected facilities covered by subpart Y since its 1976 promulgation
have included both preparation and processing units, and the proposed
title change was for clarification purposes (i.e., to more accurately
reflect the affected facilities subject to subpart Y).  The final action
promulgates the proposed title change “Standards of Performance for
Coal Preparation and Processing Plants.”

2.2.2	Coal Preparation Plant Threshold Throughput 

Comment:  One commenter (052) supports lowering the applicability of the
rule to facilities that process 100 or more tons per day (ton/day), the
approximate amount of coal that is transported by one rail car.  The
commenter stated that the documents in the docket for this rulemaking
indicate that EPA’s draft proposal initially had requested comment on
a lowered applicability threshold, but that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) requested that it be deleted.  The commenter believes that
100 ton/day is a significant quantity of coal and that there is no
reason that such an amount should not be subject to regulation under the
rule for the benefit of public health and the environment.

Response:  As with all regulations developed by the Agency, the April
2008 proposed rulemaking was subject to OMB review as part of the
statutory process.  At that time, EPA decided to maintain the
applicability threshold at 181 Mg/day (200 ton/day).  This applicability
threshold was established in the final rule (41 FR 2232; January 15,
1976).  In the supporting documentation, EPA explained that this
threshold effectuated EPA’s intent to control coal preparation sources
that are significant with respect to emissions (and, thus, comply with
the CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) mandate that the categories of sources for
which standards were to be developed were to be those which “…cause,
or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”).   EPA does not
have any information that facilities of the size noted by the commenter
(i.e., 100 ton/day) would utilize the equipment necessary to classify
them as “coal preparation and processing plants” (e.g., coal
breaking, crushing, screening, wet or dry cleaning, and thermal drying),
and, thus, is not changing the applicability threshold at this time. 
However, EPA will continue to assess the issue.

Comment:  One commenter (016) requested that EPA clarify whether the
throughput threshold of 181 Mg (200 tons) per day used to determine
applicability of a coal preparation plant to Subpart Y is a potential
maximum daily processing capacity, an average daily processing capacity
or some other equivalent definable term.

Response:  The Subpart Y applicability throughput threshold of 181 Mg
(200 tons) of coal processed per day is determined based on the rated
processing capacity of plant machinery used to break, crush, screen,
clean, or dry coal.  The equipment coal processing rating is to be
calculated assuming that the machinery is operated 24 hours per day.  An
owner or operator of a coal preparation and processing plant is subject
to Subpart Y if any one piece of equipment processing coal at the
facility site has the capacity to break, crush, screen, clean, or dry
coal at a rate greater than 181 Mg (200 tons) per day assuming 24
hours-per-day operation.

2.2.3	Subpart Y Amendments Applicability Date

Comment:  One commenter (039) stated that EPA should consider changing
the “effective date” of a rulemaking to the date of promulgation of
the final rule.  Retroactively applying the new rule to facilities that
began construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date the
rule was proposed jeopardizes and stymies any work that was in progress
at the time of the proposed ruling as well as work planned in the near
future.

Response:  The intent of the comment applies to the “applicability
date” for the Subpart Y amendments rather than the “effective
date.”  The “applicability date” is the date used to determine
which new, reconstructed, or modified sources in a given source category
are subject to the NSPS for that source category, and is established by
a statutory directive in CAA section 111(a)(2) that EPA does not have
authority to alter.  The definition of “new source” in CAA section
111(a)(2) requires that an NSPS apply to all sources constructed or
modified after the publication of proposed regulations.  Only affected
facilities that are constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April
28, 2008, or May 27, 2009, (the date varies depending on which proposal
addressed/revised a specific rule requirement) are subject to the new
requirements added to Subpart Y.  These dates reflect the dates that the
proposal and supplemental proposal were published in the Federal
Register (see 73 FR 22901 and 74 FR 25304).  The “effective date” is
the date used to establish the calendar dates by which the owner or
operator of an affected facility must comply with specific rule
requirements.  The effective date will be established by the date that
the final Subpart Y amendments are published in the Federal Register,
this date is not retroactive.

2.3	Subpart Y Thermal Dryer Standards

2.3.1	Thermal Dryers Processing Non-Bituminous Coals

Comment:  Two commenters (041 and 056) requested that EPA revise the
existing Subpart Y definition of “thermal dryer” used to determine
the affected sources subject to the rule’s control requirements. 
Commenter 056 requested that EPA expand the existing definition of
“thermal dryer” to include equipment that processes non-bituminous
coal.  The commenter stated that there are existing thermal dryers
processing non-bituminous coals and that new thermal dryers processing
these coals may be built in the future.  The commenter cited several
examples of existing applications using thermal dryers to process
low-rank coals.  Commenter 041 presented background information on the
types and application of thermal dryers used for coal preparation in the
U.S.  The commenter requested that EPA specifically define the types of
thermal dryers subject to Subpart Y control requirements.

Response:  The existing Subpart Y definition of “thermal dryer”
limits the applicability of the rule’s control requirements to those
thermal dryers processing bituminous coals.  The proposed amendments to
Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice
proposed to revise the definition of “thermal dryer” to expand the
applicability of the Subpart Y control requirements to direct contact
and indirect thermal dryers drying all coal ranks constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009 (see 74 FR 25308-25309 and
Section 3 of this document).  For thermal dryers that were constructed,
reconstructed, or modified on or before May 27, 2009, the existing
Subpart Y definition for “thermal dryer” would still apply.

2.3.2	Thermal Dryer BDT Determination

2.3.2.1	Consideration of Alternative Coal Drying Technologies as BDT

Comment:  Two comments (035 and 056) were received regarding use of
alternative coal drying processes as related to EPA’s BDT
determination for coal dryers.  Commenter 056 stated that EPA provided
no factual or legal justification for including standards based on
emissions from direct thermal dryers when alternative indirect thermal
dryers produce lower emissions and are more cost-effective.  The
proposed performance standards based on existing controls for direct
thermal dryers do not reflect BDT.  The determination of BDT for thermal
dryers needs to include processes or technologies which are inherently
lower polluting.  Direct thermal dryers are an outdated method for
lowering the moisture content of coal because the process is expensive
and energy intensive, and a significant proportion of thermally-dried
fines can be lost as wind-borne dust.  Direct thermal drying is
typically now only used to reduce the cost of transport of moisture over
long distances and to avoid handling problems associated with excessive
moisture which will freeze in cold climates.  Indirect thermal dryers
use waste heat from other processes and have lower emissions than direct
thermal dryers.  Also, new coal preparation plants can use
centrifugal-type mechanical dryers which require no combustion-generated
heat and are less expensive than thermal dryers.  Additional options for
dewatering fine coal portions and tailings include the addition of
thickeners, flocculants, coagulants, and other chemical additives, along
with the use of press, vacuum, and other filters.  Commenter 035 stated
that thermal dryer designs are being considered in at least one pending
power plant permit application where waste heat from the process could
be used to partially dry the lignite before combustion, increasing
efficiency and slightly reducing CO2 emissions.  Thermal dryers may be
used at other locations in the future for low-rank coal applications.

Response:  As described in greater detail in the response to comments in
Section 3, EPA did consider alternative technologies in its BDT analysis
for the 2009 supplemental proposal, recognizing for example that either
recirculation or indirect thermal dryers may be available for use at new
facilities.  Further, in support of the final rule, EPA concluded that
recirculation or indirect thermal dryers also may be available for use
at reconstructed facilities.  Although alternative coal drying
technologies such as those noted by the commenters may inherently
produce lower air pollutant emissions compared to direct contact
once-through thermal drying, these alternative technologies to using a
direct contact once-through thermal dryer may not be technically
applicable, cost-effective, or the most energy efficient for all
possible coal drying applications that could be subject to Subpart Y. 
The type of coal drying technology used at a given facility is
influenced by a variety of factors, including type of facility, coal
moisture reduction requirements, availability of waste heat sources at
the coal processing location, and drying process energy requirements
including electrical power consumption.  There are two basic types of
moisture in coal, free and inherent.  Mechanical drying techniques
(centrifuge, vacuum, compression, etc.) and chemical additives can
remove free moisture adsorbed onto the surface of the coal particles and
a portion of the hydroscopic moisture contained by capillary action
within microfractures in the coal particles, but are ineffective at
removing inherent moisture (and, thus, would only be applicable at
preparation plants utilizing coal washing).  Some type of thermal energy
is required to remove the interstitial and molecular (inherent) moisture
from the coal for applications where extremely low moisture content is
desirable.  Therefore, mechanical drying techniques are not suitable
replacements for thermal dryers under all circumstances, and because
waste heat is not available at all locations, thermal dryers using waste
heat are not a technically possible substitute for thermal dryers in all
situations.

2.3.2.2	Consideration of Add-on Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions
Control Technologies as BDT

Comment:  Three comments (035, 041, and 045) were received regarding
EPA’s determination that fabric filters are BDT for coal dryers. 
Commenter 035 stated that fabric filters are BDT for a thermal dryer
used at a coal-fired power plant.  Centrifugal collectors (cyclones) and
venturi scrubbers consume an “extraordinary” amount of auxiliary
power and would probably not be installed at a coal-fired power plant. 
Commenter 041 stated that fabric filters are not practical controls for
use on fluidized-bed thermal coal dryers processing eastern U.S. coals
because of operational and safety considerations.  Depending on the
specific thermal dryer operation, the fabric filter could be subject to
plugging due to dew point considerations.  The most significant issue is
that the high 17 to 18 percent oxygen content in the dryer exhaust gas
combined with the ultra-fine coal makes the fabric filters subject to
fires.  Commenter 045 stated that fabric filters do not constitute BDT
for thermal dryers at bituminous coal processing plants.  Emissions from
bituminous coal thermal dryers are sufficiently different from dryers
used at mineral production facilities and EPA cannot simply assume that
the technology is applicable to coal processing plants.

Response:  Coal-fired direct contact once-through thermal dryers
represent the majority of existing thermal dryers used at coal
preparation and processing plants, and most of those dryers use wet
scrubbers to control PM emissions.  However, no such new dryers have
been built in the last decade.  Possible replacement technologies for
direct contact once-through thermal dryers include indirect thermal
dryers and recirculation thermal dryers.  In addition, in some
circumstances, mechanical dryers may be used (however, as explained
above these are not suitable for all applications).  Because these
replacement technologies are available and because no new direct contact
once-thermal dryers have been built in recent years, EPA’s BDT
analysis for the 2009 supplemental proposal concluded that the control
technology and emissions rates from the best-performing existing
coal-fired thermal dryers do not necessarily represent BDT for a new
thermal dryer.  EPA believes that new thermal dryers could be designed
as either a coal-fired recirculation thermal dryer or an indirect
thermal dryer.  EPA concluded that the best adequately demonstrated
technology for controlling PM emissions from these types of dryers is a
fabric filter.  The Amax Coal Company’s Belle Ayr subbituminous coal
mine in Wyoming uses a recirculation thermal dryer equipped with a
fabric filter.  One indirect thermal dryer recently installed to dry
lignite at the Great River Energy Coal Creek Power Plant in North Dakota
uses a fabric filter.  The application of fabric filters to control PM
emissions at these facilities demonstrates that fabric filters can
safely be used for controlling PM emissions from the types of new
thermal dryers most likely to be built for coal processing at facilities
in the U.S.  For these and other reasons explained in the proposal and
supplemental proposal, EPA determined that BDT for new coal thermal
dryers is a coal-fired recirculation thermal dryer with a fabric filter
or an indirect thermal dryer with a fabric filter.

It is important to note that although EPA determined that coal-fired
recirculation thermal dryers with fabric filters or indirect thermal
dryers with fabric filters are BDT for new thermal dryers, the proposed
amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009, supplemental
proposal notice (see 74 FR 25309 and Section 3 of this document) do not
require the use of a particular control technology.  EPA’s analysis
concluded that a new thermal coal dryer could use a once-through dryer
design and achieve the proposed PM emission limit using a high-energy
wet scrubber to control PM emissions.  High-energy wet scrubbers can be
designed and operated to control PM emissions from thermal dryers to
equivalent levels achieved by fabric filters.  Thus, the PM standards
for new thermal dryers established based on the determination that
coal-fired recirculation thermal dryers with fabric filters or indirect
thermal dryers with fabric filters are BDT, would not prohibit a new
coal preparation plant from choosing to build a new direct contact
once-through thermal dryer.  In the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal
notice, EPA determined that PM limits for modified and reconstructed
thermal dryers should be based on direct contact once-through thermal
dryers with high-energy wet scrubbers.  However, as explained in EPA’s
response to the previous comment and to comment 3.3.4.4, EPA has since
determined that thermal dryers undergoing reconstruction could undergo
the conversions necessary to meet the emission limits based on BDT for
PM emissions for new thermal dryers and, thus, meet the PM and opacity
limits of new facilities.  The final rule reflects this decision.

2.3.4	Thermal Dryer PM Emissions Limits

2.3.4.1	Promulgation of PM Emission Limits Based on Fabric Filters as
BDT

Comment:  Two commenters (039 and 045) stated that EPA’s suggestion in
the preamble for the proposed Subpart Y amendments that the Agency could
directly promulgate emission standards for thermal dryers based on using
fabric filters as BDT without formal re-proposal to allow for additional
public comment is inconsistent with the CAA and with judicial
interpretations of EPA rulemaking authority under CAA section 111, such
as Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus.

Response:  Proposed amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice included a PM emissions limit for new
thermal dryers (i.e., those constructed after April 28, 2008) based on a
determination that BDT is a fabric filter-controlled coal-fired
recirculation thermal dryer or a fabric filter-controlled indirect
thermal dryer.  In that supplemental proposal, EPA also determined that
PM limits for modified and reconstructed thermal dryers should be based
on direct contact once-through thermal dryers with high-energy wet
scrubbers.  Thus, through the supplemental proposal, EPA did allow for
additional public comment consistent with the CAA (see 74 FR 25309 and
Section 3 of this document).

2.3.4.2	Establish Separate Emissions Limits for PM2.5, PM10, and
Condensible PM 

Comment:  Two commenters (052 and 056) disagreed with EPA’s decision
not to establish separate PM emission limits for condensible PM, PM2.5,
or PM10 emissions from thermal dryers.  Commenter 056 stated that PM
from thermal dryers includes products of combustion.  Combustion gases
contain significant proportions of fine PM, including PM10, PM2.5, and
condensible PM.  EPA has recognized that these are individual pollutants
with unique characteristics, health risks, and control technologies. 
Because PM emissions from thermal dryers contain PM10, PM2.5, and
condensable PM, and these represent individually determined hazards,
separate emission standards for each of these PM fractions should be
set.  Commenter 052 recommended that EPA amend Subpart Y promptly at a
future date once test methods are available for measuring condensible PM
emissions from thermal dryers and other coal preparation processes.

as measured in micrometers (μ).  The first PM category is PM with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 μ and is
referred to as PM10.  The second PM category is PM with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 μ and is referred to as
PM2.5.  Depending on the composition of an exhaust gas stream from a
process, the PM emitted into the atmosphere can consist of a filterable
PM (FPM) fraction and a condensible PM (CPM) fraction.  The FPM fraction
is composed of solids of varying particle sizes determined by
source-specific characteristics (e.g., process type and operating
conditions, process input material compositions and properties, and
process chemistry).  The CPM fraction remains in a gaseous form in the
process exhaust stream until it is released into ambient air where it
condenses to a solid or liquid form when exposed to atmospheric
conditions.

The available PM emissions data for thermal dryers collected by EPA were
measured using EPA Method 5 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3).  For
this method, solid FPM is collected isokinetically on a filter media
(typically glass or quartz fiber) and is then measured gravimetrically
to determine FPM emissions.  Method 5 uses a probe and out-of-stack
filter, both heated to 248±25°F, to prevent condensation of moisture
and gaseous compounds.  This method, when performed correctly, provides
an accurate measurement of total FPM (for PM > 0.3 μ), but does not
measure FPM emissions by particle size distribution (i.e., PM10 or
PM2.5) nor does the method measure CPM.

EPA is revising existing test methods, EPA Method 201A—Determination
of PM10 Emissions (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure) and EPA Method
202—Determination of Condensible Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources, to provide test methods that will accurately measure PM10,
PM2.5, and CPM from stationary sources such as coal thermal dryers. 
Amendments to these test methods were proposed on March 26, 2009 (74 FR
12970).  The amendments to Method 201A add a particle-sizing device to
allow for sampling of PM2.5, PM10, or both PM10 and PM2.5.  The
amendments to Method 202 revise the sample collection and recovery
procedures of the method to provide for more accurate and precise
measurement of CPM.  Until such time that Methods 201A and 202 are
finalized and sufficient test data using these methods can be collected
for coal thermal dryers, a determination of the need to add separate PM
emission limits to Subpart Y for PM2.5, PM10, or CPM emissions from coal
thermal dryers cannot be made.

2.3.4.3	Selection of Proposed Emission Limit Value

Comment:  One commenter (056) stated that the level of the PM emissions
limits for thermal dryers must be more stringent.  The commenter stated
that EPA appears not to have thoroughly reviewed the existing test data,
instead limiting its search to those facilities subject to stringent PM
permit limits.  EPA omitted from consideration the Hawthorne plant test
data which reported PM emissions of 0.0092 grains per dry standard cubic
foot (gr/dscf), which are less than half of the proposed limit.  The
most stringent permitted limits are not automatically correlated with
the lowest emission rates, and EPA must review a wider range of data
when developing the final limit for PM from direct thermal dryers.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice included a PM emissions limit for new
thermal dryers (i.e., those constructed after April 28, 2008) based on a
determination that BDT is a fabric filter-controlled coal-fired
recirculation thermal dryer or a fabric filter-controlled indirect
thermal dryer.  The PM emissions limit proposed for new thermal dryers
was based on performance test data and air permit limits specific to
existing coal thermal dryers with fabric filters (see 74 FR 25309 and
Section 3 of this document).  In the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal
notice, EPA also determined that PM limits for modified and
reconstructed thermal dryers should be based on direct contact
once-through thermal dryers with high-energy wet scrubbers.  However, as
previously explained, EPA has since determined that thermal dryers
undergoing reconstruction could undergo the conversions necessary to
meet the emission limits based on BDT for PM emissions for new thermal
dryers (see Section 3 of this document).

2.3.4.4	Continuous Achievability of Proposed Emission Limit Value

Comment:  Two commenters (041 and 045) stated that EPA’s analysis of
the PM emissions data does not support the continuous achievability of
the proposed emission limit value by all potentially affected thermal
dryers.  Commenter 45 stated that EPA is required by Nat’l. Lime
Ass’n. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1980) to set a PM
emissions limit level that assures continuous compliance despite process
and control equipment variability and anticipated deterioration in
performance between regularly scheduled maintenance events.  The
commenter stated that EPA has recognized this condition for other
rulemakings, including in setting emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants at new cement kilns burning hazardous waste in 40 CFR part 63
subpart EEE.  Commenter 41 stated that the PM emissions data used for
selection of the PM emissions level must address the following factors:
(1) use of a BDT control configuration that includes both the high
energy scrubber and the mist eliminator; (2) operation of the high
energy scrubbers at less than 100 percent load; (3) the owner/operator
burden of more frequent performance testing that would be required for
the proposed emissions limit by existing State regulations (the
commenter specifically cited an example for the State of West Virginia);
and (4) PM emissions from coal thermal dryers are a function of heat
input and evaporative load, and not coal tonnage throughput.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice included PM emissions limits for
thermal dryers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28,
2008.  Although the PM emissions limit for new thermal dryers is based
on a determination that BDT is a fabric filter-controlled coal-fired
recirculation thermal dryer or a fabric filter-controlled indirect
thermal dryer, the proposed level of PM control would be achievable
using wet control approaches (see 74 FR 25309 and Section 3 of this
document).  Further, EPA has data from two facilities, including 2
year’s of testing on one fabric filter-controlled unit, indicating
that the proposed emission limit is achievable.  EPA believes that other
factors noted by the commenter have been addressed through the use of a
concentration limit format and through the use of different emission
limit requirements for new and modified sources.  EPA also believes that
the performance testing requirements are appropriate.

2.3.4.5	Modified and Reconstructed Sources

Comment:  One commenter (041) stated that the proposed PM emissions
limit of 0.020 gr/dscf will eliminate the modification/reconstruction of
some existing thermal coal dryers for which it is practical to lower PM
emissions further but not to the level required by the proposed limit. 
The commenter stated that in these cases the proposed PM emission limit
would be burdensome and counter-productive.  In contrast, a second
commenter (056) stated that the level of the PM emissions limit for
modified sources must be more stringent than the level proposed.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice revised the PM emissions limits for
thermal dryers and established separate limits for reconstructed and
modified thermal dryers (see 74 FR 25309 and Section 3 of this
document).  As previously explained, EPA has since determined that
thermal dryers undergoing reconstruction could undergo the conversions
necessary to meet the emission limits based on BDT for PM emissions for
new thermal dryers. (see Section 3 of this document).

2.3.5	Thermal Dryer Opacity Limit

Comment:  Four comments (045, 056, 041, and 052) were received related
to EPA’s decision not to revise the existing thermal dryer opacity
limit of 20 percent.  Commenter 045 agrees with EPA’s decision not to
revise the opacity limit for thermal dryers.  Commenter 056 disagrees
with EPA’s conclusion that the existing thermal dryer opacity limit of
20 percent is appropriate.  The commenter stated that there is, at best,
a tenuous correlation between opacity and PM emissions  The use of a
single source test by EPA cannot be taken as assurance that a
20 percent opacity limit will always, or even the majority of the time,
indicate PM emissions at or below the standard.  More appropriate
approaches include a thorough review of existing opacity test data from
thermal dryers, and lowering the opacity limit proportional to the
lowering of the PM limit (equivalent to approximately 13 percent
opacity, or 15 percent rounding up to the nearest 5 percent increment). 
Commenter 041 stated that opacity measurements do not account for the
emissions of particulate-laden entrained droplets from wet scrubbers and
that these droplets contain between 15 to 55 percent of the total PM
emissions.  Commenter 052 stated that the opacity limits for thermal
dryers (and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment as well) should be
replaced with the requirement to use a PM continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS).

Response:  Based on a review of additional opacity data for coal thermal
dryers following the original Subpart Y proposal, a revised opacity
limit of less than 10 percent for new thermal dryers constructed after
April 28, 2008, was included in the supplemental Subpart Y proposal (see
74 FR 25309 and Section 3 of this document).  The supplemental Subpart
Y proposal maintains the existing opacity limit of less than 20 percent
for thermal dryers reconstructed or modified after April 28, 2008.  As
previously explained, EPA has since determined that thermal dryers
undergoing reconstruction could undergo the conversions necessary to
meet the limits, including the less than 10 percent opacity limit, based
on BDT for PM emissions for new thermal dryers (see Section 3 of this
document).  Compliance with the PM and opacity standards are determined
separately and the standards are separately enforced.  Further, the PM
standard is established at a level which will result in the design,
installation and operation of BDT; the opacity standard is established
at a level which will require proper continuous operation and
maintenance (O&M) of such control systems on a day-to-day basis, but not
require a more efficient or more expensive control system.  In addition,
opacity is established as an independent enforceable standard.  Opacity
standards are a necessary supplement to the PM standards because stack
tests are expensive, take a long time to schedule, cannot be performed
frequently, and are not indicative of continued O&M. PM CEMS are
discussed in the response to comment 3.5.4.

2.3.6	Thermal Dryer SO2 and NOx Emissions Limits

Comment:  One commenter (056) stated that EPA must set standards of
performance for SO2 and NOx based on BDT that can control these
pollutants because thermal dryers emit quantities of SO2 and NOx that
cause or contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  The commenter
provided an estimate of SO2 and NOx emissions from coal thermal dryers. 

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009
supplemental proposal notice added emission standards to reduce SO2,
NOx, and CO emissions from thermal dryers (see 74 FR 25310-25312 and
Section 3 of this document).

2.3.7	Thermal Dryer Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emissions Limit

Comment:  One commenter (056) stated that EPA must set standards of
performance for emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
thermal dryers because organic components from chemical additives
introduced during wet processes, including flotation, may be entrained
in the coal and volatilized during drying.  The commenter provided an
estimate of VOC emissions from coal thermal dryers.

Response:  VOC emitted from thermal dryers are a result of both
incomplete fuel combustion and volatile matter released from the coal
bed as it is heated and dried.  Good combustion practices limit the
formation of both CO and VOC by providing sufficient oxygen in the
combustion zone for complete combustion to occur.  Revised amendments to
Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice
added emission standards to reduce CO emissions from thermal dryers
based on a determination that good combustion practices constitutes BDT
for CO emissions from thermal dryers (see 74 FR 25311 and Section 3 of
this document).  No technology for control of VOC emissions beyond
combustion controls was identified as being used by coal thermal dryers.
 However, by setting an emissions limit to control CO emissions, VOC
emissions that result from incomplete combustion are also reduced.  The
VOC emissions resulting from volatile matter released from the heated
coal bed itself are variable.  EPA concluded that a separate VOC
emission standard cannot be established that would be achievable for
variable coal ranks processed in thermal dryers across the country. 
Therefore, EPA dids not propose under this action to amend Subpart Y to
include a separate VOC emission standard for thermal dryers.

2.3.8	Thermal Dryers with In-line Coal Mills

Comment:  One commenter (045) requested that EPA clarify the application
of the thermal dryer PM emissions limit to a thermal dryer used with an
in-line coal mill.  The commenter stated that it is not entirely clear
from the language of the proposed Subpart Y amendments whether the
exhaust gases from a bituminous coal thermal dryer that is part of an
in-line coal mill are considered to be “exhausted to the
atmosphere,” as required to meet the definition of “thermal
dryer.”  If a new or modified in-line coal mill were treated as both a
thermal dryer and as coal processing and conveying equipment, and if the
emissions from that in-line coal mill had to meet the lower PM emissions
limit of 0.005 gr/dscf applicable to coal processing and conveying
equipment–as opposed to the 0.020 gr/dscf limit for new and modified
thermal dryers–then the NSPS would not be based on BDT and the cost of
achieving 0.005 gr/dscf would be much greater, if the standard could be
achieved at all.  The commenter requested that such a configuration be
subject to the PM mass emission limits and opacity limits applicable to
thermal dryers rather than to coal processing and conveying equipment.

Response:  EPA agrees that in the case of a thermal dryer that is part
of an in-line coal mill at a Portland cement manufacturing facility
where all of the thermal input is supplied by cement kiln exhaust or
clinker cooler exhaust, the dryer should be regulated under the
appropriate Portland Cement kiln regulations (40 CFR Part 63 subpart LLL
and 40 CFR 60 subpart F).  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in
the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice made some additional
changes to the PM emissions limits for thermal dryers and for coal
processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal
transfer system operations constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
April 28, 2008 (see 74 FR 25310-25311, 74 FR 25313-25314, and Section 3
of this document).  The final rule contains some further revisions.  The
amended emissions limits would be applicable to new, reconstructed, or
modified thermal dryers at Portland cement manufacturing facilities in
situations where the thermal input is not supplied by cement kiln or
clinker cooler exhaust.  Further discussion is provided in the response
to comment 3.3.8.

2.4	Subpart Y Coal Processing, Conveying, Storage and Transfer System
Standards

2.4.1	Affected Sources

2.4.1.1	Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment

Comment:  One commenter (035) stated that EPA’s proposal to revise the
definition of “coal processing and conveying equipment” by changing
the term “conveyor belts” to “conveying systems” should not be
made without explaining and soliciting comment on the significance of
the change.  Because the absence of a reference to “conveying
systems” in the rule was relevant to EPA’s prior applicability
determinations, this revision could have significant impacts.  The
commenter would support over-ruling the EPA’s prior applicability
determinations that focused on only a narrow part of a conveying system
rather than the entire system.

Response:  EPA intends to maintain the existing Subpart Y definition for
the term “coal processing and conveying equipment.”  The April 28,
2008 Subpart Y proposal and subsequent May 27, 2009 supplemental Subpart
Y proposal that included a definition for the term “coal processing
and conveying equipment” that substituted the words “conveying
systems” in place of “conveyor belts” was an error.  EPA intends
to maintain the existing definition for “coal processing and conveying
equipment” in which coal processing and conveying equipment means
“any machinery used to reduce the size of coal or to separate coal
from refuse, and the equipment used to convey coal to or remove coal and
refuse from the machinery.  This includes, but is not limited to,
breakers, crushers, screens, and conveyor belts.”

Comment:  Two commenters (025 and 040) requested that EPA clarify that
Subpart Y performance standards apply only to conveying equipment that
is an affected facility.  With the exception of a transfer and loading
system, other so-called “transfer points” to or from conveying
equipment should not be considered to be affected facilities at coal
preparation plants.

Response:  As discussed in the response to the preceding comment, EPA
intends to maintain the existing Subpart Y definition for the term
“coal processing and conveying equipment.”  The potential for coal
dust emissions to the atmosphere from machinery conveying coal exists
from openings other than those where the coal enters or exits the
machinery.  All potential fugitive coal dust emission points associated
with machinery that meet the definition of “coal processing and
conveying equipment” are subject to the applicable Subpart Y control
requirements.

2.4.1.2	Coal Unloading Activities

Comment:  Four commenters (026, 035, 039, and 040) stated that coal
unloading activities should not be subject to Subpart Y requirements. 
Commenter 026 stated that the definition of transfer and loading as it
applies to Subpart Y is not well defined.  In contrast, Commenter 056
stated that EPA should require controls for unloading to plant machinery
and open piles.  Commenters 035 and 040 stated that EPA previously
issued an interpretation of Subpart Y (63 FR 53288-53290, October 5,
1998) that concluded that coal unloading, which involves conveying coal
to coal plant machinery, is subject to Subpart Y and that any fugitive
emissions from coal dumping must be included in a determination of
whether a coal preparation plant is a major source subject to Title V
permitting requirements.  The commenters stated that EPA has not
provided any data for the proposed Subpart Y amendments to justify
applying the rule’s control requirements to unloading activities.  The
commenters requested that EPA either provide a justification for
establishing standards for unloading activities, and allow for comment
on such justifications, or that EPA reverse this applicability
determination so that unloading activities are not subject to Subpart Y.
 Commenter 039 disagreed with EPA’s determination that truck dumps are
affected facilities subject to Subpart Y.  At the commenter’s
facility, trucks discharge coal through a grizzly (a steel grid plate)
into a hopper, neither of which is “conveying equipment.”  This
commenter stated that a piece of equipment should not be considered an
affected facility simply because conveying may take place further in the
process.

Response:  The unloading of coal from the trucks, railcars, or barges
used to deliver coal to a facility has the potential to generate
significant amounts of fugitive coal dust emissions to the atmosphere if
effective control measures are not implemented.  Thus, these activities
remain subject to Subpart Y requirements.  In addition, revised
amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009, supplemental
proposal notice establish work practice standards to control fugitive
coal dust emissions from open storage piles, including the loading,
unloading, and conveying operations of open storage piles (see 74 FR
25312-25313 and Section 3 of this document).  EPA believes the
amendments made also address the issue of the clarity of the definition
of “transfer and loading.”  Further, EPA utilized data from coal
uploading operations in assessing the emission limit for coal unloading
operations in the Supplemental Proposal.

2.4.1.3	Coal Storage Piles

Comment:  Many comments were received on expanding the applicability of
Subpart Y to include open storage piles.  One commenter (056) stated
that EPA should expand the scope of “coal storage system to” include
open storage piles.  Open coal storage piles are a significant source of
PM emissions for which the commenter believes control technology is
available.  Wind erosion of open storage piles, which can be exacerbated
when heavy machinery is driven over the piles repeatedly, creates
significant amounts of PM emissions.  Potential control measures include
enclosures, wind fences, or other barriers, and wet or chemical
suppression.  Other commenters (021, 027, 029, 030, 031, 034, 035, 038,
and 044) stated that EPA should not expand the scope of “coal storage
system” to include open storage piles.  Commenters 027 and 035
supported retention of the existing definition of “coal storage
system” in Subpart Y and the case-by-case regulation of coal storage
piles.  Commenters 029, 030 and 038 stated that using the NSPS program
to regulate coal storage piles at coal-fired power plants would raise
the following regulatory issues: (1) the terms reconstruction and
modification are not technically relevant to open storage piles; (2)
demonstrating compliance with a PM or opacity limit on a coal pile would
be difficult: and (3) because the characteristics of coal, such as
moisture content and hardness, can vary significantly based on the
source, even within a given subclass, control techniques that work well
for coal from one mine may not work as effectively for coal from another
mine, making it difficult to assign a general control efficiency for any
particular control technique.  Commenters 021, 031, and 044 stated that
expanding coverage to include open storage piles is unnecessary and
would be inconsistent with EPA’s regulatory approach with other NSPS
source categories.  For example, for 40 CFR 60 subpart J for petroleum
refineries, open storage of petroleum coke is not considered to be an
affected source.  Petroleum coke has similar silt and related dusting
properties as forms of coal.  In addition, PM emission limitations and
work practice standards are effectively in place at the State level to
address open coal stockpiles on a site-specific basis to meet ambient
air quality standards. Redundant regulation on the Federal level is not
required.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice added work practice standards for
controlling fugitive coal dust emissions from open coal storage piles
(see 74 FR 25312-25313 and Section 3 of this document).

2.4.1.4	Plant Roads

Comment:  One commenter (056) stated that EPA must establish equipment
and work practice standards or performance standards based on silt
loading to control PM emissions from roads.  Potential work practice and
equipment standards include use of tire or truck wash systems, vacuum
sweeper trucks, and wet suppression and waste flushing.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice added work practice standards for
controlling fugitive coal dust emissions from on-site plant roadways
(see 74 FR 25312-25313 and Section 3 of this document).  However, as
explained in EPA’s response to comment 3.4.6.3.1, EPA has since
determined that roads will not be added as affected facilities under
these Subpart Y amendments.

2.4.1.5	Coal Hauling Trucks and Railcars

Comment:  One commenter (056) stated that EPA should require controls
for trucks and trains in the form of covers.  Trucks, vehicles, and
trains are a large source of particulate emissions due to wind erosion. 
EPA must regulate rail and truck transport as part of the coal
preparation plant standard because they are significant sources of
particulate emissions for which control technology is available. 
Although rail cars and trucks themselves are not “stationary
sources” and likely could not be regulated under the NSPS as an
independent stationary source, it is the coal preparation plant that is
the stationary source, and train cars and trucks are simply one source
of emissions among many at this source.  Thus, rail and truck traffic
that operate at a coal preparation plant facility must be subject to
standards of performance.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice addressed the control of fugitive
coal dust emissions from open piles, including the loading, unloading,
and conveying operations of open storage piles by adding work practice
standards.  At this time, piles of coal that have been loaded into
trucks, railcars, and/or ships would not be subject to the fugitive dust
emissions control plan (see 74 FR 25312-25313 and Section 3 of this
document).

2.4.1.6	Coal Sampling Systems

Comment:  Two commenters (034 and 035) requested that coal sampling
systems located at coal preparation plants be specifically exempted from
Subpart Y.  These systems generate low emissions because the systems
typically are in enclosed structures, operate at low speeds and
throughputs, and operate intermittently.  Consequently, the cost of
implementing the proposed controls is unreasonably high.

Response:  Coal sampling systems at affected facilities have been
subject to the existing Subpart Y requirements since they were
originally promulgated in 1976.  Commenters have not provided specific
data demonstrating that the compliance costs associated with coal
sampling systems are unreasonably high.  In addition, EPA provided
alternatives to collection and control of the types of emissions sources
described by the commenters (e.g., conveyors, crushers) under the
revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009,
supplemental proposal notice.  Also, an affected facility enclosed
within a building or structure would be considered to be in compliance
if the building in which it is enclosed is in compliance with the
standard.  For these reasons, EPA does not believe it would be
appropriate, in this review, to add the exemption requested by
commenters.

2.4.1.7	Coal Mine Portable Screens

Comment:  One commenter (034) requested that EPA provide an exemption
for portable screens used in non-bituminous coal surface coal mines. 
These screens are used to remove non-coal material at the mine prior to
transport of the coal to a power plant.

Response:  EPA agrees that the operation noted by the commenter should
be considered part of the mining operation and not part of the coal
preparation process and, thus, not subject to Subpart Y (unless breaking
or crushing of the coal was to be done in the screens).  Clarification
has been made in the final rule.

2.4.2	Subcategorization of Standards by Coal Rank

2.4.2.1	Relationship of Coal Rank to Coal Dust Emissions Control

Comment:  One commenter (040) stated that the fundamental premise
underlying EPA’s proposed Subpart Y standards of performance is that
coal preparation facilities “handling” non-bituminous coals generate
larger amounts of uncontrolled PM emissions than do the same facilities
“handling” bituminous coal.  Implicit in that premise is the further
assumption that coal rank is a surrogate for the surface moisture
content of coal.  On that basis EPA has concluded that enclosures with
fabric filters are cost-effective and, therefore, represent BDT for
facilities handling non-bituminous coal, but conversely, chemical
suppression is more cost-effective for facilities “handling”
bituminous coal and, thus, constitutes BDT for that subcategory of coal
preparation.  However, although coal rank may be one “predictor” of
potential emissions, the uncontrolled emissions from coal preparation
facilities are influenced by a variety of different parameters,
including not only moisture and coal rank separately, but also other
coal characteristics such as silt and ash content, wind speed, climate,
and topography.  As a result, EPA’s generalization of the relationship
between coal rank and uncontrolled emissions is too inexact to
accurately quantify emissions from any particular coal preparation plant
for purposes of Subpart Y regulation.  Therefore, until EPA collects
sufficient emissions data from coal preparation facilities to better
define the levels of representative uncontrolled emissions for the
industry, the “rank neutral” standards of performance remain the
more appropriate approach for Subpart Y.  A second commenter (029)
stated that chemical dust suppression is equivalent to bag filter
systems, regardless of coal rank.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice eliminated separate fugitive dust
control requirements for coal processing, conveying, storage and
transfer systems depending on the coal rank processed (see 74 FR 25306
and Section 3 of this document).  The BDT used as the basis for
establishing the final standards for these affected sources is not based
on the coal rank processed.  The final rule allows affected owners and
operators to select from a range of control technologies (including, but
not limited to, enclosures with fabric filters, chemical suppressants,
fogging systems, and engineered flow transfer equipment) that they
determine is applicable and appropriate for controlling fugitive
emissions from the ranks of coal processed at their facilities.

2.4.2.2	Coal Rank Subcategorization Inconsistent with Existing Policy

Comment:  One commenter (044) stated that to require plants processing
non-bituminous coals to vent all emissions through a stack constitutes a
fundamental change from EPA’s long-standing policies regarding control
of fugitive emissions and would require a fundamental redesign of a
major segment of the coal preparation industry.  This goes beyond
EPA’s authority under CAA section 111, and requires not only
compliance with a standard, but also a specific configuration or
reconfiguration of control equipment.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice eliminated separate fugitive dust
control requirements for coal processing, conveying, storage and
transfer systems depending on the coal rank processed (see 74 FR
25306-25307 and Section 3 of this document).  Under the final rule,
owners and operators of affected facilities processing non-bituminous
coals are not required to use enclosures with fabric filters to control
fugitive emissions, and, instead, may select the fugitive emissions
control measures best suited to their site-specific conditions provided
that the selected controls meet the relevant rule requirements.

2.4.2.4	Anthracite Coal

Comment:  One commenter (018) stated that there is no justification for
classifying anthracite coal with subbituminous coals for purposes of
determining BDT for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage system, and transfer and loading system PM and opacity limits. 
It is not clear that anthracite coals, which are typically very hard,
share the same characteristics as softer subbituminous and lignite coals
for purposes of assessing the impact of wet suppression versus fabric
filter controls during the coal processing, conveying, storage, and
transfer and loading period.  Unlike lignite and similar lower rank
coals, anthracite’s heating value is unlikely to be significantly
affected by the use of water suppression.  Application of water and
chemical suppressants as BDT for bituminous coals is well supported. 
Enclosure and venting to a fabric filter is not required for this rank
of coal.  This commenter agrees with the finding that bituminous coal PM
emissions are well controlled by water or chemical dust suppressants and
that the added control that may be achieved by full enclosure and
venting to a fabric filter is not warranted by the small improvement in
removal.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice eliminated separate fugitive dust
control requirements for coal processing, conveying, storage, and
transfer systems depending on the coal rank processed (see 74 FR
25306-25307 and Section 3 of this document).  The coal rank processed by
an affected facility, whether it be anthracite, bituminous,
subbituminous, or lignite, was not used for determining BDT to establish
the final standards applicable to coal processing and conveying
equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems.

2.4.2.4	Blended Coals

Comment:  Several commenters (027, 029, and 035) stated concerns
regarding the application of the proposed amendments to affected
facilities at electric utility power plants handling blends of different
coal ranks.  Commenter 029 stated that the proposed regulation defines
non bituminous coal as any coal other than bituminous coal.  Under this
definition, facilities using blends of bituminous coal and
non-bituminous coals may be classified as non-bituminous coal.  Many
coal-fired electric utility power plants handle a variety of coal ranks
and in some cases blend the different rank coals depending on coal
supply market conditions.  It would be cost prohibitive to require the
modification of the fugitive dust controls for each coal rank. 
Therefore, this commenter requests that EPA adopt the same requirements
for bituminous, non-bituminous, and blended coals.  Commenters 027 and
035 stated that different ranks of coal that are blended together often
are delivered to the power plant already blended, or are co-mingled in
blending operations soon after arriving at the power plant.  The
commenters suggested that EPA’s BDT determination for coal blends that
are primarily, rather than exclusively, bituminous coals on a tonnage
basis be enclosures and chemical suppression.  EPA has drawn a similar
line in other regulatory contexts for coal-fired utility power plants.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice eliminated separate fugitive dust
control requirements for coal processing, conveying, storage, and
transfer systems depending on the coal rank processed (see 74 FR
25306-25307 and Section 3 of this document).  Under the final rule, the
control requirements for affected facilities at an electric utility
power plant (or any other coal preparation and processing plant subject
to Subpart Y) are the same regardless of the coal rank processed,
including blends of different coal ranks.

2.4.2.5	Impact on Facility Fuel Flexibility

Comment:  One commenter (022) stated that Subpart Y should provide for a
more flexible definition of facilities using bituminous coal.  Because
the control requirements are more stringent for coal preparation plants
processing coals other than bituminous coal, it is possible that States
could write permits limiting plants to bituminous coal only and
interpret any change to subbituminous coal as a modification. 
Conceivably, as little as one delivery of subbituminous coal could be
considered a modification.  The flexibility to utilize different coal
supplies is very important to minimize fuel costs, meet environmental
requirements, and deal with coal supply interruptions.  The rule as
drafted could greatly limit the fuel flexibility of plants.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice eliminated separate fugitive dust
control requirements for coal processing, conveying, storage, and
transfer systems depending on the coal rank processed (see 74 FR
25306-25307 and Section 3 of this document).  Under the final rule, the
control requirements for affected facilities processing bituminous coals
are the same as those for affected facilities processing coals other
than bituminous coal.  Therefore, the final Subpart Y amendments do not
impact flexibility of a facility to use different coal supplies.

2.4.3	BDT Determination

2.4.3.1	Equivalency of Fabric Filter and Chemical Suppression Control
Systems 

Comment:  One commenter (054) stated that either venting to a fabric
filter or chemical dust suppression should be considered equivalent
fugitive coal dust controls.  Facilities should be given the option to
choose either chemical dust suppression or fabric filter systems.

Response:  EPA reconsidered the BDT determination used to establish
standards for coal processing, conveying, storage, and transfer systems.
 Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009,
supplemental proposal notice allow affected owners and operators to
select from a range of fugitive coal dust control technologies
(including, but not limited to, enclosures with fabric filters and
chemical suppressants) to control PM emissions from coal processing,
conveying, storage, and transfer system operations (see 74 FR
25313-25314 and Section 3 of this document).

2.4.3.2	Consideration of Alternative Coal Dust Control Technologies as
BDT

Comment:  Many comments were received (013, 021, 030, 031, 032, 035,
036, 039, 040, 043, 044, 051, 063, and 069) regarding the topic that
EPA’s BDT determination for coal processing, conveying, storage, and
transfer systems did not consider control technologies other than fabric
filters and chemical suppression that are demonstrated and commercially
being used to control PM emissions from coal handing operations.  The
other control technologies included fogging systems and engineered flow
transfer equipment, also termed passive enclosure containment system
(PECS).  The commenters presented multiple reasons to support their
determinations that the use of fogging systems or PECS should be
considered by EPA as BDT, and that those technologies are either
equivalent or superior in performance and cost-effectiveness to using
full enclosures vented to a fabric filter.  Commenter 069 stated that
the proposed amendments do not reflect current emission control measures
permitted as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) at coal
preparation plants in Wyoming, and that this will consequently have a
profound impact on the coal mining industry, the safety of mine
employees, and the State’s air quality program.  Commenters 013, 032,
040, and 044 stated that fogging systems and PECS presently are used for
coal preparation operations, and meet or exceed the performance of
fabric filter or chemical dust suppression emission controls.  Commenter
051 stated that wet suppression is more effective and cost-effective
than chemical suppression.  Commenter 032 stated that the Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) allows coal handling sources
to be permitted at 0 lb/hr of PM for areas controlled by fogging systems
or PECS.  Commenters 013 and 040) stated that PM emissions from fully
enclosed lignite conveying, crushing, and transfer equipment in North
Dakota are effectively controlled by water fogging systems.  The
performance of both fogging systems and PECS have proven to be superior
to fabric filters for dust control both within the working environment
(for Mine Safety and Health Administration [MSHA] rule compliance) and
outside the buildings (for EPA and WDEQ rule compliance).

Response:  EPA reconsidered the BDT determination used to establish
standards for coal processing, conveying, storage, and transfer systems.
 Based on review of public comments and subsequent analysis, EPA
concluded that enclosures with chemical suppression or vented to fabric
filters are not the only technology that is BDT for coal processing,
conveying, storage, and transfer systems.  Depending on
facility-specific factors, fabric filters, PECS, fogging systems, and
wet extraction scrubbers can effectively control PM emissions to
equivalent levels.  In addition, fogging systems, PECS, and wet
extraction systems often can be implemented at lower costs than fabric
filters.  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009,
supplemental proposal notice eliminated requirements that owners and
operators of affected facilities must use a specific control technology
(e.g., an enclosure vented to a fabric filter or a chemical suppressant)
to reduce fugitive emissions from processing, conveying, storage, and
transfer systems (see 74 FR 25313-25314 and Section 3 of this document).
 The revised standards are based on a BDT determination based on the
level of reduction achievable by four technologies, which include
fogging systems and PECS.  The final rule allows affected owners and
operators to select from a range of fugitive coal dust control
technologies (including, but not limited to, enclosures with fabric
filters, chemical suppressants, fogging systems, PECS) best suited to
controlling PM emissions from the operations of coal processing,
conveying, storage, and transfer system configurations and operating
practices used at a given facility.

2.4.4	Fabric Filters (Baghouses) 

2.4.4.1	Fabric Filter Safety

Comment:  Many commenters (019, 024, 030, 032, 036, 058, and 069) stated
that use of fabric filters at coal preparation plants is unsafe due to
the potential for coal fires and explosions.  Fabric filters must comply
with required MSHA safety standards due to their potential for fires
and/or explosions.  Subbituminous coal dust can spontaneously combust if
it accumulates for long periods of time, or if it is exposed to water or
oxygen.  Because fabric filters, by design, extract dust and eventually
suck it to a collection point where it is recycled back onto the belt,
fabric filters often have dust accumulations which do not purge from the
dust collection ductwork.  The fabric filters accumulate dust, moisture
eventually enters the ductwork and fabric filter proper, and the
collected coal dust can spontaneously combust and explode.  To avoid
this potential safety hazard, some coal processing plants are in the
process of or have switched from fabric filter dust control to newer
technologies that are available in the U.S. such as fogging and PECS for
dust control.  Commenter 34 stated that fabric filters do little to
reduce employee dust exposure.

Response:  Fabric filters with proper design, operation, and maintenance
are one technology available for controlling fugitive dust emissions at
coal preparation and processing plants. The revised amendments in the
May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice allow an owner or operator,
who prefers to do so, to use an alternative control technology rather
than using an enclosure vented to a fabric filter (see 74 FR 25313-25314
and Section 3 of this document).  EPA believes that this will provide
owners/operators with the necessary flexibility to address
plant-specific safety concerns.

2.4.4.2	Fabric Filter Performance

Comment:  Two commenters (032 and 036) stated that fabric filters are
ineffective at controlling dust on a consistent basis.  Examples cited
by commenters include comments that bag dust sometimes billows out of
the explosion vents, performing maintenance on fabric filters results in
uncontrolled releases of dust directly from the fabric filter into the
environment, bag replacement exposes the maintenance personnel to very
fine coal dust and emits large volumes of dust to the environment, and
bags freeze up in cold weather and break.

Response:  Properly designed, operated, and maintained fabric filters
can consistently achieve high levels of PM emissions control over long
periods of time . The problems cited by the commenters can readily be
avoided with appropriate fabric filter design features for the
site-specific conditions and facility personnel following standard good
operating and maintenance practices for fabric filters.

2.4.4.3	Fabric Filter Dust Disposal

Comment:  One commenter (019) stated that storage and re-handling of
collected dust by fabric filters requires the collected dust to be
re-deposited back into the material handling process.  This extremely
fine “float” dust increases airborne dust emissions “downstream”
which once again must be addressed.  This becomes very costly for the
operator and produces a negative impact to the environment.

Response:  Handling of the collected dust in the manner noted by the
commenter would be subject to the provisions of Subpart Y.

2.4.5	Conveyor System Enclosures

2.4.5.1	Enclosure Fugitive Dust Emission Points

Comment:  One commenter (038) stated that the primary fugitive emission
generation points for an enclosed conveyor system are at the drop points
rather than along the belt runs.  As such, the commenter stated that it
should be specified that, for systems that are enclosed, the emission
control and monitoring points for coal conveying systems should be
relegated to the drop points.

Response:  Emission control and monitoring requirements under Subpart Y
apply to all openings in an enclosed conveyor system where fugitive coal
dust emissions potentially can be released to the atmosphere.  However,
it is common for sources to monitor emissions only at transfer or drop
points on conveyer belts.

2.4.5.2	Enclosure Safety

Comment:  Two commenters (027 and 035) stated that an enclosure should
serve the purpose of providing a cavity for controlling PM, and an
enclosed conveyor is comprised of a conventional belt conveyor, equipped
with sideboards and a cover (typically a three-sided enclosure).  Each
side of the enclosure includes a “skirt” that minimizes and controls
the ingestion of ambient air and allows air infiltration.  The
commenters stated that safety and explosion concerns strongly caution
against completely enclosing conveyors handling non-bituminous coals.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice would not require that affected
sources be mechanically vented (see 74 FR 25313 and Section 3 of this
document).  Coal handling operations that are not mechanically vented
would be subject only to opacity standards.  Thus, conveyors handling
non-bituminous coals need not be completely enclosed to be in compliance
with Subpart Y.

2.4.6	PM Emission Limits

2.4.6.1	Applicability of PM Emission Limits

Comment:  Two commenters (021 and 031) stated that PM emissions from
fogging systems and PECS cannot be measured using EPA Method 5 and,
consequently, sources that use fogging systems and/or PECS should not be
subject to the PM grain loading standard.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice would establish a new PM emissions
limit that would apply only to affected sources that are mechanically
vented (see 74 FR 25313 and Section 3 of this document).  “Mechanical
vent” is defined to mean a vent using a powered mechanical drive
(machine) to induce air flow. PECS and fogging systems do not use a
powered machine to induce airflow and would not be subject to the PM
emissions limit.  For situations where these control technologies are
used, only the opacity standard would apply.

2.4.6.2	Fenceline Ambient Air Monitoring of Coal Preparation Facilities

Comment:  One commenter (052) stated that the PM size fractions used for
the NAAQS (PM2.5 and PM10) should be addressed by Subpart Y.  The
commenter requested that EPA consider fenceline ambient air monitoring
of coal preparation facilities to quantify PM2.5 and PM10 emissions as a
requirement under Subpart Y.

Response:  CAA section 111 requires new sources to meet emission
standards based on BDT. Fenceline ambient air monitoring to quantify
pollutant emissions levels would not ensure that BDT-based emission
standards are being met on each affected facility within the fenceline
(i.e., the fenceline emission could not be apportioned back to each
affected facility).  As previously explained, amendments to EPA Method
201A were proposed on March 26, 2009 (74 FR 12970). The amendments add a
particle-sizing device to allow for sampling of PM2.5, PM10, or both
PM10 and PM2.5.  Until such time that Method 201A amendments are
finalized and sufficient test data using that method can be collected
for coal thermal dryers, determinations of the need to add separate
PM2.5 and/or PM10 emission limits to Subpart Y, the BDT for PM2.5 and/or
PM10 emissions, and the appropriate emission limits applicable to coal
thermal dryers cannot be made.

2.4.6.3	Condensible PM Emission Limits

Comment:  Two commenters (028 and 035) agree that condensible emissions
are negligible for coal handling equipment because the ambient operating
temperatures are inadequate to volatilize trace elements, and the
process conditions will not form trace sulfur, nitrogen, or other
species with vapor pressures to enable condensation as PM.  For these
reasons, the commenter agrees with EPA’s decision not to propose a
separate NSPS for CPM. 

Response:  Depending on the composition of an exhaust gas stream from a
process, the PM emitted can consist of both a FPM fraction and a CPM
fraction.  The CPM fraction remains in a gaseous form in the exhaust
stream until it is released into the atmosphere where it condenses to a
solid form.  Current test methods do not reliably measure the CPM
fraction from a source.  As previously explained, amendments to EPA
Method 202 were proposed on March 26, 2009 (74 FR 12970).  The
amendments to Method 202 revise the sample collection and recovery
procedures of the method to provide for more accurate and precise
measurement of CPM.  Until such time that Method 202 amendments are
finalized and sufficient test data using the revised method can be
collected for coal thermal dryers, a determination of the need to add a
separate PM emissions limit for CPM emissions from coal thermal dryers
cannot be made.

2.4.6.4	  Selection of Proposed PM Emission Limit Level

Comment:  Many commenters (021, 027, 028, 035, 039, 040, and 044)
disagreed with the selection of the 0.005 gr/dscf PM emission limit
level proposed for coal handling equipment using fabric filters for
several reasons.  Commenters stated that EPA failed to meet its
obligations under the CAA by using emissions data collected for another
industry group (nonmetallic mineral processing plants regulated under 40
CFR part 60, subpart OOO) to select the PM emission limit level for coal
preparation plants.  CAA section 111 obligates EPA to make its
determinations based on sound information that is directly relevant to
the industry being affected. EPA has not demonstrated that emissions
test data from Subpart OOO facilities are “representative” of
“achievable” emission levels for Subpart Y facilities.  Furthermore,
EPA’s use of the Subpart OOO test data to justify PM emission limits
for Subpart Y facilities that are lower than the corresponding PM
emission limits for Subpart OOO facilities is not justifiable.  EPA’s
own analysis of the data for Subpart OOO leads to a conclusion that
0.010 gr/dscf is an achievable NSPS.  The proposed PM emission limit
level of 0.0050 gr/dscf for Subpart Y does not reflect BDT.  Commenter
021 stated that 0.005 gr/dscf is well below BACT limits currently
applied to coal handling processes. No rationale was presented in the
proposal justifying an emission limit of 0.005 gr/dscf for point sources
of this size.  These point sources do not represent a significant
contribution to the NAAQS or Class II Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) PM increment and rarely have any modeled impact
outside the property boundary of the affected facility.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice are based on data from coal
preparation and processing plants (see 74 FR 25313 and Section 3 of this
document).

2.4.7	Opacity Limits

2.4.7.1	Method 9 Accuracy and Limitations

Comment:  Several commenters (028, 034, and 035) stated concerns about
use of Method 9 to measure opacity at any level below 10 percent. 
Commenter 034 stated that because the accuracy of a certified visible
emissions observer can be as much as +7.5 percent, the lowest compliance
level set should be 10 percent opacity.  An action level of 5 percent
could be set for taking correction action.  Commenters 028 and 035
stated concerns about the use of Method 9 to measure opacity at any
level below 10 percent, given Method 9’s known measurement bias, and
the fact that any visible emissions observed during a Method 9 test must
be recorded as 5 percent.

Response:  The commenters have misrepresented the discussion in Method 9
about potential for positive bias when applying the method.  First, the
method states that under the highest contrast conditions when the
greatest potential for a positive bias exists, the study showed that
100 percent of the measurements of black smoke were read with a
positive error of less than 7.5 percent.  Further, the method states
that the study showed that 99 percent of the measurements were read with
a positive error of less than 5 percent.  The statistical results for
white smoke measurements are a little different but similar.  This means
that fewer than 5 out of 100 observers ever showed a positive bias of
more than 5 percent, and fewer than 1 in 100 showed more than
7.5 percent positive bias.  Under less than high contrast conditions,
which are conditions more normally encountered, the potential for
positive bias is even less.  The study shows that a 95 percent upper
confidence interval for the composite data ranges from about +5.4
percent opacity at the 5 percent opacity level to about +1 percent at
the 20 percent opacity level.  The composite data show a 95 percent
confidence range that is negative for opacity greater than 25 percent
(i.e., the method under-predicts actual opacity).  The study does not
support a conclusion that there is a known positive measurement bias
when using Method 9.  Further, there is no technical reason not to apply
Method 9 for measuring visible emissions less than 5 percent opacity. 
The opacity standards proposed for Subpart Y are based on 6-minute
averages which are made up of a series of individual opacity readings,
each in 5 percent increments.  However, the resulting averages can be
less than 5 percent and even less than a whole number.

2.4.7.2	Selection of Proposed Opacity Limit Level

Comment:  Two commenters (028 and 035) stated that the units that EPA
has selected as the basis for the proposed opacity limit are not broadly
representative of new coal-handling facilities at power plants.  The
commenters do not believe EPA has sufficiently explained its decision to
use a smaller dataset in its Subpart Y proposal than in the Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing Plants NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart OOO) rulemaking, or
why EPA chose to ignore the higher opacity levels observed at crushers. 

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice included a revised opacity limit for
coal-handing equipment constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
April 28, 2008, based on both performance test data and air permit
limits specific to existing coal handling equipment (see 74 FR 25314 and
Section 3 of this document).

2.4.7.3	Fabric Filters

Comment:  One commenter (036) expressed concern that fabric filters
cannot achieve the proposed 5 percent opacity limit.  The dust control
effectiveness of fabric filters is only determined by looking at opacity
coming out of the stack, and by stack testing.  If the entire fabric
filter and its pickup ductwork, the source, as well as the fabric filter
purge system, were read by Method 9, (instead of just the fabric filter
stack), most fabric filters would not be able to meet the proposed 5
percent opacity.  If fabric filters were read while bags are being
changed, and while bins are being manually emptied, they wouldn’t even
meet a 20 percent opacity limit.  Also, with fabric filters, plant
personnel have to frequently bang on the ductwork to make the dust move,
so that it doesn’t accumulate and eventually spontaneously combust. 
If fabric filter stacks were read while the ductwork was being cleaned,
the fabric filter would not meet the opacity standard.  Fabric filters
are difficult to operate in a steady condition due to constantly
changing weather conditions, and feedstock conditions.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice included a revised opacity limit for
coa- handing equipment constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
April 28, 2008, based on both performance test data and air permit
limits specific to existing coal-handling equipment (see 74 FR 25314 and
Section 3 of this document).  Opacity data for coal-handing equipment at
coal preparation and processing plants indicate that fabric filters can
meet the revised limit.

2.4.7.4	Fugitive Emissions Sources

Comment:  One commenter (029) stated that EPA should establish a
different opacity limit for non-stack fugitive releases.  The proposed
opacity limit for all affected facilities not installing PM CEMS is 5
percent.  This is applicable to both non-stack releases and stack
releases.  The commenter notes that 5 percent is exceeding this limit. 
Visible emissions at a 5 percent limit may be practical for stack
releases connected to a bag filter.  This may not be practical for
non-stack fugitive releases.  Also, the commenter stated that 5 percent
opacity for fugitive releases in most cases constitutes lower PM mass
emissions than a 5 percent opacity for stack releases.  This is due to
the fact that a much lower flow rate of exhaust air is involved with
non-stack fugitive releases.  If both types of releases are compared
with the same limit, it may be overly restrictive for non-stack fugitive
releases.  The commenter requests that EPA reconsider the 5 percent
opacity limit for fugitive non-stack releases and suggests keeping the
existing NSPS limit of 20 percent.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice included a revised opacity limit for
coal-handling equipment constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
April 28, 2008, based on both performance test data and air permit
limits specific to existing coal-handling equipment (see 74 FR 25314 and
Section 3 of this document).  The final rule includes additional
revisions based on comments and information submitted regarding the
supplemental proposal.  Opacity data for coal-handling equipment
fugitive non-stack releases at coal preparation and processing plants
indicate the revised limit can be met. 

2.4.7.5	Coal Storage Silos

Comment:  One commenter (036) stated that coal storage silos should be
exempt from any opacity standard less than 20 percent.  Because silos
are an improvement over open stockpile dumping, they should not be
overly restricted for opacity.  Most of the time the commenter’s silos
can meet 7 percent opacity when coupled with fogging systems.  However,
the silos occasionally barely complied with the 20 percent opacity limit
when the commenter had utilized fabric filters for dust control.

Response:  Coal storage silos continue to be subject to the same opacity
standards as all affected coal processing, conveying, storage, and
transfer systems.  There has been no change with respect to the
applicability of Subpart Y to coal storage silos.  Revised amendments to
Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice
included a revised opacity limit for coal-handing equipment constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, based on both
performance test data and air permit limits specific to existing coal
handling equipment (see 74 FR 25314 and Section 3 of this document). 
The final rule includes additional revisions based on comments and
information submitted regarding the supplemental proposal.  Opacity data
for coal-handing equipment, including coal storage silos, at coal
preparation and processing plants indicate the revised limit can be met.

2.4.8	Work Practice Standards

2.4.8.1	Alternative to Opacity Standards

Comment:  A number of commenters (028, 029, 030, 035, and 038) stated
that EPA should adopt work practice standards as an alternative to the
opacity limit.  Effective work practice standards could include
minimizing coal drop heights, periodic inspections of enclosures, and
performing all necessary preventive maintenance on the equipment.  A
regulation that presents options for compliance would allow the facility
to determine the most practical method for a given site’s individual
conditions.  Commenter 038 stated that affected facilities using
chemical suppression or an equivalent dust control application typically
do not emit through a conveyance designed to capture the PM emissions. 
It is generally not practical to measure the mass of actual PM emissions
from these facilities and work practice standards would be more
appropriate.  A regulation that presents options for compliance allows
the facility to determine the most practical method for a given site’s
individual conditions.  Commenters 028 and 035 also stated that in cases
when the affected facility also is subject to a PM emissions limit,
control system operation monitoring should be allowed as an alternative
to the opacity standard itself.

Response:  EPA can only establish work practice standards if the Agency
demonstrates, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 111(h),
that “it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of
performance.”  This phrase is defined in CAA section 111(h)(2) to
require, before promulgation of a work practice standard, a
determination that “(A) a pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted
through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such
pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance
would be inconsistent with an Federal, State, or local law, or (B) the
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources
is not practicable due to technological or economic limitations.”  To
establish a work practice standard, such a determination must be made. 
Because EPA does not have authority to provide sources the option of
complying with an opacity standard or a work practice standard, and
affected facilities at coal preparation and processing plants have been
subject to opacity standards since the rule’s 1976 promulgation, there
is no basis for making that determination.  In addition, to establish a
work practice standard, adequate supporting analyses indicating that
compliance with a certain work practice would absolutely guarantee
compliance with an opacity standard would be necessary.

2.4.8.2	Coal Storage Piles

Comment:  A number of comments (022, 027 029, 030, and 035) were
received regarding the control of PM emissions from coal storage piles. 
Commenters 022, 027, 029, and 030 stated that work practices are more
appropriate than opacity limits.  Reasons stated by the commenters
include determining an opacity limit would very complicated because of
the numerous and disparate factors that might influence emissions from
any particular pile, such as coal ranks and varieties, pile shapes,
throughput rates, and traffic.  Commenter 022 stated that at least one
company uses dome structures to surround coal storage piles.  A typical
dome is shaped like an igloo with two doorways at ground level and a
small hole at the very top.  A stacker-reclaimer is located inside the
dome.  Coal is stacked around the inner-edge of the dome and can be
stacked and reclaimed simultaneously.  Conveyors leading to and away
from the dome are enclosed in tubes and aspirated.  No visible emissions
have been observed from the storage dome and both bituminous and
subbituminous coals are handled within the dome.  Commenter 035 stated
that fabric filters should not be BDT for enclosed coal piles.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice include open storage piles as an
affected facility and require that open storage piles be included in a
fugitive dust emissions control plan for the coal preparation and
processing plant, but not be subject to an opacity limit (see 74 FR
25312 and Section 3 of this document).   The final rule includes the
same requirements for open storage piles.

2.4.8.3	Coal Truck Dumps

Comment:  Two commenters (037 and 051) stated that control of coal truck
dumps with a fabric filter is not practical.  Commenter 037 stated that
Method 9 opacity testing is not appropriate for truck dumps because
truck dumps are intermittent sources and typically will show compliance
using Method 9.

Response:  The physical size and operation characteristics of rear truck
dumps make operation with low instantaneous opacity difficult to
achieve.  Several western subbituminous mining operations that began
operation in the late 1970s and early 1980s originally used enclosures
vented to fabric filters to control PM emissions from rear truck dumps. 
It was the only viable technology at the time.  Although PM and opacity
emissions from the fabric filter-controlled stack were relatively low,
overall PM capture and control were not as high.  With the advent of
larger coal trucks and stilling sheds, WDEQ has allowed for the
replacement of enclosures vented to a fabric filter with stilling sheds.
 Stilling sheds provide a relatively high level of PM control.  However,
the coal is dumped rapidly and there are instantaneous periods of high
opacity even when the 6-minute opacity measured using Method 9 is low. 
WDEQ determines if the stilling shed is working properly by averaging
the highest instantaneous 15-second opacity of 10 truck dumps.  As long
as the average instantaneous opacity is less than 20 percent, the
stilling shed is determined to be operating properly.  The revised
amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009, supplemental
proposal notice requested comment on whether requiring an annual average
instantaneous opacity from 10 truck dumps is appropriate as an
alternative to the opacity  monitoring methods required for other
affected facilities (see 74 FR 25318 and Section 3 of this document). 
The final rule includes specific requirements for monitoring opacity
from coal truck dumps.

2.4.9	Modified/Reconstructed Sources

2.4.9.1	Routine Equipment Maintenance and Repair

Comment:  Several commenters (021, 026, and 047) stated that routine
equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement should not trigger
applicability of the Subpart Y requirements to existing sources.

Response:  Equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement of parts do
not in themselves trigger applicability of the Subpart Y requirements
for existing sources.  Per the section 60.250 of the rule, “[a]ny
affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 24, 1974, is
subject to the requirements of this subpart.”  Modification and
reconstruction are determined based upon the definitions in the General
Provisions, 40 CFR 60 subpart A.  Modification is described in section
60.14, and reconstruction is described in section 60.15.

2.4.9.2	Modified Sources

Comment:  Two commenters (028 and 035) stated that in many regions of
the U.S. conveyors are weather-protected but not fully enclosed (i.e.,
they have a top and sides but an open bottom such as half-moon covers
over the belt).  If modified, such conveyors should not be deemed to be
“enclosed” prior to modification and should be required to meet
section 60.252(c)(2)(i) rather than section 60.252(c)(2)(iii).  This
could be resolved by a formal definition or through clarifying
statements in the preamble to the final rule.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009
supplemental proposal notice would not require that affected sources be
mechanically vented (see 74 FR 25313-25314 and Section 3 of this
document).  Coal-handling operations that are not mechanically vented
would be subject only to opacity standards.  The final rule maintains
this provision.

Comment:  One commenter (038) stated that the proposed Subpart Y
amendments would require modified sources using subbituminous coal that
were previously enclosed to vent to a stack with a fabric filter. 
Modified sources that were not previously enclosed and are using either
bituminous or subbituminous coal are required to install an enclosure
and a chemical dust suppression system.  In its consideration, EPA
acknowledged that “modified” sources could face technical challenges
in trying to re-engineer a method for venting to a stack equipped with a
fabric filter due to the layout of existing equipment.  There are many
scenarios in which the modification required to install a stack and
fabric filter on an already enclosed source will be just as challenging
as if installed on a newly constructed enclosure.  EPA is correct in
their acknowledgement that sources could face technical challenges in
engineering sources with this equipment.  However, this assessment is
true for both sources with pre-existing enclosures as well as for
sources with no pre-existing enclosures.  Many existing coal-handling
systems have transfer points that are enclosed, but are not vented to
the atmosphere.  Any dust generated is contained within the structure
and settles inside the building.  As such, all modified sources affected
by this regulation should only be required to be equipped with an
enclosure and chemical dust suppression system, regardless of
pre-existing conditions.  The installation of fabric filter controls
should only apply to new sources using subbituminous coal.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice do not require affected
owners/operators of coal-handling operations to use fabric filters for
new, reconstructed, or modified sources.  Owners/operators may select
from a range of fugitive coal dust control technologies (including but
not limited to enclosures with chemical suppressants) to control PM
emissions from the operations of coal processing, conveying, storage and
transfer systems (see 74 FR 25313-25314 and Section 3 of this document).
 The final rule retains the range of fugitive coal dust control
technologies to control PM emissions from these sources.

2.4.9.3	Reconstructed Sources

Comment:  Several commenters (027, 028, and 035) stated the concern that
reconstructed conveyors would have difficulties installing enclosures in
certain situations such as congested plant site situations.  Commenters
requested that reconstructed coal processing, conveying, storage and
transfer systems be subject to the same requirements as modified plants.
 Commenter 027 stated that most changes to existing coal processing and
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer and loading
systems would be routine maintenance, repairs or replacements and would
not subject existing facilities to Subpart Y.  Moreover, most changes to
this type of equipment would not be expected to result in an increase in
PM emissions.  However, there may be instances when these types of
repairs and replacements (especially with respect to conveyors) could
fall within the reconstruction provisions.  EPA correctly notes the
technical challenges to enclose existing unenclosed facilities that are
subsequently modified, and the proposal takes this into account by
recognizing chemical suppression (as opposed to enclosure) as BDT.  This
commenter agrees with this approach for modified sources that were not
enclosed before the modification.  However, the same technical
challenges could apply to reconstructed sources that were not enclosed
before reconstruction and the commenter, therefore, requests that EPA
consider making BDT the same for reconstructed sources as for modified
sources.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice do not require affected owners and
operators of existing unenclosed coal-handling operations to enclose
those operations at the time of reconstruction.  Owners/operators of
new, reconstructed, or modified sources may select from a range of
fugitive coal dust control technologies (including but not limited to
enclosures with chemical suppressants) to control PM emissions from the
operations of coal processing, conveying, storage and transfer systems
(see 74 FR 25313-25314 and Section 3 of this document).  The final rule
retains the range of fugitive coal dust control technologies to control
PM emissions from these sources.

2.4.10	Consistency with Relevant Requirements in Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing NSPS 

Comment:  Four commenters (027, 035, 036, and 040) requested that
selected requirements in Subpart Y be consistent with requirements in
the Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOO).  Commenter 035 stated that EPA should use the same language for
Method 9 measurement of fugitive PM emissions for Subpart Y as subpart
OOO.  The commenter recommended that Subpart Y include procedures for
Method 9 measurement of multiple points as allowed in subpart OOO.  For
affected facilities that are enclosed within a building or structure,
the commenter stated that visible emission measurements of openings in
the building exterior are sufficient.  Commenter 40 stated that given
that the nonmetallic mineral processing and coal preparation industries
operate some of the same affected facilities whose emissions are
controlled by the same technologies, Subpart Y should be revised to
include some of the specific provisions that EPA “carved out” for
nonmetallic mineral processing over 20 years ago.  Specific provisions
for inclusion in Subpart Y should consist of equipment replacement,
exempt truck dumps, acknowledgment of routine replacements of specific
equipment components, reconstruction provision, exemption of specific
grizzlies, and buildings that enclose affected facilities.  Commenter
036 stated that based on their experience with implementing subpart OOO
for the trona mining/sodium carbonate refining industry, the
subpart OOO requirements are much more straightforward, easier to
understand, and easier for operational staff to determine compliance
status, and the same regulatory requirements should be used by EPA for
Subpart Y.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice are based on information and
emissions data specific to coal preparation and processing operations. 
The revised amendments include procedures for Method 9 measurement of
multiple points.  For affected facilities that are enclosed within a
building or structure, the final amendments to Subpart Y include the
option of showing that the building enclosing the affected facility or
facilities comply with Subpart Y.  An affected facility enclosed within
a building or structure would be considered to be in compliance if the
building in which it is enclosed is in compliance with the standard. 
Similar to subpart OOO, Subpart Y has been in existence for over 20
years, but without the specific provisions that EPA “carved out” for
nonmetallic minerals processing.  EPA is maintaining that position. 
Subpart Y is consistent with the statutory directives of CAA section 111
and the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A that are
applicable to all NSPS source categories including subpart OOO.

2.5	Subpart Y Implementation Requirements

2.5.1	PM Emissions Performance Testing

2.5.1.1	Need for PM Performance Test

Comment:  One commenter (069) stated that measurement of PM mass
emissions in part of the coal preparation industry is unnecessary for
NSPS purposes because the local authority, on a case-by-case basis, can
impose more restrictive requirements as determined by local conditions. 

Response:  The air emissions standards under Subpart Y are national
standards enforced by EPA or by individual States delegated authority by
EPA to do so for affected facilities within their jurisdiction. 
Periodic performance tests are a necessary component to EPA’s
enforcement and compliance programs to verify that the actual air
emission quantities from a given affected facility do not exceed the
applicable air pollutant emission limits for the source.  Including
specific performance test and other requirements in Subpart Y provides a
national baseline and ensures that the rule is implemented and enforced
consistently at all affected coal preparation and processing plants
nationwide.

2.5.1.2	Performance Testing of Small Fabric Filters

Comment:  One commenter (021) stated that annual performance tests
should not be required on fabric filters (baghouses) that are small and
in difficult to reach places.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice proposed to exempt an affected
facility with a design controlled potential emissions rate of 1.0 Mg
(1.1 ton) or less from annual or bi-annual repeat Method 5 performance
testing to demonstrate compliance with the applicable Subpart Y emission
limit, provided that the design emissions limit is less than or equal to
the applicable PM emissions limit, the manufacturers recommended
maintenance procedures are followed, and the unit operates with minimal
visible emissions (see 74 FR 25314 and Section 3 of this document). 
Method 5 performance testing to demonstrate compliance with the Subpart
Y requirements would not be required for small fabric filters on
affected facilities that meet these conditions.  The final rule retains
this exemption, with minor modifications. 

2.5.1.3	PM Performance Test Interval

Comment:  Two commenters (029 and 038) stated that the proposed
performance test requirements requiring initial PM performance testing
and annual testing thereafter for affected facilities subject to a PM
limit but without a PM CEMS are unduly burdensome.  The performance
testing requirement should be tailored according to the test results at
an affected facility.  For instance, some states such as Minnesota and
Colorado have a tiered test frequency requirement based on how close to
the standard the facility tests.  This type of tiered requirement
ensures compliance without imposing an unnecessary testing burden.  This
commenter requests that EPA consider periodic monitoring of the fabric
filter opacity using Method 9 as a surrogate to an annual performance
testing.  If Method 9 observations reflect necessity of performance
testing, this can be done within a reasonable time period.  Commenter
038 stated that performance testing for these sources should be similar
to frequency alternative that is currently allowed for title V operating
permit program and tailored according to test results at an affected
facility.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice would reduce the frequency required
for conducting Method 5 performance testing for certain affected sources
(see 74 FR 25314 and Section 3 of this document).  Under this proposed
revision, owners and operators would be required to conduct Method 5
performance testing for those affected sources subject to testing once
every 24 months provided that the most recent performance test was 50
percent or less of the applicable PM emissions limit.  Further, PM
CEMS-specific language is not included in the regulatory text of the
revised amendments to Subpart Y.  The final rule retains these
provisions.

2.5.1.4	Use of Method 17 as Alternative PM Test Method

Comment:  Two commenters (028 and 035) requested that EPA include among
the options to determine PM concentration the use of Method 17 in 40 CFR
60 Appendix A-6.  The commenters stated that this method, which is
applicable to source categories where PM concentrations are known to be
independent of temperature and water vapor is not present, is more
precise than Method 5 at low measurements because the sample recovery
process is simpler and less prone to error.

Response:  Method 17 is a test method developed by EPA for the
determination of PM emissions, where PM concentrations are known to be
independent of temperature over the normal range of temperatures
characteristic of emissions from a specified source.  This method is not
applicable to stacks that contain liquid droplets or are saturated with
water vapor.  Method 17 is applicable to many coal processing,
conveying, storage, and transfer systems that are enclosed and vented
through a PM control device because the captured stream consists of
fugitive coal dust particles suspended in an air stream at or near
ambient air temperatures.  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in
the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice would add Method 17 as an
alternative test method that affected owners and operators may use to
measure PM emissions vented through control devices for which the stack
temperature does not exceed 160°C (320°F) (see 74 FR 25326 and Section
3 of this document).  The final rule allows use of Method 17 to
determine PM emissions where gas stream characteristics are appropriate.

2.5.2	Visible Emissions Monitoring 

2.5.2.1	Periodic Visible Emissions Monitoring Frequency

Comment:  Three comments were received (022, 036, and 056) regarding the
necessity and frequency of the proposed periodic visible emissions
monitoring requirements.  Commenter 056 stated that EPA should require
more frequent monitoring for opacity than proposed.  Commenter 036
stated that a weekly Method 22 and a quarterly Method 9 average opacity
standard for coal crushing, conveying, and transferring facilities is
appropriate and adequately to demonstrates compliance.  Commenter 022
stated that periodic monitoring should not be required for affected
sources for which compliance otherwise has been adequately demonstrated.
 The proposed monitoring requirements are unnecessarily time consuming. 
At a typical industrial facility that handles coal, the proposed
monitoring requirements could involve as many as six or more separate
emission points, most of which would have no visible emissions.  An
initial compliance demonstration should be adequate, and thereafter,
single observations could be made once or twice a week.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice include requirements for subsequent
Method 9 opacity testing at various frequencies (i.e., within 7, 30, and
120 operating days of the previous test) depending on the maximum
15-second opacity reading in the most recent performance test.  As an
alternative to subsequent Method 9 performance testing, the revised
amendments also provide an option that would allow Method 22 to be used
to conduct daily 10-minute observations for affected sources for which
the maximum 6-minute opacity reading from their most recent Method 9
performance test was less than or equal to 3 percent.  In addition, if
an opacity test were conducted concurrently with the PM performance test
for units with wet scrubbers that continuously monitor specified
scrubber parameters, no subsequent Method 9 opacity testing would be
required.  Finally, under certain conditions, the revised amendments
would allow visible emissions observations using Method 9 for up to
three emission points within a 15-second interval. (See 74 FR
25323-25324 and Section 3 of this document.)  The final rule includes
further revisions to the visible emissions monitoring requirements (see
Section 3 of this document).

2.5.2.2	Visible Emissions Monitoring Frequency for Fogging Systems and
PECS

Comment:  Two commenters (021 and 031) recommended compliance approaches
for affected facilities using fogging systems and PECS.  For sources
that use a PECS or a fogging system, the commenters suggested that a
one-time Method 9 opacity test should be conducted at each emission
point to demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity standard.  The
source would then conduct a 6-minute observation using Method 22 for
visible emissions on a monthly basis.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009
supplemental proposal notice include requirements for an initial Method
9 opacity test and subsequent Method 9 opacity testing at various
frequencies (i.e., within 7, 30, and 120 operating days of the previous
test) depending on the maximum 15-second opacity reading in the most
recent performance test.  As an alternative to subsequent Method 9
performance testing, the revised amendments also provide an option that
would allow Method 22 to be used to conduct daily 10-minute observations
for affected sources for which the maximum 6-minute opacity reading from
their most recent Method 9 performance test was less than or equal to 3
percent.   The final rule includes further revisions to the visible
emissions monitoring requirements (see Section 3 of this document).

2.5.2.3	Method 22 Observation Period

Comment:  Four commenters (029, 030, 038, and 046) stated that EPA
should reduce the proposed Method 22 observation period for facilities
using certain work practice standards.  Even if EPA does not establish
work practice standards or an alternative way to meet opacity
requirements for facilities not venting to a stack, it should
acknowledge the effectiveness of such efforts in the opacity monitoring
requirements.  The proposed rule would require a series of three 1-hour
observations (during normal operation) at least once per calendar month
that the coal-handling facility operates using Method 22.  This is an
excessive amount of observation time especially if numerous potential
emission points are involved.  If a facility is following work practice
standards, such as minimizing drop heights, periodic inspections of
enclosures, and performing all necessary preventive maintenance on
equipment, then a less burdensome observation period would be sufficient
be considered for these emission sources using Method  22.  Commenter
46 recommended changing the visible emissions observation period to 1
hour.

Response:  As an alternative to subsequent Method 9 performance testing,
the revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009,
supplemental proposal notice provide an option that would allow Method
22 to be used to conduct daily 10-minute observations for affected
sources for which the maximum 6-minute opacity reading from their most
recent Method 9 performance test was less than or equal to 3 percent
(see 74 FR 25324 and Section 3 of this document).  The final rule
includes further revisions to the visible emissions monitoring
requirements (see Section 3 of this document).

2.5.2.4	Method 9 Performance Test Trigger

Comment:  Two commenters (028 and 035) stated that the criterion of any
visible emissions for a cumulative total of nine minutes over a 3-hour
period could trigger follow-up Method 9 testing under circumstances
where Method 9 testing over the same 3-hour period would have shown
compliance.  For these reasons, the commenters stated that the Method 22
criterion EPA has proposed is too stringent and may trigger Method 9
testing when no problem exists.  In the event that a Method 9
“performance test” is triggered, the commenter has significant
concerns about a source’s ability to satisfy the proposed requirement
within 24 hours.  Under the general provisions, sources are required to
provide EPA 30 days notice of any performance test, unless otherwise
specified in section 60.8(d).  This requirement obviously could not be
met under EPA’s proposal. .  If EPA requires repeat Method 9 testing
under any circumstances, EPA will need to provide a waiver of this
notice requirement in the subpart or provide an alternative notice
requirement that is consistent with the applicable testing deadline.  If
EPA promulgates a rule requiring repeat Method 9 testing on a specific
deadline, EPA would have to provide a waiver for weather conditions and
take into account the cost of having an outside contractor potentially
on call waiting for the weather to clear.  For all of the reasons
discussed above, EPA should abandon the idea of an automatic Method 9
trigger and rely instead on repeat Method 22 readings following
corrective action or the monitoring of other operating parameters (like
proper operation of chemical or wet suppression systems).

Response:  As described above, revised amendments to Subpart Y published
in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice revised the conditions
under which an affected owner or operator would be required to perform a
new Method 9 performance test.  The revised Method 22 criterion would
provide the options of conducting corrective actions and demonstrating
within 24 hours that the source is in compliance with the opacity limit
or conducting a new Method 9 performance test within 30 calendar days
(see 74 FR 25323-25324 and Section 3 of this document).  The company
also has the option of having a certified Method 9 “reader” on staff
for such observations.  The final rule includes further revisions to the
visible emissions monitoring requirements, including a provision that
repeat Method 9 performance testing would be required within 45 calendar
days from the date of the occurrence that results in the repeat
performance test.  This ensures that the owner or operator has
sufficient time to meet the requirement to provide EPA 30 days notice of
any performance test.

2.5.2.5	Wet Process Visible Emission Monitoring Exemption

Comment:  One commenter (046) recommended exemption of wet processes
from visual emissions monitoring emissions requirements. 

Response:  The commenter appears to be expressing a concern that visual
emissions test methods are not effective in monitoring plumes with
visible water vapor.  Both Method 9 and, by reference, Method 22 provide
for measurement of visible emissions when visible water vapor exists. 
Because one can apply the visible emission measurement methods, EPA
disagrees with this comment.

2.5.2.6	Alternative Site-Specific Test Method

Comment:  Two commenters (028 and 035) stated concern with EPA’s
creation in Subpart Y of a separate process for approval of a
site-specific alternative to an EPA test method without any analysis or
support.  Of course, if EPA wants to encourage sources to develop data
to validate this method under Method 301 and follow the established
procedures for approval of alternatives, EPA can provide that
encouragement with a simple statement in the preamble.  Without
supporting data, this option has no place in this rule.

Response:  EPA is not requiring Method 301 validation prior to use of a
digital opacity compliance system (digital camera method) because the
system measures the opacity of visible emissions in much the same way a
Method 9 observer would.  Also, EPA Preliminary Test Method 008
(PRE-008), “Determination of Visible Emission Opacity From Stationary
Sources Using Computer-Based Photographic Analysis Systems,” which has
undergone some Method 301 validation testing, includes method-specific
validation procedures and acceptance criteria.  Thus, we are instead
relying on approval of a site-specific monitoring plan that is prepared
using PRE-008 for reference purposes.  EPA certainly encourages sources
to develop data based on use of the digital camera method.

2.5.3	Bag Leak Detection System

2.5.3.1	BLDS Cost Impact

Comment:  One commenter (046) stated that the cost of using bag leak
detection systems (BLDS) for all fabric filters is excessive.

Response:  EPA considered, but decided not to require use of a BLDS at
each affected facility using a fabric filter to control emissions. 
These detectors are useful and effective for early detection of bag
leaks; however, the capital costs of a BLDS can be as much as $24,000
and the annualized costs might be as much as $7,000 (including capital
recovery).  These costs are considered unjustifiably high for smaller
fabric filters with low potential emissions at Subpart Y affected
facilities.  Because potential emissions from a bag leak are more
significant for larger fabric filters and because the cost of BLDS would
not be significantly different for small or large fabric filters, the
revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009,
supplemental proposal notice, as well as the final rule, require a BLDS
only for those fabric filters with a design controlled potential PM
emissions rate of 25 Mg (28 tons) or more (see 74 FR 25315 and Section 3
of this document for more information).  This equates to a fabric filter
of approximately 70,000 scfm with a design emissions rate of
0.010 gr/dscf, or 140,000 scfm with a design emissions rate of 0.0050
gr/dscf.

2.5.3.2	BLDS Operation under Adverse Weather

Comment:  One commenter (018) stated that EPA should expressly recognize
that adverse weather conditions, such as rain, may trigger a BLDS alarm
and such condition may persist for longer than 3 hours.  This commenter
has operated BLDS at several fabric filter facilities in the steel
industry.  Based upon that experience, the commenter determined that
adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain, may cause the BLDS
system to alarm even when there is no defect in the fabric filter
system.  Depending upon the area, these weather conditions may persist
for longer than three hours.  EPA should recognize that weather
conditions may trigger an alarm and allow an operator to inspect the
fabric filter, determine that there are no apparent leaks, torn or
broken bags and that the alarm is due to the weather, and wait to
resolve the alarm until the adverse weather condition abates.

Response:  Revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice include a provision that would allow
the owner or operator of an affected facility to request more than 3
hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes a BLDS alarm if the
owner or operator identifies in their monitoring plan that specific
condition as one that could lead to an alarm, explains why it is not
feasible to alleviate the condition within 3 hours, and demonstrates
that the requested time will ensure alleviation of the condition as
expeditiously as practicable.

2.5.4	PM Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS)

Comment:  One commenter (056) stated that EPA should require PM CEMS for
all thermal dryer and pneumatic coal cleaning equipment stacks.  Two
commenters (035 and 045) requested that EPA clarify the use of PM CEMS
under Subpart Y.  Commenter 045 interpreted the proposed rule to say
that a new coal processing and conveying source is only subject to a
5 percent opacity requirement if it does not have a PM CEMS.  Section
60.253(g) seems to require opacity monitoring and comparison to a 5
percent opacity criterion for all new coal processing and conveying
sources, regardless of whether they have a PM CEMS.  Also, sections
60.252(c)(2)(i) and 60.252(d) both refer to sources that do not use a PM
CEMS according to the requirements of section 60.253(e).  Section
60.253(e) by its terms only applies to thermal dryers and pneumatic
coal-cleaning equipment, because it describes requirements for “[e]ach
PM CEMS used in lieu of the monitoring requirements in paragraph (c) of
this section,” i.e. to sources otherwise subject to section 60.253(e).
 So it literally is impossible for a coal processing and conveying
source to be using a PM CEMS according to the requirements of section
60.253(e).  The commenter was unable to determine exactly what EPA
intended for monitoring requirements and devices.

Response:  In the April 28, 2008 proposal notice, EPA did not propose to
require the use of PM CEMS but added specific language directly to the
regulatory text that allowed owners/ operators to elect to use PM CEMS
and provided incentives for them to do so by proposing to eliminate the
opacity standard for owners/operators of affected facilities using a PM
CEMS.  Commenters suggested that by having the specific language
directly in the regulatory text, we were encouraging State permitting
authorities to require the use of PM CEMS, and that the costs are not
justified for this source category.  Based on our review of public
comments and further analysis, revised amendments to Subpart Y published
in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice removed the PM
CEMS-specific language from the rule (see 74 FR 25307 and Section 3 of
this document).  As noted in the response to comment 3.5.4, we continue
to believe that it is not “feasible” to install and operate PM CEMS
on subpart Y affected facilities.

2.5.5	Continuous Opacity Monitor System (COMS)

Comment:  One commenter (045) stated that most in-line coal mills have a
COMS in order to meet the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) opacity requirement for kiln gases (20 percent). 
Rather than requiring either a PM CEMS or a BLDS for new thermal dryers
and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment, continuing compliance with the
NSPS emission limitations for those processes could be demonstrated with
the COMS at little or no incremental expense.  Requiring annual
performance testing of coal processing and conveying equipment emissions
is excessive, in light of the stringent opacity limitation being
proposed and the proposed requirement for either a PM CEMS or a BLDS for
new thermal dryers and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment.  With those
types of provisions for continually monitoring control equipment,
conducting an official performance test once every 5 years should be
sufficient.

Response:  As an alternative to performing Method 9 performance tests,
the revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27, 2009,
supplemental proposal notice allow an owner or operator of an affected
facility subject to a visible emissions standard to install, operate,
and maintain a COMS (see 74 FR 25324 and Section 3 of this document). 
The final rule retains this option.

2.5.6	Recordkeeping

2.5.6.1	General

Comment:  One commenter (056) stated that recordkeeping and logbooks
should be more thorough to ensure compliance with the rule requirements.
 The commenter supports the requirement to measure and report amounts of
water and chemical stabilizer used each month; however, monitoring and
recordkeeping must be more thorough.  Facilities should also maintain a
daily logbook detailing where, when and how much water and chemical dust
suppressant is used, traffic rates and types of vehicles using plant
roadways and vehicle activity areas, equipment downtime records, and
meteorological conditions relevant to control program requirements (such
as wind speed, daily precipitation and relative humidity).  Such records
are commonly kept at facilities across the country and are necessary to
help assure that any work practice or equipment standards are being
properly operated.

Response:  The revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice would require owners or operators of
affected facilities to maintain a logbook that includes documentation of
recommended maintenance procedures and any maintenance and inspection
activities; results of opacity observations and corrective actions
taken, if any; the amount and rank of coal processed; the amount of
chemical stabilizer or water purchased; monthly certification that dust
suppressant systems were operational; monthly certification that the
fugitive dust emissions control plan was properly implemented; BLDS
output and information pertaining to any BLDS alarms; monthly
certification that the monitoring plan for a digital opacity compliance
system was properly implemented; and wet scrubber pressure loss and
water supply pressure (see 74 FR 25326-25327 and Section 3 of this
document).  Documentation of this information will provide useful
information regarding the overall operation of a coal preparation and
processing plant.  The final rule includes minor revisions to the
monitoring parameters and documentation requirements.

2.5.6.2	Fogging Systems

Comment:  Two commenters (032 and 036) stated that the WDEQ requires O&M
records to be retained for the fogging systems, and that they be
maintained on a scheduled frequency that is dependent upon production
throughput.  For one commenter’s operation, these records are monthly
O&M records of the maintenance performed on each fogging system area and
the air and water pressure of the system each month, which documents
that the system is performing properly.  Also, the operators are
required to look at each transfer building during each shift when coal
is being handled.  If a dust problem is seen, they are to investigate
and solve the problem immediately (i.e., repair the dust control
system).  The commenter stated the opinion that the documentation of the
air and water pressure readings during monthly O&M checks combined with
daily visible emission assessments are adequate to show that the fogging
systems have been operating as designed.

Response:  The revised amendments to Subpart Y published in the May 27,
2009, supplemental proposal notice would require owners/operators of
affected facilities to maintain a logbook that documents recommended
maintenance procedures and any maintenance and inspection activities,
results of opacity observations and any corrective actions taken, and
monthly certification that dust suppressant systems were operational;
all of which would provide an indication of whether a fogging system was
operating properly.  The final rule retains these requirements.

2.5.6.3	Dust Suppressant System Non-operating Periods

Comment:  Two commenters (030 and 038) stated that EPA should change the
logbook requirements to acknowledge the valid reasons for not operating
dust suppressant systems.  Under proposed section 60.255(a)(4), affected
facilities must keep a logbook that includes a monthly certification
that dust suppressant systems were operational when any coal was
processed and that manufacturer recommendations were followed for all
control systems.  In general, the commenter does not object to this
obligation, but stated that in certain limited circumstances there may
be legitimate reasons for not operating the dust suppressant systems. 
For example, in the northern parts of the country, winter temperatures
drop to well below freezing.  Under those temperatures, many chemical
dust suppressants cannot be applied and water addition could constitute
a safety hazard and cause operational difficulties.  Also precipitation
can act to control dust generation naturally.  During periods of heavy
precipitation additional water application is unnecessary and wasteful. 
In recognition that circumstances such as freezing temperatures and
heavy rain can arise that make dust suppression operations unwise or at
least unnecessary, EPA should revise the proposed logbook certification
provision to allow facilities to show that a decision to not operate a
dust suppressant system was justified. 

Response:  EPA recognizes that operation of water-based dust suppression
systems is not needed during periods of rain or may not be operable when
ambient air temperatures are well below 32°F.  The final rule allows
owners and operators to add a comment to their logbook records to
explain periods when the dust suppressant systems were not operated due
to ambient conditions (e.g., during periods of subfreezing temperatures
or rain).

2.6	Analyses of Cost, Non-air, and Energy Impacts

2.6.1	Adequacy of Cost Analysis

Comment:  Four comments were received (019, 025, 032, and 045) regarding
the assumptions used for the cost analysis.  Commenter 019 stated that
the proposed rule does not consider the economic impact of the capital
and operating costs of fabric filters compared to the newer technologies
that are currently available.  The physical size of fabric filters
requires the dust collection equipment to be placed further from the
dust source, requiring additional ductwork, and structures to mount the
equipment.  Commenter 032 stated that costs to operate fabric filters in
combustible dust environments should include the cost to control indoor
dust, costs to resolve fabric filter fire/explosion hazards, costs for
fabric filter noise pollution abatement, and cost for vacuum trucks used
for cleanup of coal dust collected in fabric filters.  Commenter 025
stated that the cost analysis was incomplete and does not contain all
control alternatives.  Commenter 045 questioned EPA’s conclusion that
the proposed amendments would have little economic impact.

Response:  The supplemental proposal eliminated the requirement for
owner/operators of affected facilities processing subbituminous and
lignite coals to vent to a control device.  The proposed change from the
original proposal is the result of our conclusion that fogging systems
and PECS provide equivalent environmental protection as fabric filters
at a potentially lower cost.  We have further concluded that wet
extraction scrubbers could achieve the standards in the supplemental
proposal and are a viable alternative to fabric filters.  Considering
that fabric filters are not the basis for the BDT determination in the
supplemental proposal we concluded it was not necessary to re-evaluate
the fabric filter costs to determine if they needed to be adjusted.  The
economic analysis of the proposal indicates that the costs on a facility
basis are all projected to be less than one percent of sales and would
not significantly impact the coal industry.  EPA determined, however,
that a revised cost analysis should be prepared in support of the final
amendments to subpart Y. 

2.6.2	Adequacy of Non-air Impacts and Energy Requirement Analyses

Comment:  Two commenters (025 and 044) stated that no analyses of
non-air impacts or energy requirements were conducted.

Response:  In developing NSPS for a source category, the CAA requires
that EPA consider alternative emission control approaches, taking into
account the estimated costs and benefits, as well as energy, solid
waste, and other effects.  The revised amendments to Subpart Y published
in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal notice requested comment on
whether EPA has identified the appropriate alternatives and whether the
proposed standards adequately take into consideration the incremental
effects in terms of emission reductions, energy, and other effects of
these alternatives (see 74 FR 25317 and Section 3 of this document). 
The energy requirements are taken into account in the costing analysis
and the supplemental proposal provided for alternatives to fabric
filters with lower energy requirements.

2.7	Relationship of Subpart Y with Other Rules

2.7.1	Part 70 Title V Permits

Comment:  One commenter (021) expressed concern that Subpart Y is
applicable to coal- handling and storage operations at coal-fired power
plants even though these facilities already must comply with 40 CFR part
70, the Title V operating permit program.  The title V permit program
requires all emission sources in the coal preparation process for fossil
fuel-fired generating utilities to be covered under the Compliance
Assurance Monitoring (CAM) plan.  It also requires that permit emission
limits be enforced through the title V operating permit.  As such the
Subpart Y is redundant when applied to coal-fired power plants, and any
such facility that already has an active title V operating permit with
an active CAM plan should not be subject to Subpart Y.

Response:  Title V generally does not establish emission limits but,
rather, requires that all requirements applicable to a specific covered
source be included in that source’s title V permit.  EPA is directed
by CAA section 111 to develop and then review and revise, if
appropriate, new source category-specific regulations.  Further, CAA
section 114(a)(3) provides that the Administrator shall require enhanced
monitoring of all major stationary sources and that the Administrator
may require enhanced monitoring of other sources.  42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(3).
 This section provides EPA with authority to promulgate the monitoring
requirements in this rule.  In addition, in promulgating the Part 64 CAM
requirements, EPA explained the limited purpose of Part 64. 
Specifically, EPA explained that “Part 64 is intended to provide a
reasonable means of supplementing existing regulatory provisions . . . .
The Agency does not believe that existing monitoring requirements that
are more rigorous than part 64 should be reduced or that monitoring
imposed in future regulatory actions necessarily should be guided by
part 64.”   EPA also restated its commitment “to developing new
emission standards subsequent to the 1990 Amendments with methods
specified for directly determining continuous compliance whenever
possible.”  (See 62 FR 54900, 54904, October 22, 1997.)  The approach
adopted in this rule is consistent with the approach taken by EPA when
promulgating the part 64 CAM requirements.  It is also consistent with
EPA’s recognition of the benefits of addressing  that such issues and
improving monitoring requirements, consistent with the requirements of
section 114(a)(3), through rulemaking actions including section 111
rulemakings.  Id.  

One purpose of title V permitting programs or other rules (e.g., the
Part 64 CAM rules) relevant to this issue is to fill monitoring and
testing gaps where the underlying rules may be deficient, not replace
EPA’s rulemaking responsibilities.  In fact, the Title V review must
assess whether the proposed permit contains monitoring sufficient to
reasonably ensure compliance, and to require such monitoring if it does
not.  In addition, by promulgating national rules with effective
monitoring, EPA can assure that such monitoring requirements are applied
consistently throughout an affected category of sources.  As noted, EPA
has an obligation to review, and revise if necessary, NSPS on a regular
schedule.  Thus, we will be applying a new rule to source categories
potentially already subject to monitoring sufficient to assure
compliance.  We include provisions for monitoring that will be effective
for assuring compliance with the new limits and can even apply new
monitoring technology (e.g., PM CEMS) if we think it is warranted and
feasible.  Even if Part 64 does apply to these sources, Part 64 would
not apply to monitoring for compliance with any new NSPS rules or to
units or processes subject to emissions limits and that use control
measures other than add-on control devices.  The affected facilities to
which subpart Y applies include coal transfer, loading, conveyance, and
storage operations that may not involve add-on control devices and to
which the CAM rules under Part 64 would not apply.

2.7.2	Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart OOO)

Comment:  Several commenters (027, 035, and 038) requested that EPA
provide a compliance alternative for owners and operators of affected
sources subject to control requirements under both Subpart Y and subpart
OOO to be exempted from the control requirements of subpart OOO if they
comply instead with the requirements of Subpart Y.

Response:  Subpart Y establishes NSPS for coal preparation and
processing plants.  Subpart OOO establishes NSPS for nonmetallic
minerals processing plants.  The two NSPS rules apply to separate and
distinct source categories.  There are no affected facilities subject to
both Subpart Y and subpart OOO.  However, at some plant locations such
as electric utility power plants there may be coal processing affected
facilities subject to Subpart Y and limestone processing affected
facilities (for the coal-fired boiler flue gas desulfurization systems)
subject to subpart OOO.  EPA does not have authority to exempt sources
from those requirements.  However, if EPA has data and analyses
demonstrating that compliance with one requirement guarantees compliance
with a second requirement, EPA could make a determination that
compliance with the first requirement is deemed to satisfy the second
requirement.  In this instance, the commenter appears to be asking EPA
to make a determination that compliance with Subpart Y would satisfy the
requirements of subpart OOO.  Even if EPA had data to support such a
conclusion, EPA could not make such a finding in this rulemaking.  Any
findings relating to what is required to satisfy the requirements of
subpart OOO could only be made in a separate rulemaking specific to
subpart OOO.  Amendments to subpart OOO are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.

2.7.3	Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Rules

Comment:  One commenter (035) stated that OSHA Directive CPL 03-00-008
effective March 11, 2008, would require coal preparation plants to
maintain a coal dust layer not to exceed 1/32 inch to comply with
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 654.  The commenter is
concerned that maintaining a coal dust layer consistent with 1/32 inch
standard on flat surfaces would be very difficult with the large amount
of air flow that would be needed to vent a fabric filter, and that the
interaction of the proposed Subpart Y amendments with NFPA 654 would
make fabric filters prohibitively expensive if they had to be built
sufficiently large to meet the 1/32 inch level.  Preliminary research by
the commenter on this issue led to a tentative conclusion that it would
be difficult for OSHA to use the 1/32 inch level from NFPA 654 for coal
preparation plants at electric utilities.  This commenter requested that
EPA coordinate with OSHA to confirm this analysis before the rule is
finalized.

Response:  The OSHA directive actually says that immediate cleaning is
warranted if the coal dust accumulation reaches 1/32 inch thickness over
at least 5 percent of the surface area including rafters and tops of
equipment (section IX. E.3).  The purpose of the directive is to
eliminate dust accumulation, not to ensure that there is a coal dust
layer. EPA believes that complying with the requirements of Subpart Y
would do nothing to cause an owner or operator to fail to comply with
the OSHA directive but, rather, would help the facility remain in
compliance with it. Further, the standards established in the final rule
require facilities to meet specific emission rates but do not require
any specific control technology (e.g., a fabric filter) to be used.

2.8	Proposed Regulatory Text Clarifications

Comment:  One commenter (013) stated that the proposed regulatory text
in section 60.252(c)(2)(ii) requiring each new and reconstructed
affected facility that processes, conveys, stores, transfers, or loads
coal, except those that exclusively process, convey, store, transfer, or
load bituminous coal to vent all emissions through a stack and ensure
that emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility
do not contain PM in excess of 0.011 g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf) is contrary
to the text in the preamble at II.B (73 FR 22903).  The proposed wording
does not restrict the applicability of the PM standard to only that
equipment that is enclosed.  The commenter stated that the regulatory
text is not clear that the emission standards applies to the
constructed, reconstructed and modified equipment listed only if that
equipment is fully enclosed.  Also, the text is not clear concerning
whether or not constructed, reconstructed and modified equipment must be
made fully enclosed to comply.  The commenter requested that EPA clarify
the rule requirements in the final rule concerning these points.  To
remove uncertainty, the commenter suggested defining enclosed as
“fully enclosed.”

Response:  Specific proposed regulatory text cited by commenters was not
included in the revised amendments regulatory text published in the May
27, 2009, supplemental Subpart Y proposal (see 74 FR 25304).  The
revised amendments to Subpart Y apply the PM emissions limit for coal
processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal
transfer system operations to those affected sources that are
mechanically vented.  Ventilation systems can be used with either
partial or full enclosures.  The final rule similarly applies the PM
emissions limit to those affected sources that are mechanically vented.

Comment:  One commenter (018) requested that EPA clarify the term “a
stack” used for proposed regulatory text in section 60.252(c)(2)(ii)
to mean that emissions should pass through a stack and not that all
emissions must pass through the same stack.  The commenter interprets
EPA’s discussion in the preamble to allow use of multiple stacks and
control devices, where appropriate.  Multiple stacks may be required in
some configurations where a single stack is too distant from part of the
facility to provide effective capture and evacuation.

Response:  Specific proposed regulatory text cited by commenters was not
included in the revised amendments regulatory text published in the May
27, 2009, supplemental Subpart Y proposal (see 74 FR 25304).  The
revised amendments’ regulatory text does not use the term “stack”
in the context of specifying the emission points subject to PM emission
limits for affected coal processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems, and coal transfer system operations.  Similarly, the
final rule does not use the term “stack” in that context.

Comment:  One commenter (040) stated that the proposed regulatory text
in sections 60.252(c)(2)(ii) and (iii) (73 FR 22911) is overly complex
and unnecessarily confusing.  The language suggests a scope of Subpart Y
applicability far greater than the originally designated affected
facilities that EPA has proposed not to change (73 FR 22903).  The
commenter requested that EPA revise the regulatory text to be
unequivocally clear that the subject performance standard applies only
to affected facilities handling non-bituminous coals.

Response:  Specific proposed regulatory text cited by commenters was not
included in the revised amendments regulatory text published in the May
27, 2009, supplemental Subpart Y proposal (see 74 FR 25304).  The
revised amendments to Subpart Y eliminated separate fugitive dust
control requirements for coal processing, conveying, storage and
transfer systems depending on the coal rank processed (see 74 FR 25306
-25307and Section 3 of this document).  The final rule retained the
elimination of separate fugitive dust control requirements depending on
coal rank.

3.0  May 27, 2009   Supplemental Subpart Y Amendment Proposal

3.1	Subpart Y Applicability

3.1.1	Regulated Pollutants

3.1.1.1	SO2, NOx or CO Endangerment Finding

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, 117, and 120)
stated that EPA’s authority to promulgate NSPS requires an
endangerment finding for the coal preparation plant source category and
the pollutant(s) of interest.  EPA has not made such a finding for SO2
NOx, or CO from coal preparation plants, and therefore cannot set SO2,
NOx, or CO emissions standards applicable to coal preparation plants
under Subpart Y.  Another commenter (100) stated that EPA has correctly
recognized its obligation to promulgate NSPS for SO2, NOx, and CO as
required by the CAA.

Response:  CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to
publish a list of categories of stationary sources and include a
category of sources on that list if he finds that “in his judgment it
causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42
USC 7411(b)(1)(A).  The plain language of section 111(b)(1)(A) provides
that such findings are to be made for source categories, not for
specific pollutants emitted by the source category.  Therefore, once the
Administrator determines that the source category causes of contributes
significantly to air pollution which may endanger public health or
welfare, the Administrator must add the source category to the section
111(b)(1)(A) list and subsequently establish standards of performance
for the sources in that source category.  Determinations regarding the
specific pollutants to be regulated are made, not in the initial
endangerment finding, but in the at the time the performance standards
are promulgated.  In addition, section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA to
review and revise, if appropriate, the standards at least every eight
years.  In conducting that review, EPA has discretion to revisit its
original determination regarding which pollutants emitted from the
source category should be regulated.  Neither the text of the CAA nor
subsequent statements of EPA provide any support for the argument that
an endangerment finding must be made for specific pollutants or for the
argument that the scope of the revised NSPS must be limited to the
pollutants (or affected facilities) regulated in the initial NSPS.

The text of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) provides no support for the
argument that section 111 endangerment findings must be made for each
pollutant emitted by the source category before that pollutant can be
regulated in the NSPS.  In contrast, the statutory text calls for a list
of “categories of stationary sources.”  It does not require, at the
time of listing, an identification of all the specific pollutants
emitted by the source category that may endanger public health or
welfare.  Instead, it requires only a general determination that
emissions from the category cause or contribute to air pollution that
may endanger public health or welfare.  The endangerment finding is used
to identify categories of sources for regulation, not to dictate the
substantive content of the required standards of performance.  The
endangerment finding neither requires regulation of each pollutant
emitted by the source category, nor limits EPA’s discretion to
determine (in the initial regulation or in subsequent revisions) which
pollutants should be regulated.  

Instead, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the Administrator, after
publishing proposed regulations and providing an opportunity for
comment, to promulgate such standards as the Administrator “deems
appropriate.”  The statutory scheme thus provides EPA with significant
discretion to determine which pollutant(s) should be regulated under the
NSPS.  The Agency has long interpreted section 111(b)(1)(B) as providing
the Administrator with this flexibility.  See National Lime Assoc. v.
EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 426 n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (explaining reasons for not
promulgating standards for NOX, SO2 and CO from lime plants); see also
National Assoc. of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228-1230
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (finding that the “deems appropriate” language in
CAA section 231 provides a “delegation of authority” that is “both
explicit and extraordinarily broad”).  

EPA has, in prior NSPS rulemakings, exercised its discretion to identify
pollutants for regulation.  It has sometimes exercised this discretion
to defer regulation of specific pollutants to a later date.  See, e.g.,
52 FR 36678, 36682 (September 30, 1987)(noting in Subpart DDD proposal
that “standards development for this industry is focusing initially on
limiting emissions of VOC”);; 49 FR 2656, 2659 (Jan 20, 1984)
(explaining why SO2 and VOC were the only pollutants in the natural gas
production industry selected for regulation under Subpart LLL “at this
time.”); 48 FR 37338, 37340-42 (Aug. 17, 1983) (declining to regulate
in Subpart AAa, emissions of pollutants for which adequately
demonstrated control technology was not currently available).  EPA has
also exercised this discretion to promulgate, during 8-year review
rulemakings, new performance standards for pollutants not previously
covered by the NSPS in question.  See, e.g., 52 FR 24624, 24710 (July 1,
1987) (considering PM10 controls in future rulemakings); 71 FR 9866
(Feb. 27, 2006) (establishing new PM standards for boilers); 73 FR 35838
(June 24, 2008) (adding NOX limits for fluid catalytic cracking units,
NOX limits for fluid coking units and NOX limits for process heaters to
the refineries NSPS).  In addition, EPA has previously  noted its
disagreement with comments implying that an additional endangerment
finding would be required to support regulation of a pollutant not
previously regulated in that specific NSPS.  See, e.g., 73 FR 35838,
35859 n2 (June 24, 2008).

Further, the argument that EPA must issue a separate endangerment
finding before regulating a pollutant not previously regulated in the
NSPS for a source category is illogical.  Once EPA has determined that a
source category causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare
emissions from a source category, the recognition that the source has
emissions above and beyond those discussed in the original endangerment
finding could only serve to strengthen the basis for the endangerment
finding for the source category.  Further, the listing of the source
category is only the first step in the process.  Once the finding is
made, the statute allows the more detailed analysis of which pollutants
are actually emitted and should be regulated to be conducted in
rulemaking process used promulgate and revise the standards for the
source category.  

Finally, it is worth noting that EPA previously addressed this topic in
the context of the Subpart Y NSPS for coal preparation and processing
plants.  Coal preparation plants were listed under CAA section
111(b)(1)(A) on October 24 1974, pursuant to the Administrator’s
determination that such plants “may contribute significantly to air
pollution which causes or contributes to the endangerment of public
health or welfare.”  39 FR 37,807  (Oct. 24, 1974).  The Background
Information Document for the Subpart Y standards proposed at that time
explains the process to be used for setting NSPS and explicitly notes
that “[a]lthough a source category may be selected to be covered by a
standard of performance, treatment of some of the pollutants of
facilities within that source category may be deferred.”  Background
Information for Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants Volume
1: Proposed Standards at ix.

For these reasons, EPA disagrees with the comment suggesting that EPA
cannot set SO2, NOX, or CO emissions standards applicable to coal
preparation and processing plants under Subpart Y.  EPA agrees with the
comment saying it was proper for EPA to revise the Subpart Y NSPS to
include standards for SO2, NOX, and CO as appropriate.

3.1.1.2	  Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Comment:  One commenter stated that EPA should recognize its obligation
to promulgate NSPS for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitric oxide
(N2O), and black carbon (a component of PM) from coal preparation and
processing plants.  The commenter asserts that because these pollutants
are the result of incomplete fuel combustion, they are emitted at coal
prep plants, particularly by thermal dryers heated by coal or other
fossil fuels.  Emissions of each pollutant, the commenter asserts,
carries individual and distinct risks and is controlled by different
technologies so EPA must fully analyze each pollutant and set separate
NSPS for each.

Response:  At this time EPA is not aware of any emissions or mitigation
data for the pollutants noted by the commenter for this source category.
 Hence, we lack sufficient information on which to base an NSPS for
emissions of CO2, N2O, and black carbon from the source category at this
time.  Rough estimates of CO2 from this source category suggest that
this source category would be among the smaller CO2-emitting NSPS
categories.  At this time, we are not making any final determination
regarding whether it would be appropriate to set such standards. 

In addition, to the extent the comment suggests that EPA should utilize
its authority under other provisions of the CAA to require sources to
gather and report GHG emissions and to the extent it raises issues not
opened for public comment in the supplemental proposal, it is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.

Comment:  One commenter asserts that CAA section 111 carries a mandate
for EPA to set NSPS for the pollutants emitted by a source.  The
commenter cites to language in section 111(a)(3) that defines a
stationary sources as any building, structure, facility or installation
which emits or may emit any air pollution and language in section
111(b)(4) defining a modification as a physical or operational change
which increases the amount of any air pollution emitted by the source. 
In addition, the commenter cites to the Supreme Court’s decision in
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 529 (2007) and EPA’s April 2009
Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases” (74 FR 18886 (Apr. 24, 2009)).

Response:  The Agency has long exercised its discretion to regulate only
a subset of the pollutants emitted by a source category or to defer
regulation of certain pollutants to a later date.  See e.g., National
Lime Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 426 n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (explaining
reasons for not promulgating standards for NOX, SO2, and CO from lime
plants); National Assoc. of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221,
1228-1230 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (finding that the “deems appropriate”
language in CAA section 231 provides a “delegation of authority”
that is “both explicit and extraordinarily broad”); 52 FR 36678,
36682 (September 30, 1987) (explaining Subpart DDD standards’ initial
focus on limiting emissions of VOC); 49 FR 2656, 2659 (January 20, 1984)
(explaining Subpart LLL regulates only emissions of SO2 and VOC); 48 FR
37338, 37340-42 (August 17, 1983) (explaining why Subpart AAa does not
regulate emissions of pollutants for which adequately demonstrated
control technology was not currently available). 

3.1.2	Addition of Coal Refuse to Definition of “Coal”

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 089, 095, 107, 112, 115, and 117)
stated that EPA has proposed to amend the definition of “coal” to
include “coal refuse and petroleum coke.”  These commenters object
to EPA’s inclusion of “coal refuse” because it further expands the
Subpart Y applicability with no data specific to coal refuse on what
constitute adequately demonstrated technologies and their respective
levels of achievable emissions.  Commenter 89 is concerned that this
definition of coal refuse could create the potential for the unintended
application of such definition to the overburden from surface mines or
to mine-development waste associated with underground mining.  Commenter
089 states that the final rule must make clear that the definition of
coal refuse does not apply to these types of operations and suggests
using the SMCRA definition instead (Coal refuse is defined as “any
waste coal, rock, shale, slurry, culm, gob, boney, slate, clay and
related materials, associated with or near a coal seam, which are either
brought aboveground or otherwise removed from a coal mine in the process
of mining coal or which are separated from coal during the cleaning or
preparation operations.  The term includes underground development
wastes, coal processing wastes, excess spoil, but does not mean
overburden from surface mining activities”).  Commenter 089 believes
that this definition would be a more appropriate definition of coal
refuse for EPA to include in the final rule, because the definition
limits the application of coal refuse to surface coal mining operations.

In contrast, several other commenters (087, 099, 119, and 126) stated
either they support or that they have no objections to including coal
refuse in the definition of “coal” for Subpart Y.

Response:  EPA is including “coal refuse” in the final rule’s
definition of “coal” for the purposes of subpart Y because it is
handled in the same machinery as other types of coal at coal preparation
and processing plants.  “Coal refuse” is separately defined, as well
as included in the definition of “coal” in other NSPS (e.g., 40 CFR
60 subparts Da and Db), and its inclusion here provides consistency with
other EPA regulations.  EPA has modified the definition of “coal
refuse” in subpart Y to be consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 60
subpart Da.  Given the historical inclusion of “coal refuse” in
these other NSPS and the fact that the constituents and emission
characteristics of “coal” and “coal refuse” are believed to be
the same, EPA has concluded that inclusion of “coal refuse” in
subpart Y is appropriate.

3.1.3	Subpart Y Amendments Applicability Dates

Comment:  One commenter (093) stated while in some cases EPA is
proposing that new or more-stringent requirements first proposed in the
Supplemental Proposal only apply to facilities constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after the May 27, 2009, publication date of
the Supplemental Proposal, in other cases EPA is proposing that those
new or more-stringent requirements apply to any facility constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after the April 28, 2008, proposal of amended
Subpart Y NSPS.  Given that it was over a year between the April 28,
2008, proposal and EPA’s publication of the Supplemental Proposal,
this commenter believes it is unreasonable for EPA to apply any of the
more-stringent portions of the Supplemental Proposal to any facility
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification prior to
May 27, 2009.

Response:  CAA Section 111(a)(2) defines a “new source” as “any
stationary source, the construction of modification of which is
commenced after the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed
regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under this section
which will be applicable to such source.  Thus, requirements that were
proposed for the first time in the May 27, 2009 proposal will apply only
to sources constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009. 
However, standards or amendments to existing standards that were
proposed for the first time in the April 28, 208 proposal, regardless of
whether the final standard is more or less stringent than that
originally proposed, apply to all sources constructed, reconstructed or
modified after April 28, 2008.

3.1.4	Affected Facilities - General

Comment:  One commenter (096) stated that the Supplemental Proposal
includes revisions to the earlier proposed standards that are consistent
with EPA’s mandate under Section 111 of the CAA that EPA publish
standards of performance for categories of “stationary
sources . . . that cause[], or contribute[] significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare,” 42 U.S.C. §7411(b)(1).  These proposed revisions make it
more likely that the NSPS will address the most significant emissions
sources within coal prep plants.  EPA is correct to provide standards of
performance for additional affected facilities including pneumatic
coal-cleaning equipment cleaning all coal ranks, both direct and
indirect dryers drying all coal ranks, open storage piles (including the
loading, unloading, and conveying operations of open storage piles), and
roads associated with coal preparation plants constructed after May 27,
2009.

Response:  EPA appreciates the commenter’s support of its basic
approach.  See Section 3.4 of this document for discussion of roads.

Comment:  One commenter (094) stated that EPA should clarify that
subpart Y controls apply to coal-handling operations only to the extent
that coal is being managed in the coal preparation plant portion at an
owner or operator’s site, and that subpart Y does not apply to coal
that is managed on-site but not within the coal preparation plant.  The
commenter provided examples of situations to support their comment.

Response:  The provisions of subpart Y apply only to those facilities
meeting the applicability provisions specified in section 60.250 and the
definition of “coal preparation and processing plant” in section
60.251.  

3.1.5	Affected Facilities at Existing Coal Preparation Plants

Comment:  One commenter (103) understands it is EPA’s intention that
the proposed amendments to subpart Y would apply only to those
individual affected facilities at an existing coal preparation plant
that qualify as being a new, modified, or reconstructed source.  In
other words, if a specific unit (e.g., a thermal dryer or a transfer and
loading system) qualifies as a new, modified, or reconstructed affected
facility, the amended Subpart Y requirements are not triggered for other
existing coal preparation and processing facilities at the plant that
remain unchanged.  The commenter requests that this interpretation be
clarified in the text of the regulation.

Response:  The applicability provisions in subpart Y and the NSPS
General Provisions in 40 CFR 60 subpart A govern applicability
determinations for affected facilities at coal preparation and
processing plants.  These provisions provide that applicability is
determined for each individual facility and not for the source as a
whole, and confirm the commenters’ understanding that a determination
that a specific affected facility is subject to the amended subpart Y
requirements does not automatically cause other facilities at the source
to become subject to the amended subpart Y requirements.  Specifically,
section 60.14(a) provides, among other things, that “any existing
facility” shall become an affected facility for each pollutant to
which a standard applies . . . ”  In addition, section 60.14(c)
provides that “The addition of an affected facility to a stationary
source as an expansion to that source or as a replacement for an
existing facility shall not by itself bring within the applicability of
this part any other facility within that source.”

3.2	Subpart Y Subcategorization

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 120, and 115) stated
that when establishing standards of performance for new stationary
sources under the CAA §111(b)(2) authorizes the Administrator to
“distinguish among classes, types and sizes within categories of new
sources.”  For several reasons the commenters requested  that final
amendments to Subpart Y include a distinction 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.”  The commenters cited the
following regulatory requirement and facility characteristics
distinctions between coal producers and coal users to support their
request.

Most new coal-fired power plants as well as large industrial coal-fired
sources in the future will be major sources of PM emissions. 
Consequently, those new major sources will necessarily be required to
use state-of-the-art control technologies, i.e., BACT. In contrast to
the coal-fired major sources, i.e., the “users,” surface coal mines
with coal preparation facilities as well as standalone coal preparation
facilities associated with coal mines, i.e., the “producers,” are
typically minor sources.  Consequently, new coal preparation plants at
these mine locations will not be subject to BACT under the PSD program
but rather to control technology requirements of Minor NSR programs of
individual states.  EPA should consider adoption of industry sectors
based subcategorized emission standards for Subpart Y so that a BACT
level of control is not mandated as NSPS for “producers.”

Resource requirements to maintain and demonstrate compliance with the
Subpart Y emission standards is a function of the number of affected
facilities at a particular coal preparation plant.  Coal preparation
plants of “producers” tend to have more sizing, cleaning and overall
“handling” operations than the typical preparation plant at a
coal-fired “user.”  Consequently, as a general rule, the total
number of affected facilities at a “producer’s” coal preparation
plant will be greater (and could be several times greater) than the
number of such facilities at the preparation plant of a “user.”  For
example, it is not uncommon for a preparation plant associated with coal
mining to have 20-25 individual facilities.  Moreover, coal preparation
facilities at new coal-fired power plants are frequently enclosed to
accommodate a capture-and-control system to satisfy a BACT level of
control.  On the other hand, many new preparation facilities associated
with coal mining are expected to rely on wet suppression for particulate
control, and many will continue to be “out in the open,” i.e., only
partially enclosed or else unenclosed.  As a consequence of that latter
design configuration, a single affected facility associated with coal
mining can frequently have multiple points of fugitive emissions.  With
more affected facilities per source and more emission points per
affected facility, preparation plants associated with coal mining
generally will have much greater monitoring/recordkeeping/reporting
requirements than will its preparation counterparts at coal-fired
“user” sources.  A “one-size-fits-all” opacity monitoring
requirement under Subpart Y could be highly inequitable for preparation
plants associated with coal mines.

Fugitive dust from surface coal mines is already regulated by U.S.
Department of Interior (DOI) regulations in 30 C.F.R. Parts 700-899
under authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA).  EPA must account for the existing air pollution control
requirements imposed on coal mines by the SMCRA.  EPA has examined the
effects of such SMCRA-based controls in the past and found that
concurrent regulation with similar CAA requirements would not be
appropriate.  The commenter believes that EPA’s examination of those
SMCRA dust control requirements today in the context of possible NSPS
regulation of preparation facilities at coal mines would result in a
similar conclusion.  In short, the longstanding SMCRA regulatory program
applicable to preparation facilities associated with coal mines
constitutes a compelling reason for regulating such new “producer”
facilities under NSPS differently from those types of new facilities at
coal-fired “user” source.

Response:  The subpart Y NSPS covers coal preparation and processing
plants that may be found, as the commenter notes, both at mine sites
(“producers”) and at industrial sites (“users”).  In the
Response to Comments document for the October 24, 1974, proposal, EPA
stated “[t]he specific coal processing operations regulated by these
standards are affected regardless of whether they are located in coal
liquefaction plants, power plants, coke ovens, etc.”  (See
“Background Information for Standards of Performance:  Coal
Preparation Plants; Volume 3:  Supplemental Information.  January 1976.
p. 22.)

Commenters’ request that EPA create a separate category for coal
preparation and processing facilities at “producers” appears to be
based on the assertion that these facilities should not be required to
install and operate emissions control technologies that are currently in
use or will be used at coal preparation and processing facilities at
”users.”  A primary objective of CAA section 111, however, is to
require new sources to be built using the best system of emissions
reduction that has been adequately demonstrated.  Under CAA section 111,
EPA is required to set standards of performance (i.e., standards that
reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction).  As the Court has
noted, “Section 111 looks toward what may fairly be projected for the
regulated future, rather than the state of the art at present, since it
is addressed to standards for new plants.”  Portland Cement, 486 F.2d
at 391.  In developing NSPS standards, EPA must identify all
technologies in use or being developed for use to determine that the
Administrator determines have been adequately demonstrated.  This
analysis must take into account the cost of achieving the reductions and
any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements.  This analysis is separate and distinct from any BACT
analysis that may be done for an individual plant.  Finally, EPA
disagrees with the comment to the extent it suggests that EPA should not
consider technologies determined to be BACT for an individual plant in
its BDT analyses.  Control technologies change and can improve over time
and EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate for EPA to ignore
these developments when evaluating what currently constitutes BDT for
this source category.

The commenters point out that preparation plants associated with coal
mining generally have more affected facilities per source and more
emission points per affected facility.  Commenters have not suggested,
however, and EPA has no reason to believe, that the types of emissions
from coal preparation and processing sources associated with coal mines
differ from the types of emissions from those same source types at
“user” facilities.  They further have not demonstrated, and EPA has
no reason to believe, that emission control technologies that are
adequately demonstrated for facilities at “user” facilities would
not be adequately demonstrated for use at facilities located at mines. 
Thus, EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to regulate these
sources in the same manner and sees no need to establish subcategories
at this point.  Further, the comment could be read to suggest that a
separate subcategory should be created for facilities at mines because
these facilities are subject to differences in the degree of control
required by other regulations or because these facilities are currently
achieving different levels of control or using different emission
control technologies.  EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to
create a separate subcategory on these bases.  Further, these factors do
not affect what technologies could be found to be “adequately
demonstrated” or the emission reductions available from those
technologies.

In addition, the regulation of fugitive dust from surface coal mines
under SMCRA by the Department of Interior does not, as commenters
suggest, result in a “conclusion that concurrent regulation with
similar CAA requirements would not be appropriate.”

The October 1974 Background Information Document stated that “Coal
preparation” is a segment of the coal industry that encompasses
operations between the mining of raw coal and the distribution of
product coal.  (See “Background Information for Standards of
Performance:  Coal Preparation Plants; Volume 1:  Proposed Standards. 
October 1974. p. 1.)  The support document for the April 1981 NSPS
review states that “[t]he first step in the coal preparation process
is the delivery of ROM [run of mine] coal to the plant site.”  (See
“A Review of Standards of Performance for new Stationary Sources –
Coal Preparation Plants.  December 1980.  p. 2-3.)

EPA’s Office of Water has included the following definitions in their
regulations for the coal mining industry (at 40 CFR 434.11).

(b) The term “active mining area” means the area, on and beneath
land, used or disturbed in activity related to the extraction, removal,
or recovery of coal from its natural deposits.  This term excludes coal
preparation plants, coal preparation plant associated areas and
post-mining areas.

(e) The term “coal preparation plant” means a facility where coal is
subjected to cleaning, concentrating, or other processing or preparation
in order to separate coal from its impurities and then is loaded for
transit to a consuming facility.

Thus, EPA, in both the air and water offices, has maintained a
distinction between the “active mining area” and the “coal
preparation plant.”  The process of “coal preparation” generally
involves, among other things, separation of coal from impurities (i.e.,
“breaking” or “crushing”).  As discussed in the response to
comment 3.4.1.1.1 in the Response to Comments Document, EPA interprets
the “beginning” of the “coal preparation plant” to be the first
hopper (i.e., “drop point”) for receipt of coal from any form of
transportation.

3.3	Subpart Y Coal Drying Standards

3.3.1	Affected Coal Dryers 

3.3.1.1	Indirect Thermal Coal Dryers

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, 119, and 110) support EPA’s
proposal to distinguish between indirect and direct contact thermal
dryers.  The commenter anticipates that more electric utilities will use
indirect contact thermal dryers in the future.  Commenters agree with
EPA’s decision to exclude indirect thermal dryers from the coal dryer
SO2 and NOx/CO standards “[i]f the source of heat (the source of
combustion or furnace) is subject to a boiler NSPS (subpart Da, Db, or
Dc).  However, one commenter (110) states that in the case of the Great
River Energy facility, the waste heat being used for the facility’s
coal dryer does not come from the exhaust gases of a boiler but rather
from the condensing water from steam turbines.  In this case, there is
no affected facility in which the combustion pollutant emission limits
can apply. GRE agrees that the thermal dryers at CCS are only subject to
the PM limit, but not because they are subject to another NSPS. 
Emissions from the Great River Energy facility’s Unit 1 and 2 boilers
are not increased as a result of the coal dryer project.  Subpart Y coal
dryer emission limits should not apply to the source of heat for an
indirect thermal dryer.

Response:  It is EPA’s intent to regulate emissions from thermal
dryers only in circumstances where coal, coal refuse, or residual oil
are used as thermal input.  Thermal dryers that use residual or waste
heat from the combustion of these fuels would only be subject to the PM
and opacity standards.  As pointed out by the commenters, indirect
thermal dryers for which the source of heat is subject to a boiler NSPS
would not be subject to the emission limits for SO2 and NOX/CO because
those pollutants would not be present in the thermal dryer exhaust.  In
addition, EPA has concluded that affected thermal dryers for which all
of the thermal input is supplied by gaseous fuels (e.g., blast furnace
gas, coke oven gas, natural gas) or distillate oil also would not be
subject to the emission limits for SO2 and NOX/CO.  Those pollutants
would be relatively small from these types of thermal dryers and the
testing requirements would not result in any emissions reductions.  As
is the case with the facility described by the commenter, if there is no
combustion process providing the heat for the dryer, then there would be
no practicality in having emission limits for SO2 and NOX/CO.  The
regulatory text has been modified to clarify these points. 

3.3.1.2	  Fluidized-bed Thermal Coal Dryers

Comment:  One commenter (110) suggests that fluidized bed coal dryers
can, as a secondary function, classify coal by size.  Although
classification occurs in the fluidized bed dryer it would not occur but
for the fluidized bed technology used to dry the coal.  The commenter
requests the rule be clarified to prevent a fluidized-bed dryer being
considered pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment.  The commenter suggested
regulatory revisions to Subpart Y.

Response:  EPA concurs with the commenter that the primary function of a
fluidized bed coal dryer is to dry the coal.  As such, fluidized bed
coal dryers are appropriately regulated as thermal dryers and,
therefore, subject to the Subpart Y requirements for thermal dryers.

3.3.1.3	New Coal Dryer Projections

Comment:  Several commenter (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, 120) stated
that EPA explains in the preamble that it is deciding to expand Subpart
Y applicability to other types of thermal dryers in large part because
subbituminous and lignite “upgrading” will become more common. 
There is nothing in the record; however, to support that projection of
such a trend in the coal mining industry, other than a generic comment
from the public.  The only process identified in the docket that
indicates such “upgrading” relates to a demonstration facility that
faces significant other obstacles, including spontaneous combustion and
excessive dusting.

Response:  Although cited as one reason why EPA thought it was
appropriate to establish standards that apply to direct contact and
indirect thermal dryers drying all coal ranks at this time, potential
non-bituminous coal “upgrading” was not the only basis for that
decision.  Other reasons supporting EPA’s decision, as explained in
the preamble to the supplemental proposal (74 FR 25309, May 27, 2009),
include (1) the control technologies commonly used on thermal dryers
(i.e., venturi scrubbers and fabric filters) control PM equally well
regardless of the source of PM; and (2) thermal dryers using similar
control technologies can achieve comparable emissions rates.  EPA
continues to believe that, regardless of the number of “upgrading”
projects projected, it is appropriate to regulate direct contact and
indirect thermal dryers drying all coal ranks.

3.3.2	Coal Drying BDT Determination

3.3.2.1	BDT Analysis for Coal Drying

Comment:  One commenter (096) stated that the proposed standards for
coal drying fail to meet the basic legislative requirements of CAA
section 111.  The commenter presented the following reasons to support
the position that for EPA to comply with CAA section 111 EPA must set
standards based on the best demonstrated technologies for drying coal
not to the thermal drying of coal through the application of heat
generated by coal combustion specifically for that purpose. 

CAA section 111 defines “standard of performance” to mean “a
standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through the application of the best
system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of
achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated” [42 U.S.C. §7411(a)(1))].

Another provision in CAA section 111 provides that standards of
performance must represent the best “technological system of
continuous emission reduction,” see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7411(g)(4),
which is defined to include “a technological process for production or
operation by any source which is inherently low-polluting or
nonpolluting” [42 U.S.C. §7411(a)(7)(A)].  This provision further
demonstrates that EPA must evaluate mechanical, indirect, and
recirculation dryers, as each is inherently low polluting, in comparison
to once-through coal-fired thermal dryers.  In sum, EPA must evaluate
whether certain dryer systems yield reductions in emissions.  If those
systems, for example, mechanical dryers, are less polluting, they
constitute presumptive BDT.

CAA section 111 requires “specific and rigorous limits on the amounts
of pollutants that may be emitted.” ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319,
322 (D.C. Cir. 1978).  The legislative history of this requirement
confirms Congress’s determination that “[t]he maximum use of
available means of preventing and controlling air pollution is essential
to the elimination of new pollution problems…” S. Rep. No. 1196,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. at 16.  In revising the standards of performance
for coal preparation plants, EPA may not simply codify existing levels
of performance. 

Because NSPS apply only to new, modified, or reconstructed sources and
must reflect application of the best demonstrated system of reduction,
they do not have to be achievable for all types of existing sources. See
Portland Cement, 486 F.2d at 391.  Nor can EPA forego setting limits
reflecting the best demonstrated system merely because some sources may
prefer a different system, ASARCO, 578 F.2d at 322 (“NSPS are designed
to force new sources to employ the best demonstrated systems of emission
reduction.”).  The legislative history of section 111 demonstrates
that Congress intended for EPA to prescribe standards that override the
design preferences of regulated sources: “[T]he emission standards
shall provide that sources of such emissions shall be designed and
equipped to prevent and control such emissions to the fullest extent
compatible with the available technology and economic feasibility . . .
.” H.R. Rep. No. 1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. at 10 (emphasis added). 
Thus, EPA’s assumption that NSPS must be set at levels lenient enough
to accommodate all types of existing dryers is contrary to Congress’
plainly expressed intent.

CAA section 111 “looks toward what may fairly be projected for the
regulated future, rather than the state of the art at present. . . .”
Portland Cement Assn v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
 An “achievable standard is one . . . within the realm of the
adequately demonstrated system’s efficiency and which, although not at
a level that is purely theoretical or experimental, need not necessarily
be routinely achieved within the industry prior to its adoption.”
Essex Chemical Corporation v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433-34 (D.C.
Cir. 1973).  Instead of looking toward a future of mechanical dryers and
indirect thermal dryers, or even gas-fired recirculation thermal dryers,
the proposed standards attempt to lock-in standards that reflect the
performance of coal-fired once-through thermal dryers.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that it is permissible to set a
standard for emissions from coal drying that presumes the use of thermal
dryers, the proposed rule violates the straightforward intent of
Congress.  Congress purposefully chose the superlative “best” to
describe the system of emissions reductions on which the NSPS were to be
based [42 U.S.C. §7411(a)(1)].  Moreover, one of the enumerated
purposes of the NSPS was to create incentives for new technology. CAA
Conference Report: Statement of Intent; Clarification of Select
Provisions, 123 Cong. Rec. 27071 (1977).  However, instead of proposing
standards based on the performance of the cleanest new coal drying
technologies, the proposal sets lax standards and then allows a mix of
coal drying technologies to meet those standards.

Response:  EPA followed the statutory requirements of CAA section 111 in
its review of the existing standard of performance for thermal dryers at
coal preparation and processing plants.  The review was conducted
pursuant to the requirement in section 111(b)(1)(B) that EPA review and
revise, if appropriate, the previously promulgated standards of
performance.  Section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA, when revising the
standards, to follow the procedure required for the promulgation of
standards.  Section 111 b(1)(B) further requires publication of proposed
regulations, an opportunity for written comment, and requires the
Administrator to promulgate such standards as she “deems
appropriate.”  The commenter correctly noted that a standard of
performance is defined as “a standard for emissions of air pollutants
which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality
health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”  42 U.S.C.
7411(a)(1).  The commenter, however, takes the language from 42 U.S.C
7411(g)(4) out of context.  CAA section 111(g)(4) provides that the
Administrator shall revise a standard of performance upon application of
the Governor of a State that meets certain criteria.  The language
quoted by the commenter appears in this section and describes what must
be included in the application of the Governor, and does not modify the
definition of a standard of performance in section 111(a)(1).

To determine the appropriate level for a particular standard of
performance, EPA conducts an analysis to determine what emission rates
reflect application of “best demonstrated technology” or BDT.  This
BDT analysis includes consideration of available emission controls and
technologies.  In the BDT analysis for controlling PM emissions from
coal dryers for this final rule, EPA explicitly considered alternate
processes for drying coal as well as add-on emission control
technologies.   For modified facilities, EPA recognized the limitations
that may be associated with the physical layout of existing dryers.  For
reconstructed facilities and new facilities, however, we concluded that
design options, and alternative replacement technologies, could be taken
into account during the reconstruction or construction process.  EPA
concluded that recirculation thermal dryers and indirect thermal dryers
are both adequately demonstrated and readily available technologies for
drying coal.  It did not restrict its analysis, or the definition of
affected facility, to the once-through direct contact thermal dryers
covered by the existing NSPS standards for thermal dryers.  Contrary to
the commenter’s assertions, EPA neither presumed the use of existing
once-through direct contact thermal dryers nor merely codified existing
levels of performance achieved by such dryers.  Instead, EPA concluded
that BDT for controlling PM emissions for new and reconstructed thermal
dryers is fabric filters applied to recirculation thermal dryers and
indirect thermal dryers.  The PM standards in the final rule are based
on these conclusions.

Although mechanical coal drying technologies, because they do not burn
fuel, may inherently produce lower air pollutant emissions compared to
some thermal drying technologies, they may not be technically
applicable, cost-effective, or the most energy efficient for all
possible coal drying applications that could be subject to Subpart Y. 
EPA does not, at this time, have data to support a conclusion that
standards based on an assumption that mechanical dryers are BDT would be
achievable by the industry as a whole (see National Lime Ass’n v. EPA,
627 F.2d 416, 431 (1980)).  Even though the “adequately
demonstrated” requirement does not “necessarily impl[y] that any
[covered facility] now in existence be able to meet the proposed
standards,” Portland Cement, 486 F.2d at 391, EPA must demonstrate
that the standard is, in fact, achievable taking into consideration
variables that may affect emissions in different circumstances and at
different plants.  National Lime, 627 F.2d at 433.  In fact, the type of
coal drying technology used at a given facility is influenced by a
variety of factors, including type of facility, coal moisture reduction
requirements, availability of waste heat sources at the coal processing
location, and drying process energy requirements including electrical
power consumption.  Mechanical drying techniques are not suitable
replacements for thermal dryers under all circumstances.  Mechanical
drying techniques can remove free moisture adsorbed onto the surface of
the coal particles, as well as a portion of the hydroscopic moisture
contained by capillary action within microfractures in the coal
particles, but are ineffective at removing inherent moisture (and, thus,
would only be applicable at preparation plants utilizing coal washing). 
Some type of thermal energy is required to remove the interstitial and
molecular (inherent) moisture from the coal for applications where
extremely low moisture content is desirable.  Therefore, mechanical
drying techniques are not suitable replacements for thermal dryers under
all circumstances, and because waste heat is not available at all
locations, thermal dryers using waste heat are not a technically
possible substitute for thermal dryers in all situations.  EPA will
continue to follow the development of mechanical drying techniques.  To
the extent the commenter is suggesting that EPA should require use of a
certain technology for drying coal and coal preparation plants, EPA
notes that CAA section 111(h), 42 U.S.C. 7411(h)(1) only allows the
Administrator to promulgate design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standards if “in the judgment of the Administrator, it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.”  No
such finding has been made here.

In the BDT analysis for controlling SO2 emissions from coal dryers for
the final rule, EPA determined that BDT for modified and reconstructed
thermal dryers is a wet scrubber with a scrubbing reagent (e.g., an
upgraded venturi scrubber with sodium hydroxide or packed bed scrubber
with lime).  The information that EPA has indicates that all of the
once-through direct contact thermal dryers currently use venturi
scrubbers for PM control.  Thus, the upgraded venturi scrubber with
sodium hydroxide or packed bed scrubber with lime (would be in addition
to the venturi scrubber) would provide SO2 control, along with
additional PM control necessary for reconstructed thermal dryers to meet
their PM and opacity limits.  For new thermal dryers, we determined that
BDT for controlling SO2 emissions is the injection of sodium hydroxide
directly to the venturi scrubber fluid or injection of a sodium-based
sorbent into the combustion gases prior to the drying chamber.  For a
new once-through direct contact thermal dryer, the caustic injection
into the scrubber fluid for SO2 control would be in addition to a
high-energy venturi scrubber which is the likely control technology that
would be used for PM and opacity control.  For a new coal recirculation
thermal dryer, sorbent injection into the combustion gases for SO2
control would be used in conjunction with a fabric filter which is the
likely control technology that would be used for PM and opacity control.
 EPA determined that BDT for controlling NOX emissions from new,
reconstructed, and modified thermal dryers is combustion controls. 
Combustion controls can be used across the range of thermal dryers
currently in use.  Combustion controls include low NOX burners, staged
combustion, co-firing with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas, and
flue gas recirculation.  BDT for controlling CO emissions was determined
to be good combustion practices.  Good combustion practices limit the
formation of CO (and VOC) by providing sufficient oxygen in the
combustion zone such that complete combustion can occur.  Maintaining
appropriate combustion zone temperature and gas residence time also are
good combustion practices, as is proper operation and maintenance of the
dryer.

3.3.2.2	BDT for Coal Drying 

Comment:  Two commenters (096 and 100) stated that for the purpose of
setting standards of performance for coal dryer emissions EPA should
select those coal drying technologies with inherently lower air
pollutant emissions as BDT. Statements about adequately demonstrated
coal drying technologies made by the commenters included:

US DOE recognizes that thermal dryers are an outdated method of lowering
the moisture content of coal (100).

Full analysis and recognition of the global warming effects of
greenhouse pollutants and their  costs will inevitably result in a
finding that thermal dryers heated by burning coal or any other means of
fuel combustion, can no longer be an acceptable method of drying coal
under any circumstances (100).

Mechanical coal dryers do not burn fuel and are inherently less
polluting than other types of coal dryers and, therefore, should be
considered to be BDT for coal drying (096 and 100).

Even if EPA concludes that the thermal drying of coal is necessary at
certain coal preparation plants, there is a preferred order for the
available coal drying technologies.  Indirect thermal dryers that use
heated exhaust gases generated from other processes represent the least
polluting alternative.  A second-best solution would be recirculation
thermal dryers that combust natural gas to supply the heat source (096).

Response:  As explained in the response to comment 3.1.1.2, at this time
EPA is not aware of any emissions or mitigation data for the pollutants
noted by the commenter for this source category.  As such, we lack
sufficient information on which to base an NSPS for emissions of CO2,
N2O, and black carbon from the source category at this time.  Based on
rough estimates of CO2 emissions from this source category (developed
using generic emission factors), EPA believes that this source category
would be among the smaller GHG-emitting NSPS categories.  However,
should information received from this source category as a result of the
proposed GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule indicate that it is a more
significant source of GHG, then EPA will consider whether to revisit the
issue.  At this time, we are not making any final determination
regarding whether it would be appropriate to set such standards in the
future once this information is obtained and assessed.

See response to comment 3.3.2.1.

In addition, EPA disagrees with commenters’ conclusion that BDT for
all coal drying processes should be mechanical coal dryers.  EPA does
not, at this time, have data to support a conclusion that standards
based on an assumption that mechanical dryers are BDT would be
achievable by the industry as a whole (see National Lime Ass’n v. EPA,
627 F.2d 416, 431 (1980)).  Even though the “adequately
demonstrated” requirement does not “necessarily impl[y] that any
[covered facility] now in existence be able to meet the proposed
standards,” Portland Cement, 486 F.2d at 391, EPA must demonstrate
that the standard is, in fact, achievable taking into consideration
variables that may affect emissions in different circumstances and at
different plants. National Lime, 627 F.2d at 433.

As explained in the response to comment 2.3.2.1, although mechanical
coal drying technologies, because they do not burn fuel, may inherently
produce lower air pollutant emissions compared to some thermal drying
technologies, they may not be technically applicable, cost-effective, or
the most energy efficient for all possible coal drying applications that
could be subject to Subpart Y. The type of coal drying technology used
at a given facility is influenced by a variety of factors, including
type of facility, coal moisture reduction requirements, availability of
waste heat sources at the coal processing location, and drying process
energy requirements including electrical power consumption.  As noted
earlier, mechanical drying techniques are not suitable replacements for
thermal dryers under all circumstances.

Finally, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that EPA should
require use of a certain technology for drying coal and coal preparation
plants, EPA notes that CAA section 111(h), 42 U.S.C. 7411(h)(1) only
allows the Administrator to promulgate design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standards if “in the judgment of the Administrator, it
is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.” 
No such finding has been made here.

3.3.3	Coal Dryer Emission Limits Standards Format

Comment:  One commenter (093) stated that the supplemental proposal does
not specify how source operators are to determine compliance with the
proposed SO2, and combined NOX,/CO emissions limits, which are expressed
in units of mass per million Btu (MMBtu) heat input.  The test methods
specified in the proposed Subpart Y amendments measure pollutant
concentration in the stack gases, not an emission rate per MMBtu. For
thermal drying of coal that occurs as part of the cement manufacturing
process, this determination is very problematic.  Where coal is dried by
waste heat from cement-making processes such as the cement kiln,
preheater/precalciner, or clinker cooler, it is not possible to
characterize the heat input to the coal-drying portion of the process
simply by calculating a fuel factor from the amount of fuel introduced
somewhere upstream in the cement-making process.

Response:  As noted in the response to comment 3.3.8, EPA agrees that in
the case of a coal dryer at a cement manufacturing facility where all of
the thermal input is supplied by cement kiln exhaust or clinker cooler
exhaust, the dryer should be regulated under the appropriate Portland
Cement kiln regulations (40 CFR Part 63 subpart LLL and 40 CFR 60
subpart F).)  The regulatory text in section 60.252 (Standards for
thermal dryers) has been revised to clarify this.

3.3.4	Coal Dryer PM Emission Limits

3.3.4.1	Filterable PM (FPM) and Condensable PM (CPM) Standards

Comment: Two commenters (093 and 123) supported EPA’s decisions not to
set separate limits for FPM (i.e., PM2.5 or PM10) or CPM standards.  In
contrast, another commenter (096) rejected EPA’s rationale presented
in the May 27, 2009, Subpart Y supplemental proposal notice that EPA
cannot limits applicable to PM10, PM2.5, and CPM emissions because EPA
has insufficient data and lacks a consistent measurement methodology to
collect the needed data.  The commenter states EPA must set FPM and CPM
standards for coal dryers for the reasons summarized below.

Air permit for two facilities that include PM emissions limits for both
FPM and CPM. Are included as part of the comment submittal.

Assuming arguendo that EPA does lack data necessary to set FPM and CPM
standards, EPA’s failure to gather such data does not excuse EPA from
a statutory obligation. See Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534
(2004) (“[When the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of
the courts - at least where the disposition required by the text is not
absurd– is to enforce it according to its terms.”). See also CKRC v.
EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (EPA may not avoid statutory
requirement by claiming that it lacks information).

FPM and CPM emissions standard can be set, pending resolution of any
measurement issues by a future date certain.

FPM data can be collected using the existing Method 202 with specific
options required (e.g., nitrogen gas bubbling) to eliminate any
uncertainty.

CAA  section 111 requires EPA, in the event that measurement is
infeasible, to specify “a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination thereof, which reflects the best
technological system of continuous emission reduction which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated” (42
U.S.C. § 7411(h)(1)). 

Should EPA conclude that inability to accurately measure emissions of
FPM and CPM from dryers renders the implementation of FPM or CPM
standards of performance infeasible, EPA must impose requirements
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7411(h)(1). See 42 U.S.C. § 7411(h)(2)(B) (a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof to be required when measurement of emissions is not
practicable).  The CPM emissions can be controlled by selecting a low
sulfur coal, injecting sorbents such as trona, or using a wet
electrostatic precipitator.  Earlier comments provided by the commenter
detail several approaches that EPA could take in requiring dryers to
install and operate emissions control devices that have been shown to be
effective in limiting these emissions.

red gravimetrically to determine FPM emissions.  Method 5, when
performed correctly, provides an accurate measurement of total FPM (for
PM > 0.3 μ), but does not measure FPM emissions by particle size
distribution (i.e., PM10 or PM2.5), nor does the method measure CPM. 
EPA is revising existing test methods, EPA Method 201A–Determination
of PM10 Emissions (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure) and EPA Method
202–Determination of Condensible Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources, to provide test methods that will accurately measure PM10,
PM2.5, and CPM from stationary sources such as coal thermal dryers. 
Amendments to these test methods were proposed on March 26, 2009 (see
74 FR 12970).  The amendments to Method 201A add a particle-sizing
device to allow for sampling of PM2.5, PM10, or both PM10 and PM2.5. 
The amendments to Method 202 revise the sample collection and recovery
procedures of the method to provide for more accurate and precise
measurement of CPM.  Methods 201A and 202 are not yet finalized and
sufficient test data using these methods has not yet been collected for
coal-fired thermal dryers.  For these reasons, EPA is not currently able
to determine whether or not it would be appropriate to add separate PM
emission limits to Subpart Y for PM2.5, PM10, or CPM emissions from
coal-fired thermal dryers and would not currently be able to establish
national standards to address PM2.5, PM10, or CPM emissions.

3.3.4.2	PM Control Technology Terminology

Comment:  One commenter (096) stated that it is unclear from the record
whether the use of the term “wet scrubbing” for reconstructed
thermal coal dryers means use of venturi scrubbers.

Response:  With respect to the reconstructed thermal dryer discussion in
the preamble to the supplemental proposal, the term “wet scrubbing”
does not refer specifically to venturi scrubbers, but, rather, generally
to wet scrubbing technologies (e.g., venturi scrubbers, impingement tray
towers, packed bed towers).  Venturi scrubbers are included in the
preamble discussion regarding control technology that would be capable
of achieving the proposed PM emission limit for new thermal dryers (74
FR 25309).

3.3.4.3	New Coal Dryer PM Emission Limit “Margin of Compliance”

Comment:  Several commenters (093, 096, 100, and 123) stated that the
proposed PM emission limit of 0.010gr/dscf for new coal dryers does not
reflect an adequate margin of compliance to the fabric filter test data
used.  Commenters (093 and 123) stated the proposed limit needs to be
less stringent because the test data do not represent a demonstration of
the performance of control technology over the life of the facility and
over the range of operating conditions that may be encountered at
thermal dryers.  Nor does the fact that a few thermal dryer State
permits contain limitations of 0.01 gr/dscf make that limit demonstrated
and appropriate for NSPS. Therefore, the commenter recommends that the
PM emission limit remain at the current NSPS emission rate of 
0.031 gr/dscf.  Commenters 096 and 100 presents an opposing argument
that the proposed a PM limit needs to be lower because the compliance
margin of two to three times applied by EPA to fabric filter test data
is unjustified on the record.  EPA has not explained why use of a fabric
filter to control PM emissions would require such a large margin of
safety, given the demonstrated performance of fabric filters for the
subject source as well as similar sources in numerous other industries,
such as cement plants and steel mills.  Any reduction in the stringency
of the proposed PM standard for new thermal dryers to facilitate
multiple compliance paths would be contrary to the CAA requirement that
standards of performance reflect “application of the best system of
emission reduction” (42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1)).

Response:  EPA has reviewed the available PM emissions and permit data
for thermal dryers; no additional PM data were provided during the
public comment period.  We believe that the proposed PM limit of 0.023
g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) for new thermal dryers is appropriate.  We
further believe that, in the presence of limited data showing actual
emissions, permit information can be useful in determining whether a
particular emission limit is achievable by sources in the source
category.  EPA has available three emission test data points for fabric
filters installed on thermal dryers, including two tests one year apart
at one facility.  We believe that these three data points provide
adequate information on the performance of the technology.  However, EPA
also has examined the permit data which identifies emission limits
agreed upon between State regulators and the regulated community and
believe that the emission limits contained in permits constitute limits
that could be achieved over the range of operating conditions to be
found within the industry.  Nat’l. Lime Ass’n. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416,
431 (D.C. Cir. 1980) requires EPA to show that the limit selected is
achievable under different conditions at an individual plant and
conditions at different plants.  EPA believes that basing the emission
limit on use of the data points from two facilities, including two data
sets from one facility, in conjunction with the permit data, adequately
accounts for the variability to be found within the industry. 
Therefore, the final rule reflects no changes to the proposed PM
emission limit for new thermal dryers.

3.3.4.4	Reconstructed Coal Dryer PM Emission Limits

Comment:  Two commenters (085 and 117) support the proposal to revise
the PM limit for units reconstructed after April 28, 2008, to 0.045
g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) and to maintain the existing 1976 rule’s
opacity limit of less than 20 percent.  In contrast, another commenter
(096) disagrees with the proposed PM standard for reconstructed dryers
which is twice as high as the standard for new dryers (0.010 gr/dscf). 
The commenter states that EPA must either require reconstructed dryers
to meet the same PM standards as new dryers, or explain why such limits
do not reflect BDT for reconstructed dryers.  EPA has not explained why
it would not also be feasible to further modify existing dryers, at the
time of reconstruction, by converting them to recirculation dryers or by
otherwise modifying them to use fabric filters.  EPA must examine
whether a fabric filter is a feasible option for control of PM emissions
from reconstructed dryers.  Commenter 123 recommends that the PM
emission limitations not be changed from the current NSPS emission rate
of 0,031 gr/dscf.  The limited data EPA has cited to justify reducing
the limit by a third for reconstructed dryers using the same control
technology is insufficient to conclude that thermal dryers with the
specified control equipment would, throughout the life of the facility,
be able continuously to meet a lower emission limit than the current
NSPS provide.

Response:  EPA agrees that units undergoing reconstruction as defined in
the CAA could undergo the conversions necessary to install BDT for PM
emissions for new thermal dryers and, thus, meet the proposed PM and
opacity limits of new facilities.  Thus, the regulation has been changed
to reflect this decision.

3.3.4.5	Modified Coal Dryer PM Emission Limits

Comment:  Several commenters (085, 093, and 117) support the proposal to
maintain for units modified after April 28, 2008, the existing 1976
rule’s PM limit of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf) and the existing 1976
rule’s opacity limit of less than 20 percent.  The lower PM mass
emissions limitation that EPA previously proposed was more stringent
than emissions data from some facilities with fabric filters would
support.  They also agree with EPA’s proposal to retain, for both
modified and reconstructed thermal dryers, the 20 percent opacity limit
in the existing Subpart Y NSPS.  As EPA noted, the data that EPA
reviewed suggested that thermal dryers with the identified technology
basis for the NSPS can have 20 percent opacity emissions and still
comply with PM mass emission limits (73 FR 22904).

Response: EPA appreciates the commenters’ support of the proposed
emission limits for modified sources.  However, as noted in the previous
response, EPA is changing the limits for PM and opacity for
reconstructed sources to be the same as those for new sources.

3.3.5	Coal Dryer SO2 Emission Limit

3.3.5.1	BDT Determination Cost Analysis

Comment:  One commenter (096) disagreed with the cost analysis approach
used by EPA for determining coal dryer BDT for SO2 emissions control. 
EPA rejected the use of a wet scrubber as BDT as not cost-effective,
based on an incremental cost-effectiveness value of $5,000 per ton of
SO2 removed (74 FR 25310).  The commenter presented the following
reasons why the incremental cost-effectiveness cost analysis used by EPA
to obtain this conclusion was flawed.

Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis alone does not yield an accurate
or consistent accounting of a control technology’s actual cost;
EPA’s own Environmental Appeals Board has rejected such an approach as
inappropriate. In re General Motors, Inc., 10 E.A.D. 360, 371 (EAB 2002)
(“undue focus on incremental cost-effectiveness can give an impression
that the cost of a control alternative is unreasonably high, when, in
fact, the cost-effectiveness, in terms of dollars per total ton removed
is well within the normal range of acceptable BACT costs.”) .  To
rationally consider the cost impacts of requiring a wet scrubber for
control of SO2 emissions, EPA must consider the cost of the device with
respect to the full amount of SO2 that it will remove.

Even if it were permissible to rely on an incremental cost-effectiveness
cost analysis of control technologies, EPA’s analysis of this factor
does not comport with the requirements of reasoned decision-making. 
There is no indication in the proposal of what criteria EPA used in
determining whether any particular cost-effectiveness level is
justified.  For example, EPA believes that a cost of $5,000 per ton of
SO2 removed is not cost effective (74 FR 25310); but, the proposed rule
provides no explanation of why this is so, nor any explanation of why
EPA also believes that an incremental cost of $3, 25311).  For example,
EPA has not explained what value EPA attaches to the harm caused by each
ton of SO2 emitted, a factor that would be relevant to the determination
of whether a given control technology is cost effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis used for coal drying is at odds with prior
EPA practice.  EPA has historically used a threshold of $10,000/ton of
pollutant removed in a wide range of rulemakings to identify cost
effective technologies based on average cost-effectiveness. Further,
incremental cost-effectiveness significance thresholds are typically
substantially higher than average cost-effectiveness thresholds.  A
control that is per se cost-effective based on total cost in dollars per
ton cannot be eliminated based on incremental cost-effectiveness.

Response:  The practice of looking at incremental emissions reductions
that are capable of being achieved through use of the “next best”
control technology or improvements to an existing technology, along with
the incremental costs associated with the technology or improvements, is
one method of assessing cost-effectiveness.  As noted by the commenter,
EPA used that method in its cost analysis for BDT for controlling SO2
emissions from thermal dryers.  However, as pointed out in our response
to comment 3.3.5.3, EPA has reassessed the available SO2 data and
believes that a 90 percent removal value is appropriate for new,
reconstructed, and modified thermal dryers.  As explained in the
response to comment 3.3.2.1, based on our reassessment, we also
determined that BDT for modified and reconstructed thermal dryers is a
wet scrubber with a scrubbing reagent (e.g., an upgraded venturi
scrubber with sodium hydroxide or packed bed scrubber with lime).  For
new thermal dryers, we determined that BDT for controlling SO2 emissions
is the injection of sodium hydroxide directly to the venturi scrubber
fluid or injection of a sodium-based sorbent into the combustion gases
prior to the drying chamber.  All three of these technologies are
capable of achieving 90 percent SO2 reduction.

3.3.5.2	BDT Determination Control Technology Options

Comment:  One commenter (096) stated that EPA assumed as a starting
point for its analysis that any SO2 control would be located downstream
of a fabric filter (for new units) or would involve modifications to an
existing wet scrubber system designed for PM control.  EPA did not
evaluate all feasible methods to control SO2 emissions.  Dry scrubbers
are widely used to control SO2 emissions from other coal combustion
sources.  A dry scrubber includes a downstream fabric filter and would
obviate the need for a separate PM control device.  Further, a dry
scrubber could be used downstream of an existing wet scrubber designed
for PM control.

Response:  EPA considered, and discussed in the supporting documentation
(see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0080, p. 7), the use of a dry scrubber as
suggested by the commenter.  An affected facility would be free to
utilize any technology desired as long as the emission limits were
achieved.

Comment:  One commenter (093) stated that one of the two technologies
EPA has identified to meet the SO2 limit for modified, reconstructed,
and new thermal dryers, sorbent injection, requires a design that
includes injection locations and sufficient residence time, which can be
incorporated into “a new thermal dryer.”  Under 40 CFR 60.15, a
thermal dryer may be considered “modified” when there is only a
relatively small capital investment that causes a statistically
significant increase in SO2 emissions.  “Modification,” therefore,
does not create an opportunity to incorporate absorbent injection sites
and residence time into an existing thermal dryer, and
“reconstruction” may not either.  For anything other than a new
unit, then, the only technology EPA has identified as meeting the
proposed SO2 limits is “spraying caustic on the coal prior to the
drying chamber.”  Yet EPA acknowledges that it does not have data
demonstrating this control technology:  “The caustic approach is
presently used at one facility, and the salt produced is removed by the
PM control device.  We do not have detailed information on the
contribution of each mechanism on overall control.  However, if we
assume…” (74 FR 25,310).  This is an insufficient basis for EPA to
impose emission limits on thermal dryers at all, and certainly not to
impose emission limits on a range of designs that may be incorporated
into cement plants.

Response:  EPA also identified caustic injection into a wet scrubber as
a technology for reducing SO2 emissions (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0080,
p. 7).   EPA believes that this technology is applicable to new,
reconstructed, and modified facilities.  See the response to comment
3.3.8 for a discussion of the applicability of Subpart Y to Portland
cement plants.

3.3.5.3	SO2 Emission Limit Levels

Comment:  One commenter (096) stated that information in the proposal
preamble and support documentation show that the SO2 emissions limits
for new and reconstructed coal dryers should be set lower than the
proposed level.  The selection of the SO2 emission limits for coal
dryers must be reconsidered specifically to analyze separate standards
for new, reconstructed, and modified affected sources.  Reasons
presented by the commenter for setting lower SO2 emissions limits are:

Proposal preamble states that “[w]et scrubbers designed specifically
for SO2 control are able to achieve greater than 95 percent
reduction.”  This is confirmed in the Thermal Dryer Memorandum, page
7, but EPA dismisses wet scrubbers from further consideration, as the
wet scrubbers currently used on existing thermal dryers are designed for
PM control and not specifically for SO2 controls and high levels of SO2
control may be difficult to achieve without redesign of the wet scrubber
(74 FR 25310).  This is not a valid reason for eliminating a viable
technology from consideration, especially for a new or a reconstructed
coal dryer.  Wet scrubbers are widely used on similar sources and, as
EPA recognizes, routinely achieve greater than 95 percent reduction. 
Therefore, EPA may not ignore the possibility of installing wet
scrubbers for SO2 control, particularly for new or reconstructed coal
dryers.  It would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to adopt a 50
percent control option in the face of a clearly superior technology that
is rejected without analysis. 

Even if EPA ultimately determines that wet scrubbers are not BDT for SO2
control for at least some coal dyers, the Subpart Y SO2 emission limit
must be more stringent for those dryers.  EPA projects that using a
caustic spray for SO2 control will achieve approximately a 50 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions (74 FR 25310).  In contrast, EPA notes that
sorbent injection controls that use sodium-based agents can meet removal
efficiencies of 90 percent (74 FR 25310).  Given that sorbent injection
is capable of significantly higher removal efficiencies, it is arbitrary
and capricious for EPA to assert that dry sorbent injection and spraying
caustic on the coal prior to drying are both BDT for SO2 reduction from
new, modified, and reconstructed thermal dryers.  The results obtained
are not equivalent, and “dumbing-down” the removal efficiency of the
superior technology to preserve multiple compliance pathways for
industry violates the plain language of the CAA, which requires
standards of performance reflecting application of the “best system of
emission reduction” (42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1)).

Response:  EPA indicated in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal that
it was considering an SO2 percent reduction requirement of between 50
and 90 percent for the final rule (74 FR 25311).  EPA has reviewed the
available data and believes that a 90 percent removal value is
appropriate for new, reconstructed, and modified thermal dryers.

3.3.6	Coal Dryer Combined NOx/CO Emission Limit

Comment:  Many commenters (093, 096, 085, 095, 115, and 117) stated that
EPA proposal to set a combined NOX and CO emissions limit for coal
dryers is inappropriate.  Commenters presented different reasons
summarized below to support this conclusion.  One commenter (096) stated
explicitly that separate NOX and CO emissions limits must be set for
coal dryers. Reasons cited by individual commenters are:

A combined NOX/CO limit enables permitting authorities to trade off
higher NOX emissions for lower CO emissions, and vice versa.  EPA
asserts that this approach is a way to “provide additional compliance
strategy options for the regulated community, while still providing an
equivalent level of environmental protection” (74 FR 25311).  However,
this statement, and EPA’s proposed approach of allowing states to
trade NOX and CO emissions at essentially a 1:1 ratio, ignores that CO
and NOX are different pollutants that do not have equivalent
environmental impacts.  For example, through their larger role in the
formation of ozone, NOX emissions may have a significantly broader
impact than CO emissions, the harmful impacts of which may be much more
localized. NOx emissions also contribute to acid rain that may occur
long distances from the permitted source.  For example, without such a
backstop requirement, states may elect to implement more aggressive
limits for CO than for NOx.  Because NOX emissions may cause significant
harm farther from the source, there could be a perverse incentive for
states to ask sources to ratchet down CO emissions at the expense of
higher NOX emissions, which would inhibit downwind efforts to reduce
ozone pollution and acid rain. 

A combined NOX/CO limit violates CAA for the reason that the proposed
combined limit is based on an assumed CO emissions rate that does not
“reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction” (42 U.S.C.
§7411(a)(1).  EPA admits that the presumed levels of CO emissions
(0.45 lb/MMBtu for modified and reconstructed dryers and 0.25 lb/MMBtu
for new dryers) are levels that are already surpassed by nearly all
existing industrial boilers.  EPA’s data on these sources “indicate
that 92 percent of existing small coal-fired boilers are achieving a
rate of . . . 0.25 lb/MMBtu . . . and 98 percent are achieving a rate
of . . . 0.45 lb/MMBtu” (74 FR 25312).  EPA has not explained why
industrial boilers would be capable of meeting more stringent CO limits
than thermal dryers.

Test data provided in the docket indicates a wide variation in test
results, especially for CO. Test data is almost exclusively based on
bituminous coal drying operations.  These data do not support the
conclusion that the proposed combined NOX/CO limit is applicable across
all grades of coal.  One commenter (085) provided a review of the data
cited by EPA. 

Combustion controls currently represent BDT in use by the source
category.  Going beyond the demonstrated technologies for the source
category (e.g., incorporating post combustion control technologies,
specifically selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) on new thermal
dyers) is not required in developing NSPS.  Other regulatory programs
exist for advancing control technologies.

Commenter 093 does not believe that EPA has sufficient data to support
the proposed NOX standards, especially for existing, modified or
reconstructed, thermal dryers, and EPA has not demonstrated that thermal
dryers, with different design and function, can meet the same
limitations as coal-fired boilers.  EPA has identified combustion
controls that may not be available as the basis for the proposed NOX
standards, especially for existing thermal dryers.

Response:  EPA has concluded that the use of a combined NOX/CO limit is
appropriate because it acknowledges the inherent trade-off between the
two pollutants (i.e., a decrease in emissions of one often leads to an
increase in emissions of the other).  This approach provides flexibility
to State environmental agencies to minimize the particular pollutant of
concern to lessen the overall environmental and health impacts of the
two pollutants.  Individual separate limits could reduce the flexibility
required to minimize overall health and environmental impacts.  EPA has
based the combined NOX/CO limit on what it believes to be adequate data
from thermal dryers at subpart Y facilities; thus, the comparison to
industrial boilers is misplaced.  In addition, as the Court has noted,
“[t]he ‘adequately demonstrated’ requirement does not imply that
any [covered facility] now in existence be able to meet the proposed
standards.  CAA section 111 looks toward what may be fairly be projected
for the regulated future, rather than the state of the art at
present.” Portland Cement  Ass’n v. Ruckenshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391
(D.C. Cir. 1973).

3.3.7	Coal Dryer VOC Emissions Limit

Comment:  One commenter (096) disagrees with EPA’s rationale for not
setting coal dryer VOC standards for the reasons summarized below.

EPA asserts that “VOC and CO emissions would be minimized” because
new thermal dryers would “likely use a gas recirculation design” (74
FR 25312); but, this language only demonstrates that EPA has not
fulfilled its statutory obligation.  If gas recirculation thermal dryers
are effective at reducing VOC and CO, then EPA must set standards of
performance for VOC and CO, which, at minimum, reflect the use of a gas
recirculation thermal dryer.

EPA asserts that not setting a standard for VOC is reasonable because
“by setting an emissions limit that contains a CO emissions rate, we
are minimizing the VOC emissions that result from incomplete
combustion” (74 FR 25312).  However, the proposed combined NOx and CO
standard provides no assurance that VOC emissions will be minimized
because CO emissions are just one component of the combined NOx and CO
standard.  Dryers could meet the combined standard by tailoring
combustion controls to minimize NOx emissions, which would result in
high levels of both CO and VOC emissions.  Further, there is no
demonstration on the record that there is any relationship between CO
and VOC emissions. 

EPA asserts that omitting standards for VOC is acceptable because EPA
“ha[s] not identified a method for control of VOC emissions beyond
combustion controls” (74 FR 25312).  VOC can be controlled by a number
of methods, including activated carbon absorption and a regenerative
thermal oxidizer. 

EPA explained that it could not set a standard for VOC emissions that
“would be achievable for variable coal types across the country”
because the VOC emissions from the coal bed itself are variable (74 FR
25312).  However, even if the extent of coal bed VOC emissions vary
across the country that does not excuse EPA from adopting a standard of
performance to limit VOC emissions.  For example, EPA could adopt a
standard for VOC removal efficiency that is based on oxidation of VOC in
a recirculation thermal dryer.  In this rulemaking, EPA has proposed SO2
standards for dryers that are based in part on removal efficiency, but
EPA has not explained why it has not proposed a similar approach for VOC
emissions.  The sulfur content of coals also vary widely across the
country, from less than 1 lb/MMBtu for some western coals to over 8
lb/MMBtu for some eastern coals.  This did not impede EPA from setting
an SO2 standard.

Response:   EPA has discretion to determine which pollutants are
appropriate for regulation in a particular NSPS.  In this case, for the
reasons noted, EPA concluded that it was not appropriate or feasible to
establish a standard of performance for VOC emissions from coal
preparation and processing plants at this time.  This conclusion does
not prohibit EPA from establishing such a standard in a future
rulemaking.  EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion that a
standard could be based on oxidation of VOC in a recirculation thermal
dryer.  As noted elsewhere, EPA has concluded that there is no one
thermal dryer design that will work in all situations found within the
industries utilizing coal preparation and processing plants.  Control of
VOC emissions through activated carbon absorption or regenerative
thermal oxidizers are not utilized on thermal dryers at coal preparation
and processing plants; further, EPA did not have other information
showing that these technologies are adequately demonstrated for use on
coal preparation and processing plant sources.  VOC emissions vary, in
part, due to the variability in volatile contents of the coals being
processed; absent demonstrated control technology, this variability can
not be addressed through add-on technology as it is with variable sulfur
contents of coal.  Thus, EPA believes its decision not to establish VOC
emission limits under Subpart Y at this time is appropriate.

3.3.8	Applicability to Coal Dryers at Cement Manufacturing Plants

Comment:  Several commenters (093, 106, and 123) stated that emissions
from thermal dryers integrated with in-line coal mills at cement
manufacturing plants should not be subject to subpart Y and instead be
subject to the standard for the affected facility as part of the
manufacturing process.  The unique coal processing and handling systems
found at Portland cement plants are best addressed by the Portland
Cement NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart F) and NESHAP (40 CFR 63 subpart LLL). 
The commenters requested that the Subpart Y definition of  “thermal
dryer” in be revised to read “Thermal dryer does not include drying
of coal that occurs intentionally or incidentally in the manufacture of
Portland cement through direct or indirect contact with hot gases
generated by cement manufacturing process units, such as cement kilns,
preheaters, precalciners, or clinker coolers.”  This approach would
both (a) clearly distinguish between separately fired, standalone
thermal dryers that are located at a cement plant, versus thermal dryers
or coal mills that are integrated into a cement manufacturing line, and
(b) avoid any potential confusion about incidental drying of coal that
occurs in the cement-making process. Reasons presented by commenters to
support the requested exemption are summarized below:

In a 1995 determination, EPA stated that when “gases originate in one
affected facility and pass through another affected facility as part of
the manufacturing process, EPA applies the standard for the affected
facility from which the gases are discharged directly into the
atmosphere.” [Applicability Determination 9600082 “Alternative
Monitoring and Opacity Limit Clarification for San Juan Cement
Company,” John B. Rasnic (May 12, 1995)]. However, a year later EPA
qualified this guidance when it concluded that an in-line raw mill was
subject to the subpart F kiln standards stating: This determination
clarifies that for dry process Portland cement plants with an "in-line"
kiln/raw mill configuration, the raw mill does not exist as a separate
affected facility and; hence, the appropriate emission limit is that
which applies to the kiln. [Applicability Determination 9600083;
“Opacity Limitation for ‘In-line’ Portland Cement Plants,” John
B. Rasnic (September 7, 1996)]. 

Just as emissions from the in-line raw mill in Applicability
Determination 9600083 were subject to NSPS subpart F PM mass and opacity
limitations for cement kilns, so should emissions from an in-line coal
mill at a cement plant where kiln gases are used to heat and dry the
coal be treated as an extension of the kiln and subject to subpart F
NSPS and subpart LLL NESHAP cement kiln PM and opacity limits.  This
approach is consistent with multiple different applicability
determinations provided to Ash Grove by EPA stating that kiln exhaust
gases are subject to the Portland cement NESHAP (LLL) regardless of
whether they are routed through the coal mill prior to discharge to the
atmosphere. See, e.g. Letter from Donald Toensing (EPA Region 7) to
Roger Behrns (Ash Grove Louisville), September 18, 2002.  It is also
consistent with the data that EPA has reviewed in establishing the
proposed Subpart Y limits.  In the absence of data related to emissions
from in-line coal mills, EPA would not have a rational basis supported
by evidence in the record for establishing limits that apply to these
unique gas streams. 

As Portland cement plants have striven to increase energy efficiency, a
common plant configuration has been to employ kiln exhaust gas or heated
gas from the plant’s clinker cooler to thermally dry coal before it is
combusted.  Cement kiln exhaust gas is extremely hot and one of the
primary means of improving energy efficiency has been to route this gas
back through the process to extract as much heat as reasonably possible.
 Likewise, the product leaving the kiln (referred to as clinker) will
enter a cooling area where gases are blown through the clinker to
accelerate the cooling process.  In some plants this heated gas is then
used to heat the coal entering the combustion process.  Both kilns and
clinker coolers are affected facilities under subpart F NSPS.  This use
of waste heat from the kiln or the clinker cooler is highly energy
efficient, driving down the combustion emissions, including greenhouse
gas emissions, from the plant as a whole.

Some cement plants have standalone thermal dryers for coal, where the
heat for drying is provided by a dedicated combustion source, e.g., coal
or natural gas.  Those thermal dryers generally should have similar
emissions, and similar possibilities for emissions control, as
comparable-size thermal coal dryers at other facilities.  But where coal
drying is integrated into the cement-making process, through direct or
indirect exposure of the coal to heat in exhaust gases from units such
as cement kilns, preheater/precalciners, or clinker coolers, the
emissions from that coal drying, and the potential for controlling those
emissions, is very different from a standalone thermal dryer. 

To the extent that Subpart Y may apply to coal drying that occurs using
waste heat from the manufacture of Portland cement, EPA’s assessments
of control technology and derivation of emission standards under Subpart
Y have not taken into account cement-process-related loadings of SO2,
NOx, and CO.  EPA has not shown, for example, that it would be feasible
for a cement plant to demonstrate compliance with SO2 mass limits or
percent reduction requirements where exhaust gases from coal drying are
combined with cement kiln gases, which include SO2 from fuel consumption
and from raw materials.  Similarly, NOx limits that may be achievable
through combustion controls on a standalone thermal dryer may not be
achievable in exhaust gases mixed with cement kiln gases containing both
fuel NOx and thermal NOx from the cement-making process. 

The supplemental proposal would not impose SO2, NOx, and CO limits on
indirect thermal dryers where the source of the heat is subject to
either NSPS under subpart Da, Db, or Dc. Although EPA has not really
explained the basis for that exclusion, it is inferred that EPA believes
the BDT determinations associated with the NSPS for the source of heat
are more appropriate and should be applied.  The same rationale should
be applied to thermal drying that is incidental to cement manufacturing,
and EPA should exclude exhaust gases that are subject to the subpart F
NSPS from being subject to the subpart Y SO2, NOx, and CO limits.

Response:  EPA agrees that in the case of a coal dryer at a cement
manufacturing facility where all of the thermal input is supplied by
cement kiln exhaust or clinker cooler exhaust, the dryer should be
regulated under the appropriate Portland Cement kiln regulations (40 CFR
Part 60, subpart F, and 40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL).  This would also
imply that any emissions from the thermal dryer are considered as part
of the kiln or clinker cooler emissions.  The final rule’s emissions
limits apply to new, reconstructed, or modified thermal dryers at
Portland cement manufacturing plants in situations where the thermal
input is not supplied by cement kiln or clinker cooler exhaust.  Other
Subpart Y affected facilities located at Portland cement manufacturing
plants (e.g., storage systems, conveyors) also are subject to Subpart Y.

3.3.9	Applicability to Coal Dryers at Steel Manufacturing Plants

Comment:  One commenter (103) requested that thermal dryers fired with
process gases at integrated iron and steel plants be exempted from the
Subpart Y emission limits for SO2, NOx and CO.  Reasons presented by
commenter to support the requested exemption are summarized below.

The pulverized coal injection systems at some integrated iron and steel
plants also burn process gases (i.e., blast furnace gas or coke oven
gas) as the primary fuel in thermal dryers. These process gases are
valuable substitutes for other sources of purchased energy and are
produced on-site.  However, they have lower heating values than natural
gas and must be consumed on-site to be utilized most effectively or be
flared.  As is the case for waste heat, the use of these gases improves
overall plant energy efficiency and reduces greenhouse gas emissions and
should not be discouraged by applying unachievable emission limits when
used for thermal drying of coal. 

The use of these process gases for coal drying will not generate any
more emissions than if the gases are combusted elsewhere or flared. 
Instead, if the process gases burned for coal drying was replaced
entirely burning natural gas, emissions (mainly NOx and CO) from the
integrated iron and steel plant would actually increase.  Establishing
emission limits for thermal dryers using these process gas fuels will
only serve to discourage their use. 

The proposed standards are based on the assumption that thermal dryers
located at traditional mine sites and coal preparation plants are
typically fired with coal, but in the examples noted above, other fuels
are normally used.  At the very least, the rule should include a
provision to allow operators of thermal dryers fired by natural gas,
waste heat, or process gases to apply for a variance upon demonstration
that emissions of SO2, NOx, CO and/or PM are well below the prescribed
standards.  Upon such a demonstration, monitoring requirements for these
pollutants should be reduced or eliminated.

Response:  As noted in the response to comment 3.2, EPA has maintained
that coal preparation and processing plants may be found at industrial
sites such as those described by the commenter.  In the Response to
Comments document for the October 24, 1974, proposal, EPA stated
“[t]he specific coal processing operations regulated by these
standards are affected regardless of whether they are located in coal
liquefaction plants, power plants, coke ovens, etc.” (see
“Background Information for Standards of Performance:  Coal
Preparation Plants; Volume 3:  Supplemental Information.  January 1976. 
p. 22).  Thus, EPA has not changed its interpretation.  In addition, EPA
has made no assumptions as to the source of the heat used in the thermal
dryer as the commenter suggests.  However, as noted above for Portland
cement plants, EPA agrees that in the case of an affected source at an
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility, where the emissions
from the thermal dryer would be considered as part of the blast furnace
or coke oven emissions, the facility should be regulated under the
appropriate steel mill or coke oven NSPS.  As previously explained,
EPA’s intent at this time is to regulate emissions from a thermal
dryer only in circumstances where coal, coal refuse, or residual oil are
used as thermal input.  Thermal dryers that use residual or waste heat
from the combustion of these fuels would only be subject to the PM and
opacity standards.  Indirect thermal dryers for which the source of heat
is subject to SO2, NOX, and/or CO limits under another 40 CFR part 60
subpart would not be subject to the emission limits for SO2 and NOX/CO. 
In addition, affected thermal dryers for which all of the thermal input
is supplied by gaseous fuels (e.g., blast furnace gas, coke oven gas,
natural gas) or distillate oil also would not be subject to the emission
limits for SO2 and NOX/CO.

3.4	Subpart Y Coal Processing, Conveying, Storage and Transfer System
Standards

3.4.1	Affected Sources

3.4.1.1	Coal Unloading Activities	- Subpart Y Proposal Contrary to EPA
Policy

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 086, 088, 095, 107, 108, 112, 115, 117,
and 120) stated that Subpart Y should not be applicable to coal
unloading activities because of previous EPA applicability
determinations and current EPA policy.  Commenters disagree with EPA’s
rationale for its proposal to amend Subpart Y to include coal unloading
activities.  EPA concluded that coal unloading, in general, and truck
dumps, in particular, are NSPS affected facilities at coal preparation
plants based on (1) an “exceptionally strained” interpretation of
the term “conveying equipment,” (2) a guidance manual for agency
inspection of coal unloading at coal preparation plants, and (3) a
document that did not specifically address coal unloading but
nevertheless assumed that activity was regulated by Subpart Y. Review of
the record shows evidence that EPA never intended for coal unloading
activities to be an affected facility at coal preparation plants when
Subpart Y was promulgated. Specific EPA determinations cited by
commenters concerning EPA’s intentions for regulating coal unloading
activities under Subpart Y include the following.

In 1980, EPA’s first review of Subpart Y concluded that that coal
unloading was not a Subpart Y affected facility.

In 1995, EPA Region VIII advised the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality that “truck coal dump operations are not affected facilities
subject to the NSPS Subpart Y regulations.” 

In 1998, EPA Headquarters published an interpretative ruling in the
Federal Register stating that “coal unloading that involves conveying
coal to plant machinery is regulated under Subpart Y” (63 FR 53288,
dated October 05, 1998).  EPA Headquarters “use[d] the term “coal
unloading” to encompass “coal truck dumping” and “coal truck
unloading” as well as dumping or unloading from trains, barges, mine
cars, and conveyors.”  EPA explained its reasoning behind that 1998
interpretation, as follows: section 60.251(g) defines “coal processing
and conveying equipment” as “any machinery used to reduce the size
of coal to or remove coal and refuse from the machinery.  This includes,
but is not limited to, breakers, crushers, screens, and conveyor
belts.”  The key phrases are “the equipment used to convey coal to .
. . machinery” and “but not limited to.”  Although the equipment
involved in coal unloading varies from plant to plant (the definition is
written broadly enough to accommodate the differences), what is
important is that the equipment performs the function of conveying.  It
should be noted that if the coal is unloaded for the purpose of storage,
then the unloading activity is not an affected facility under Subpart Y.
 The coal must be directly unloaded into receiving equipment, such as a
hopper, to be subject to the provisions of Subpart Y (63 FR 53289). 

Subpart OOO explicitly excludes truck dumping from NSPS control
requirements (section 60.672(d)).  Subpart OOO was just recently
revised, 74 FR 19294 (April 28, 2009), and it continues to contain that
NSPS-exclusion for truck dumping.  Thus, in the absence of
(1) representative data for achievable levels of controlled emissions
from coal unloading and (2) associated documentation that the costs of
such controls are reasonable, the obvious inference is that coal
unloading should also remain excluded from NSPS.

Response:  As commenters noted, in 1998 EPA issued an interpretative
ruling that states that “coal unloading” operations (which include
both truck and rail car dumping) are regulated under subpart Y.  This
interpretative ruling has not been changed in the intervening years and,
thus, remains in effect.  In the interpretative ruling, EPA concluded

…that coal unloading that involves conveying coal to plant machinery
fits within the definition of “coal processing and conveying
equipment.”  40 CFR 60.251(g) defines “coal processing and conveying
equipment” as “any machinery used to reduce the size of coal or to
separate coal from refuse, and the equipment used to convey coal to or
remove coal and refuse from the machinery.  This includes, but is not
limited to, breakers, crushers, screens, and conveyor belts.”  The key
phrases are “the equipment used to convey coal to * * * machinery”
and “but is not limited to.”  While the “equipment” involved in
coal unloading varies from plant to plant (the definition is written
broadly enough to accommodate the differences), what is important is
that the equipment perform the function of conveying...The coal must be
directly unloaded into receiving equipment, such as a hopper, to be
subject to the provisions of NSPS Subpart Y.  (see 63 FR 53288.)

Thus, EPA interprets coal unloading into the first hopper
“downstream” from any form of transportation to be the beginning of
the “coal preparation plant.”  

As the standards under Subpart Y are based on data obtained from subject
facilities, the comparisons with subpart OOO have no meaning.  As
discussed below in response to comment 3.4.2.1, the central question is
whether the standard set in this rule is appropriate not whether a
standard set in a different rule was appropriate.  Much of commenters’
reasoning is based upon past applicability determinations that said
unloading were not subject to Subpart Y.  Such determinations were based
on interpretations of the current rule language at the time.  Thus, the
determinations do not speak to Agency intent or policy regarding whether
such regulation would be appropriate.  Further, as noted, they were
superseded by the 1998 interpretation, which was published in the
Federal Register.

3.4.1.2	Coal Storage Piles

3.4.1.2.1	Authority to Regulate Coal Storage Piles under Subpart Y

Comment:  Many commenters (086, 091, 094, 110, 114, and 117) stated that
EPA does not have the authority to regulate coal storage piles under 40
CFR 60. Section 60.1 provides that the provisions of 40 CFR 60 “apply
to the owner or operator of any stationary source which contains an
affected facility... .”  Stationary source is defined in section 60.2,
consistent with 42 USC 7411, as including any building, structure,
facility or installation.  Although it is not clear that a coal pile
constitutes a building, structure, facility or installation, if it does,
under section 60.1 the stationary source must also contain an affected
facility.  Affected facility is defined in section 60.2 as “with
reference to a stationary source, any apparatus to which a standard is
applicable.” This latter definition presents a substantial problem. 
If EPA wishes to regulate coal storage piles under 40 CFR 60 as part of
a stationary source, the coal storage piles must be an apparatus.  At
many facilities which manage coal, coal storage piles are nothing more
than what the name suggests: piles of coal. These piles often have no
walls, no floor surfaces, and no equipment associated with their use.
Although the term “apparatus” is an undefined term under 40 CFR 60,
we do not believe that a pile of minerals mined from the earth and
stored on the earth constitutes an “apparatus” which subjects the
pile to regulation under 40 CFR 60.  Although the authority may not
exist to regulate coal storage piles under 40 CFR 60, this would not
leave such storage piles unregulated.  In many states, fugitive
emissions from coal piles are regulated under State fugitive emissions
limitations which are often incorporated into state implementation
plans, and we do not challenge those regulations in this rulemaking.

Response:  EPA disagrees with commenters’ assertion that a coal pile
cannot be an affected facility under 40 CFR 60.  Commenters correctly
noted that the term “affected facility” is defined in section 60.2
to mean “with reference to a stationary source, any apparatus to which
a standard is applicable.”  The commenters also correctly note that
the term “apparatus” is undefined in 40 CFR 60, and an agency’s
interpretation of its own regulation is granted substantial deference
(see, e.g., Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 1997).

The commenters do not offer a definition of “apparatus” but appear
to suggest that to be an “apparatus” a coal pile would need to have
“walls, floor surfaces, or equipment associated with their use.” 
The commenters, however, offer no support for this assertion, and EPA
does not believe such a limited definition of “apparatus” would be
reasonable or consistent with the plain English meaning of the word. 
Further, the Courts stated “In designating what will constitute a
facility in each particular industrial context, EPA is guided by a
reasoned application of the terms of the statute it is charged to
enforce.”  ASARCO Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 324 n.17 (1978).  In this
case, because coal storage piles are significant sources of emissions
and are physically located at coal preparation and processing plants,
EPA believes it is reasonable in this context, to determine that they
are facilities that can be subject to regulation.

  

The dictionary definition of the word “apparatus” also supports
EPA’s approach.  The word “apparatus” has a very broad meaning and
can include tangible items such as equipment, tools and materials as
well as intangible items such as activities and functions.  The Random
House College Dictionary: Revised Edition defines the word
“apparatus” as follows:

1. a group or aggregate of instruments, machinery, tools, materials,
etc. intended for a specific use.  2. any complex instrument or machine
for a particular purpose.  3. any system of activities, functions etc
directed toward a specific goal: the apparatus of government.  4. a
group of structurally different organs performing a particular function.

Because a coal pile constitutes “a group or aggregate of . . .
materials . . . intended for a specific use,” it qualifies as an
“apparatus” under the first definition of the word.  Furthermore,
given the broad meaning of the term “apparatus,” EPA believes it
would not be reasonable to interpret this term to limit the scope of the
definition of “affected facility” to exclude a significant part of
the coal preparation and processing plant that may have significant
emissions.

In addition, although commenters do not actually argue that a coal pile
does not constitute a stationary source because it is not a building,
structure, facility, or installation, EPA notes that there can be no
doubt that a pile of coal does in fact qualify as a stationary source as
that term is defined in 42 USC 7411 and section 60.2.  Stationary source
is defined in 42 USC 7411 as including “any building, structure,
facility or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.” 
This same definition appears in section 60.2.  The terms building,
structure, facility, or installation, are not defined although section
60.2 does contain definitions for “affected facility” and
“existing facility.”  In some instances, the regulated affected
facility may be a portion or a part of a stationary source, but not the
entire source.  In other circumstances, however, a stationary source may
also be an affected facility.  Because, as noted above a coal pile can
be an affected facility it necessarily also can be a facility within the
definition of stationary source.  In addition, the terms installation
and structure are very broad and not limited to things that have walls,
floor surfaces or dedicated equipment.  For these reasons, commenter’s
assertion that coal piles cannot be regulated under 40 CFR 60 is without
support.

3.4.1.2.2	Site-specific Coal Pile Emission Characteristics

Comment:  Several commenters (091, 099, 109, 117, and 119) stated that
coal piles should not be regulated under Subpart Y because of the
diverse conditions affecting emissions from coal storage piles that
could be encountered at each coal preparation plant site.  Among the
site-specific factors for open coal storage piles that will vary widely
from site to site are the following: ambient temperature, precipitation,
meteorology, wind speed, and geography.  Therefore, a uniform NSPS is
not be appropriate for coal piles and that fugitive coal dust emissions
from coal piles should be addressed by case-by-case determinations in
individual permit proceedings.  In addition, as EPA has recognized in
its initial proposal, and as we have discussed above, fugitive emissions
will depend on coal properties and coal rank.

Response:  EPA does not agree with the commenters that coal piles should
not be regulated under subpart Y.  Such sources were apparently included
in the October 1974 proposed rule (i.e., there was no specific
exclusion).  A comment was received indicating that no fugitive dust
control options were available for open storage piles other than water
sprays and that these were not effective on windy days.  EPA
subsequently excluded open storage piles from regulation in the final
rule (January 1976).  However, EPA has now identified additional control
measures, beyond simple water sprays, that may be utilized on coal piles
and that address the concerns noted by commenters.  EPA is establishing
work practice standards instead of standards of performance for coal
piles.  Owners/operators are required to develop a fugitive coal dust
emissions control plan to control emissions from the coal piles, and the
plan requirements established by EPA provide adequate flexibility for an
owner/operator to tailor their plan to address site-specific factors.

Comment:  One commenter (109) stated that EPA should limit the inclusion
of coal storage piles and roadways to new sources.  The variety of
methods that EPA has proposed to be included in a fugitive dust plan
(including wet or chemical suppression, fogging, sweeping, etc) are
workable and are in fact being required in many cases by state-level
permitting authorities for new facilities.

Response:  As explained in the response to comment 3.4.1.3, EPA is
withdrawing its proposed requirements for roadways based on its
determination that the requirements of SMCRA are sufficient to address
air emissions from roadways that may be found within a coal preparation
and processing plant at mine sites.  EPA believes that coal moving
operations, once the coal enters the “coal preparation plant,”
whether located at a mine sit or at end-user facilities, will be by
conveyor rather than by truck.  Also, as explained in the response to
comment 3.4.7.1, EPA agrees with the commenters that open storage piles
are always changing and, for purposes of subpart Y, we do not consider
the routine addition and removal of coal to be a physical change or a
change in the method of operation.  However, changes to the equipment
used in loading, unloading, and conveying operations of open storage
piles are among the things that can be assessed in order to determine
when an open storage pile has been reconstructed or modified.  Thus, in
the final rule, EPA defines “open storage pile” to mean “any
facility, including storage area, that is not enclosed that is used to
store coal, including the equipment used in the loading, unloading, and
conveying operations of the facility.”  

3.4.1.2.3	Inclusion of Open Storage Piles in Definition of “Coal
Storage System”

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, and 119) stated that inclusion
of open storage piles in the proposed definition of “coal storage
system” creates implementation problems and uncertainty.  EPA could
instead create a new affected facility for open coal storage piles which
should be defined, and amend proposed section 60.254 to include the
specific work practice standards that apply only to open storage piles. 

The proposed regulatory language can be read to require open storage
piles to comply with the 5 percent opacity limit.  The proposed 5
percent opacity standard in proposed section 60.254(b)(1), applies to
“any coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage system, or
coal transfer and loading system processing coal constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008 . . . .” (proposed
section 60.254(b).  As proposed in section 60.251 coal storage system
means “any facility used to store coal,” and section 60.254 fails to
exempt open coal storage piles from the opacity standard.

EPA should clarify what “unit” means in the context of coal storage
piles.  Are all coal storage piles within a power plant a single
“unit?”  Are short-term and long-term coal storage piles separate
“units?”  Are two adjacent mounds of coal deemed to be separate
“units?” How much space or differentiation between adjacent coal
piles would constitute them being deemed to be more than a single
“unit?” 

The preamble states that because EPA is proposing to include open
storage piles as an affected facility, the loading, unloading, and
conveying operations of open storage piles would be included in the
fugitive dust emissions control plan, but not subject to opacity limit.
However, the definition of “coal storage system” does not include
loading, unloading and conveying operations.  EPA must clarify in the
final rules whether those activities must be included in the plan.

Response:  As explained eslewhere, EPA is promulgating a work practice
standard instead of a standard of performance for coal piles. As noted
by the commenter, the preamble to the supplemental proposal states that
the loading, unloading, and conveying operations of open storage piles
also would be covered under the fugitive dust emissions control plan,
but not subject to an opacity limit (74 FR 25312).  The regulatory text
has been revised to make it clear that open storage piles and associated
loading, unloading, and conveying operations are required to be
addressed under a fugitive coal dust emissions control plan and are not
subject to opacity limits.  Each storage pile, whether short-term or
long-term, is considered an affected facility under Subpart Y. 
Individual open coal storage piles (“affected facilities”) would be
defined as having a separate stacking system, regardless of the space
between the piles.

3.4.1.2.4	Coal Piles Loaded in Trucks, Railcars, and Ships

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, 119, and 126) agree that piles
of coal that have been loaded into trucks, railcars, and/or ships should
not be subject to the Subpart Y control requirements for open storage
piles.  In contrast, several other commenters (096, 100, and 113)
disagree with EPA’s stated rationale for proposing this exclusion. 
One commenter (096) provided the following reasons: 1) EPA has not
identified any information or data to its statement that fugitive dust
emissions from these sources are not significant, 2) it is not
economically infeasible to require cover the coal or chemical
encrustation on loaded trucks, railcars, and ships because operators may
choose to use these controls to comply with state and local regulations
or the desire to minimize the loss of coal while in transit, and 3) EPA
did not consider the use of alternate work practice standards already
identified as appropriate for open piles, including the use of wet
suppression.  EPA should recognize that the owners and operators of coal
preparation plants–as the ones who determine the placement of coal
into trucks, railcars, and ships, and as the ones who initiate the use
of any appropriate controls–are uniquely situated to take the steps
most effective at reducing or limiting fugitive dust emissions from
these sources once they leave the facility.  Although some of the
emissions from piles loaded into trucks, railcars, and ships may occur
beyond the boundaries of the coal preparation plant, the extent of these
emissions depends on actions taken at the coal preparation plant. 
Accordingly, these emissions are directly traceable to the coal
preparation plants and responsibility should rest with the owners and
operators of these plants.  The alternative–refusing to assign
responsibility of these emissions to any party–is unacceptable and
inconsistent with EPA’s mandate to protect the public health and
welfare.

Response: EPA is not addressing at this time emissions from the sources
noted by the commenters because we found any such regulation to be
impractical to enforce (particularly with regard to interstate
shipments).  Further, based on available data  emissions from these
sources while at the coal preparation and processing plant have not been
shown to be significant and, at this time, EPA has no data on emissions
from such sources while enroute. 

3.4.1.3	Coal Preparation Plant Roadways

Comment:  Many commenters (082, 085, 086, 087, 088, 093, 095, 107, 109,
112, 114, 115, 120, 123, and 126) requested clarification regarding the
plant roadways to which EPA intends Subpart Y to apply.  EPA does not
clearly explain what it means for a roadway to be “associated” with
a preparation plant.  Nor does EPA define the term “haul road.”  EPA
should clarify that “roadways” such as haul roads that do not leave
the plant property are not subject to Subpart Y. EPA needs to clearly
define where the coal preparation plant begins and where the coal mine
ends.  Subpart Y is applicable only to affected facilities of a coal
preparation plant.  EPA should clarify that no facilities at a coal
mine, even if the mine is contiguous to the property of the preparation
plant, are covered under the provisions of Subpart Y.  EPA must clearly
define the term “haul roads” and should not, regulate under Subpart
Y any roadways outside of the preparation plant.  Other commenters (096
and 113) disagree with EPA’s proposal to exclude roadways that do not
leave the property (e.g., haul roads at coal mines) from being subject
to Subpart Y for the following reasons with specific examples cited: (1)
road wetting can be accomplished in a manner that is easy to adjust with
the re-routing of haul roads, including the use of water trucks and
temporary sprayers; (2) certain coal preparation plants are already
required to abate dust on their internal haul roads; (3) some states
currently impose dust suppression requirements on all roads associated
with coal preparation plants.

Response:  As noted in the response to Comment 3.2 above, EPA, in both
the air and water offices, has historically maintained the concept that
activities undertaken at or near the active mine face (“active mining
area”) would not be part of the “coal preparation plant” and that
“coal preparation” involves separation of coal from impurities
(i.e., “breaking” or “crushing”).  As discussed in the response
to the comment in section 3.4.1.1.1 above, EPA interprets the
“beginning” of the “coal preparation plant” to be the first
hopper (i.e., “drop point”) for receipt of coal from any form of
transportation.  Thus, any haul roads between the “active mining
area” and the first hopper of the “coal preparation plant” would
not be subject to Subpart Y; rather they would be subject to the
requirements of SMCRA or the specific State.  Similarly, roads occurring
after the coal has been loaded for distribution would not be subject to
Subpart Y.

Under the definition of “surface coal mining operations” contained
in 30 CFR 70.5 (SMCRA), operations conducted within a coal preparation
plant are covered under SMCRA:

(a)  Activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection with a
surface coal mine…the products of which enter commerce or the
operations of which directly or indirectly affect interstate commerce. 
Such activities include…the cleaning, concentrating, or other
processing or preparation of coal.  Such activities also include the
loading of coal for interstate commerce at or near the mine site
(emphasis added).

Such operations also include roads (under 30 CFR 701.5).  30 CFR 780.15
requires the following:

(a)  For all surface mining activities with projected production rates
exceeding 1,000,000 tons of coal per year and located west of the 100th
meridian west longitude, the application shall contain an air pollution
control plan which includes the following:

(1)  An air quality monitoring program to provide sufficient data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the fugitive dust control practices
proposed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section to comply with Federal
and State air quality standards; and

(2)  A plan for fugitive dust control practices as required under 30 CFR
816.95.

(b)  For all other surface mining activities the application shall
contain an air pollution control plan which includes the following:

(1)  An air quality monitoring program, if required by the regulatory
authority, to provide sufficient data to evaluate the effectiveness of
the fugitive dust control practices under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section to comply with applicable Federal and State air quality
standards; and

(2)  A plan for fugitive dust control practices, as required under 30
CFR 816.95.

30 CFR 816.95(a) specifies:

All exposed surface areas shall be protected and stabilized to
effectively control erosion and air pollution attendant to erosion.

30 CFR 816.150 provides some additional requirements:

(b)  Performance standards.  Each road shall be located, designed,
constructed, reconstructed, used, maintained, and reclaimed so as to:

(1)  Control or prevent erosion, siltation, and the air pollution
attendant to erosion, including road dust as well as dust occurring on
other exposed surfaces, by measures such as vegetating, watering, using
chemical or other dust suppressants, or otherwise stabilizing all
exposed surfaces in accordance with current, prudent engineering
practices…

(e)  Maintenance.  (1)  A road shall be maintained to meet the
performance standards of this part and any additional criteria specified
by the regulatory authority.

Thus, SMCRA covers fugitive dust emissions from roads at coal
preparation and processing plants at mine sites and requires a fugitive
dust plan and other requirements to control air pollution from such
sources (through similar measures as were included in the supplemental
proposal for Subpart Y).  EPA believes that coal moving operations, once
the coal enters the “coal preparation plant,” will be by conveyor
rather than by truck.  Therefore, EPA believes that the requirements of
SMCRA are sufficient to address air emissions from roadways that may be
found within a coal preparation and processing plant at mine sites.  For
coal preparation and processing plants at end-user facilities, EPA
believes that, again, once the coal enters the “coal preparation
plant,” coal moving operations will be by conveyor rather than by
truck.  Therefore, EPA is withdrawing its proposed requirements for
roadways.

Where fugitive coal dust emissions control plan requirements under
Subpart Y for open storage piles overlap requirements under SMCRA or
State regulations, those sources may submit the more stringent of the
required monitoring plans to the Administrator or delegated authority as
required by the final rule.

3.4.1.4	Coal Sampling Systems

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, and 120)
requested that coal sampling systems located at coal preparation plants
be specifically exempted from Subpart Y. Coal sampling systems obtain
representative samples of coal as delivered.  Generally, the sampler
cuts across a conveyor belt through a falling stream of coal at a
transfer point on an interval determined by time or weight of coal on
the conveyor.  The cut is transferred to a small crusher and the size of
the sample is reduced by a series of riffling devices.  The remaining
coal from a cut is transported back onto the main conveyor.  To protect
coal sampling system equipment at coal processing plants from the
weather, such equipment is typically is located in a building or
structure, or otherwise covered on all sides.  Very little dust is
generated by coal sampling systems because the conveyors, crushers and
rifflers in the system operate at low velocity, the system as a whole
operates intermittently, and the throughput is low.

Response:  As explained in the response to comment 2.4.1.6, coal
sampling systems at affected facilities have been subject to the
existing Subpart Y requirements since they were originally promulgated
in 1976.  Also, an affected facility enclosed within a building or
structure would be considered to be in compliance if the building in
which it is enclosed is in compliance with the standard.  For these
reasons, EPA does not believe it would be appropriate, in this review,
to add the exemption requested by commenters.

3.4.2	Relationship of Subpart Y Requirements to Other Rules

3.4.2.1	NonMetallic Mineral Processing NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart OOO)

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, and 120) stated
that because of the inherent similarities in the basic characteristics
of facilities used for coal preparation and for nonmetallic mineral
processing, and recognizing the common use of the same technologies to
control PM emissions from same types of facilities the overall format
and requirements for control of PM emissions from coal processing in
Subpart Y should be consistent with the relevant requirements under
subpart OOO for control of PM emissions from nonmetallic mineral
processing.  One commenter (095) presented a list of the specific
provision citations from subpart OOO that the commenters believe are
relevant and should also be adopted for coal preparation plants subject
to the Subpart Y amendments.  Reasons presented by the commenters are
summarized below.

Coal is a nonmetallic mineral. 

Subpart OOO and Subpart Y regulate the same types of processing
equipment and operations.

Even though the magnitudes of the PM emissions from subpart OOO
facilities may not be equivalent to levels of PM emissions from
comparable Subpart Y facilities, the origins of those emissions are the
same at both types of facilities and the controls of those emissions
employ the same technologies.

Predominant type of fugitive emissions controls at both Subpart Y and
subpart OOO facilities is wet suppression.

The emissions data base used by EPA to support development of standards
for subpart OOO is extensive while the emissions data supporting Subpart
Y is very limited.

Response:  As the Courts have explained, “the Administrator is not
required to present affirmative justifications for different standards
in different industries. Inter-industry comparisons of this kind are not
generally required, or even productive; and they were not contemplated
by Congress in this Act.  The essential question is whether the mandated
standards can be met by a particular industry for which they are set,
and this can typically be decided on the basis of information concerning
that industry alone. . . .  It would be unmanageable if, in reviewing
the [challenged] standards, the court should have to consider whether or
not there was a mistake in [a different source category’s] standard .
. . . ” Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 389
(D.C. Cir. 1973).

The standards established in this rulemaking are based on data regarding
emissions and control technologies applied to Subpart Y facilities while
the subpart OOO rule was based on data from subpart OOO facilities.  The
fact that the similar types of processing equipment and operations are
used by the two source categories does not mean that the emissions from
the source categories are comparable.  In fact, commenters objected to
EPA’s use of subpart OOO data to develop the Subpart Y amendments
proposed on April 28, 2008.  They argued that EPA did not demonstrate
that use of subpart OOO data were representative of the coal preparation
industry.  Further, the commenters characterized that proposed
rulemaking as having analytical flaws and data deficiencies.  The May
27, 2009 supplemental proposal was based on data and information for
coal preparation and processing operations.  When conducting a BDT
analysis, EPA considers many factors unique to the source category
including the specific materials involved, the control technologies
employed, the emission levels achieved, and the cost of controls.  For
these and other reasons, the standards established for one source
category may differ from those established for a different source
category.

3.4.2.2	Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)

Comment:  Two commenters (095 and 117) stated that EPA’s proposed
Subpart Y fugitive dust control requirements as applied to surface coal
mines are duplicative of  existing regulatory programs.  In particular,
under SMCRA, coal mine operators must control fugitive dust through a
plan submitted as part of the SMCRA permitting process.  Requirements
under SMCRA provides the U.S. DOI authority to require mine operators to
"stabilize and protect all surface areas ... to effectively control
erosion and attendant air and water pollution." §SIS(b)(4), 30 U.S.C.
§126S(b)(4) (1988); see also §SIS(b)(l7), 30 U.S.C. §126S(b)(l7)
(1988).  Under this authority, DOI has promulgated extensive
regulations, requiring, for example, that all surface coal mining permit
applications include a plan for fugitive dust control and an air quality
monitoring program to evaluate its effectiveness. 30 CFR §780.1S
(1990).  In addition, haul roads must be located, designed, constructed,
used, maintained, and reclaimed so as to "[c]ontrol or prevent erosion
... , including road dust as well as dust occurring on other exposed
surfaces, by measures such as vegetating, watering, using chemicals or
other dust suppressants." Id. §816.1S0(b)(I).

Response:  As noted above in the response to comment 3.4.1.3, it is not
EPA’s intent to regulate sources prior to the “coal preparation
plant” itself.  Further, EPA is withdrawing its requirements for
roadways.  Where requirements for open storage piles overlap, those
sources may submit the more stringent of the required monitoring plans
to the Administrator or delegated authority as required by the final
rule.

3.4.3	BDT Determination

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 099, 107, 112, 115, 119, and 120)
acknowledged EPA’s decision in the supplemental proposal to add
fogging systems and passive enclosure dust containment systems to its
list of BDT for coal processing and conveying equipment, but stated that
EPA’s BDT determination still failed to meet the requirements of CAA
§ 111.  Additional commenters (095 and 117) also disagreed with EPA’s
finding of chemical suppression to be BDT for coal handling equipment
processing bituminous coal, stating that EPA’s current BDT approach of
focusing only on emission control systems with the highest control
efficiency is an inappropriate, unjustified departure from its prior
technology assessments for coal preparation plants.  EPA’s evaluation
of technologies for control of fugitive emissions from coal-handling
should have included wet suppression.  Further, EPA must explain why it
has either rejected or ignored Peabody Energy’s compelling comparison
of wet suppression costs and chemical suppression costs.  We are unaware
of any other credible comparison of those respective costs having been
submitted to EPA.  Consequently, the record demonstrates that cost
considerations favor the use of wet suppression instead of chemical
suppression for controlling fugitive emissions from preparation
facilities at coal mines.

Response:  As pointed out by the commenters, EPA has added fogging
systems and PECS as technologies representative of BDT for coal-handling
equipment processing subbituminous and lignite coals (fabric filters and
wet extraction scrubbers also are considered representative of BDT).  As
noted in the supporting documentation (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0083,
pp. 1-2), EPA has reviewed our determination of chemical suppressants as
BDT for coal-handling equipment processing bituminous coal.  However, as
also noted in the support document, an owner/operator may use any
combination of controls at a particular site as long as the requirements
of subpart Y are met.  With respect to Peabody Energy’s comparison of
wet suppression and chemical suppression costs, their estimates indicate
that the incremental cost of chemical suppression as compared to wet
suppression is $4,400 per ton of PM removed. 

3.4.4	PM Emission Limits

3.4.4.1	Applicability of PM Emission Limits

Comment:  Several commenters (099, 107, 119, and 115) support of EPA’s
decision to limit applicability of the PM emission limit to mechanically
vented coal handling equipment.

Response:  EPA appreciates the commenters’ support of its approach.

3.4.4.2	Selection of Proposed PM Emission Limit Level

Comment:  Many commenters (093, 099, 107, 115, 117, 123, and 119)
support EPA’s decision to increase the PM emission limit for
mechanically vented coal handling equipment to 0.010 gr/dscf in the
supplemental proposal.  In response to the EPA’s request in the
supplemental proposal notice for additional comment on a PM standard
between 0.0090 gr/dscf and 0.011 gr/dscf, one commenter (099) stated
that EPA’s analysis in a memorandum for the subpart OOO rule (using
essentially the identical data base) concluded that a PM level of 0.010
gr/dscf would be achieved only 86 percent of the time.  Only a few
months ago EPA finalized a PM NSPS of 0.014 gr/dscf in the subpart OOO
rule).  Given EPA’s data and conclusions, any additional revisions to
the PM emission limit level should result in a higher PM limit, not
lower one.  In contrast, one commenter (113) stated that the proposed PM
limit should be at the level proposed in the original Subpart Y
amendment proposal of 0.011 g/dscm.  This limit is feasible, and it will
be easy for operators to meet them if the coal-handling system is
entirely enclosed.  The PM limit should apply regardless of whether the
coal-handling system is vented.  If the system is entirely enclosed,
then it should not be difficult for the operator to meet the PM limit. 
If, however, there is a crack in the enclosure or an operator fails to
install a proper enclosure, the PM limit and monitoring will catch that
error and prevent potential excess emissions.

Response:  The PM emission limit of 0.023 g/dscm; 0.010 gr/dscf for
mechanically vented coal-handling equipment is supported by the data
obtained from coal preparation and processing plants and is applicable
only to vented sources.  Sources that are not vented would not be
subject to the mass PM limit, only the opacity limits.

3.4.5	Opacity Standards

3.4.5.1	Opacity Standards for Open Storage Piles and Roadways

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 086, 087, 088, 091, 093, 095, 098, 099,
107, 109, 112, 115, 116, 119, 123, and 120) stated that establishing
opacity standards for open coal storage piles and roadways would be
impractical and unnecessary.  In contrast, one commenter (096) states
coal storage piles can be enclosed and the captured fugitive dust then
vented to a fabric filter (see Section 3.4.6.2) from which the emissions
are vented from a stack allowing opacity readings to be performed. 
Therefore, opacity standards for coal storage piles can be established. 
Reasons cited by individual commenters for not establishing opacity
standards for these sources include:

Fugitive dust from open storage piles and roadways are already regulated
under SMCRA by US Office of Surface Mining so duplicative regulations
under Subpart Y are unnecessary. 

PM emissions from coal piles are already subject to state fugitive dust
regulations (whether applicable to storage piles in general or coal
piles in particular) and, in many cases, State air permits.  There is no
rationale for imposing fugitive dust control requirements on coal
storage piles and roadways because they are already controlled by
existing-source regulations and do not present significantly different
opportunities for work practice controls than do existing coal storage
piles and roadways. (093 and 123) 

The nature of fugitive dust from open storage piles and roadways does
not lend them to application of the Method 9 test procedure requiring
6-minute average opacity readings.

Determining a reasonable opacity limit would be very complicated because
of the numerous and disparate factors that might influence emissions
from any particular pile, such as coal types and varieties, pile shapes,
pile compaction, throughput rates, and traffic. 

By the very nature of open storage piles, activity is intermittent and
during times when activities such as stacking or reclaiming are being
done, fugitive emissions will likely be greater than 5 percent.

It is difficult and extremely expensive to measure actual PM emissions
from individual open storage piles and many States require affected
facilities to hire consultants to conduct Method 9 opacity testing. 
Hiring consultants to perform opacity observations is not cost effective
given the size of open storage piles, which constantly fluctuate in
volume and shape, and the steep fees charged by such consultants. 

The EPA Visible Emissions Field Manual for Method 9 training admits that
opacity observations from open storage piles are very difficult to
perform, and it is not practical to perform them for compliance on a
regular basis.

Response:  As explained in the response to comment 3.4.1.3, SMCRA covers
fugitive dust emissions from activities conducted on the surface of
lands in connection with a surface coal mine and requires a fugitive
dust plan and other requirements to control air pollution from such
sources.  Further, EPA believes that coal moving operations, once the
coal enters the “coal preparation plant,” will be by conveyor rather
than by truck and, therefore, that the requirements of SMCRA are
sufficient to address air emissions from roadways that may be found
within a coal preparation plant at mine sites.  For coal preparation
plants at end-user facilities, EPA believes that, again, once the coal
enters the “coal preparation plant,” coal moving operations will be
by conveyor rather than by truck.  Thus, EPA is withdrawing its proposed
requirements for roadways.

Where fugitive dust emissions control plan requirements under Subpart Y
for open storage piles overlap requirements under SMCRA or State
regulations, those sources may submit the more stringent of the required
monitoring plans as required by the final rule.

With respect to monitoring the effectiveness of fugitive dust control
measures used on open storage piles, EPA supports its previous
determination that the size of open storage piles makes the use of
Method 9 opacity observations unreasonable in many situations.  For this
reason, EPA has concluded that it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce a standard of performance and that work practice standards are
appropriate.

3.4.5.2	Proposed Opacity Limit Level

3.4.5.2.1	Insufficient Representative Data

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 086, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, 116, and
120) stated that EPA has insufficient representative data of achievable,
controlled emissions to set an appropriate opacity standard.  With the
lone exception of a single 3-hour Method 9 test of a rotary car dumper,
not at a preparation plant but at a marine terminal, the background
information documents for Subpart Y development contain no data specific
to fugitive emissions from coal unloading.  EPA cannot credibly argue
that opacity data from a single Method 9 test of a rotary car dumper
satisfies the CAA section 111 mandate for obtaining data on
representative levels of achievable, controlled emissions from coal
unloading.  EPA cannot defend the imposition of an emissions standard on
a facility for which EPA has no representative emissions information. 
One commenter (095) submitted with their comments additional data from
recently performed Method 9 observations of visible emissions from a
number of different coal preparation plants around the country, and that
EPA did not properly evaluate wet suppression.  The commenters state
that these data are more representative of achievable emissions from
coal preparation and support setting a higher opacity limit under
Subpart Y for coal-handling operations at coal preparation plants.

Response:  EPA disagrees with the commenters about the quantity of
available data.  A review of the data set used indicates that there are
a number of unloading operations included (and not at marine terminals)
[PM/Opacity memorandum, May 2009]. A review of Commenter 095’s
submitted data indicates support for the opacity level established.

3.4.5.2.2	Continuous Achievability of Opacity Limit

Comment:  Many commenters (084, 085, 086, 088, 095, 099, 107, 112, 115,
119, and 120) stated the data used by EPA does not demonstrate the
continuous achievability of the proposed opacity limit.  The
promulgation of NSPS based upon inadequate proof of achievability would
defy the Administrative Procedure Act’s mandate against action that is
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with the law. National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 430
(D.C. Cir. 1980).

Response: I n the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal, EPA requested
comment on whether an opacity limit of less than 10 percent is more
appropriate than the proposed limit of 5 percent.  We also requested
comment on whether the 5 percent limit is achievable on a long-term
basis for all Subpart Y coal-handling facilities under all operating
conditions and whether the limit provides an adequate compliance margin.
 As we pointed out in supporting documentation (see
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0083, pp. 3-4), the data used to establish the
supplemental proposal’s 5 percent opacity level were primarily from
initial compliance tests, and the reported highest 6-minute average
opacity reading was 5 percent for a recently installed facility.  Data
for coal-handling facilities submitted by commenters in response to the
supplemental proposal indicate that 60 percent of the highest 6-minute
average opacity readings are less than 10 percent.  Upon reconsideration
of EPA’s data and consideration of the public comments and supporting
data, EPA has determined that an opacity limit of less than 10 percent
is more appropriate for all coal-handling equipment.  An opacity limit
of 10 percent will allow for control equipment degradation, adverse
conditions, and variability that would not be reflected in initial
compliance tests.  Thus, the final rule requires coal handling
facilities to maintain opacity levels of less than 10 percent.

3.4.5.2.3	Selection of Proposed Opacity Limit Level

Comment:  One commenter (126) stated that the WDEQ requires PECs and
fogging systems to be operated and maintained so the system enclosures
exhibit no visible emissions as determined by Method 22.  The WDEQ’s
experience with fabric filters and wet extraction scrubbers shows
similar performance levels can be achieved through a well maintained
system.  Therefore, commenter supports an opacity limit of no greater
than 5 percent.  A second commenter (113) stated that the proposed
opacity limit should have been kept at the level proposed in April 2008
of “less than 5 percent.”  This limit is feasible, and it will be
easy for operators to meet it if the coal-handling system is entirely
enclosed.  Commenter 117 agrees that PECs and fogging systems are as
effective as fabric filters for controlling PM emissions and thus also
constitute BDT for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
systems, and transfer and loading systems.  In contrast, many other
commenters (084, 085, 088, 089, 093, 094, 095, 099, 107, 112, 115, 116,
117, 119, 120, 123, and 121) stated that proposed opacity standard of no
greater than 5 percent is unreasonably stringent and not supported by
the data set used by EPA used to set the proposed level.  Reasons cited
by individual commenters include:

EPA’s data set includes opacity observations of emissions from coal
preparation at 15 different coal mines from various State environmental
agencies.  EPA acknowledged that because most States regulate such
visible emissions based on the use of Method 22, actual Method 9 tests
are not required on a regular basis.  As a result, EPA recognizes that
“the data we collected were primarily from initial performance
tests.”  That very limited nature of EPA’s opacity data from coal
preparation facilities at coal mines calls into question the propriety
of basing the proposed 5 percent opacity standard on that data. 

EPA’s data set only addresses a very narrow segment of different types
of facilities’ operations and emissions characteristics throughout the
industry. 

EPA’s data set measured visible emissions cannot be matched with a
specific control technology EPA has determined to be BDT.

EPA’s data set does not demonstrate “achievable emissions” from
“adequately demonstrated technologies” at coal preparation
facilities. 

Because the accuracy of Method 9 visual observations is considered to be
±7.5 percent, it is scientifically unsupportable for EPA to select a 5
percent opacity level because most reported the Method 9 performance
test results were 5 percent or less.

EPA has not considered the reasons why 9 percent of the tests in the
data set demonstrated opacity above 5 percent.  Commenter 094 believes
that wind conditions can dramatically affect opacity readings at certain
facilities, and that these conditions are a function of local
meteorological conditions, not of factors that can be reasonably
controlled by the facility operator.  The data set that EPA used does
not appear to have evaluated whether wind conditions at certain sites
made compliance with a 5 percent limit unfeasible, or whether the sites
evaluated consisted of locations with wind speeds that were
representative of industry wide performance for coal-handling
operations.

Several commenters stated an opacity limit such “as less than 10
percent” is more appropriate to reflect demonstrated performance over
the long-term (vs. initial performance tests) and over the range of
operating conditions that may occur considering the highly varied
conditions (e.g., wind, moisture, local geography) that are present at
the various affected facilities throughout the U.S. (093, 099, and 119)

One commenter the opacity limit should be maintained at the existing
standard of less than 20 percent opacity.  Existing facilities are
required to meet the initial 20 percent opacity standard at initial
compliance testing prior to final permit approvals.  Subsequent
maintenance records document that control equipment remain in place and
continue functioning according to the design.  Initial Method 9 testing
and equipment maintenance is required to protect air resources for those
emissions not collected and vented.  There appears to be no demonstrable
reason to reduce the current and highly effective opacity standards and
practices already in place within the coal industry. (121)

Response:  As explained in the response to comment 3.4.5.2.3, EPA has
reevaluated the data used to establish the supplemental proposal’s
opacity limit, as well as assessed information submitted in response to
the supplemental proposal, and has determined that a standard of less
than 10 percent opacity more appropriately represents a level that
reflects the variability associated with long-term operation and
site-specific operating conditions.  Thus, the final rule requires
coal-handling facilities to maintain opacity levels of less than 10
percent.  With respect to the commenter’s statement regarding the
accuracy of Method 9 visual observations being ±7.5 percent, EPA’s
response to comment 2.4.7.1 explains that the commenters have
misrepresented the discussion in Method 9 about potential for positive
bias when applying the method.  The study does not support a conclusion
that there is a known positive measurement bias when using Method 9.

Comment:  Two commenters (099 and 119) state that the commenters’
support for fugitive opacity limits of 7 percent (for facilities other
than crushers) and 12 percent (for crushers) in the subpart OOO NSPS
rulemaking was because EPA provided a longer averaging period for
demonstrating compliance (i.e., the average of five 6-minute averages)
which helps to compensate for any bias that might exist in the Method 9
observations.  Commenter 099 urges EPA to adopt such an approach in the
Subpart Y rule.

Response:   As previously explained, EPA has reevaluated the data used
to establish the opacity limit, as well as assessed information
submitted in response to the supplemental proposal, and has determined
that a standard of less than 10 percent opacity for coal-handling
facilities, including crushers, more appropriately represents a level
that reflects the variability associated with long-term operation and
site-specific operating conditions.

3.4.5.2.4	Alternative to Opacity Limit 

Comment:  Two commenters (099 and 119) recommended that EPA not use an
opacity standard in Subpart Y for the affected sources and instead
require a repeat of the proposed Method 22 observation followed by
corrective action.  This approach is discussed in more detail in the
comments submitted by the commenter on the original Subpart Y amendment
proposal which are incorporated by reference by the commenter.

Response:  Subpart Y directs EPA to set “standards of performance”
for the source category except in certain circumstances where it is
infeasible to do so.  A standard of performance is a standard for
emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission
limitation achievable with adequately demonstrated technologies.  EPA
does not have information to support a determination that the standard
proposed by the commenter would qualify as a standard of performance as
that term is defined in section 111(a)(1).  Further, as a general
matter, EPA believes that rules should be written to include clearly
defined limits that are sufficiently enforceable.  Corrective action
plans or quality improvement plans are not readily enforceable when they
provide no simple line between compliance and noncompliance, and allow
excessive emissions without any deterrence for those emissions beyond a
corrective action requirement.  A clear limit such as an opacity limit
provides an incentive for the source to take corrective action to avoid
the violation prior to, as opposed to after, its occurrence.  Further,
the opacity limit provides a readily identifiable limit to allow for
enforcement where necessary, and results in quantification of the
emissions levels so that the source and the Agency can assure the public
of the environmental performance of regulated facilities.  As such, EPA
is retaining the opacity standards.

3.4.6	PM Emissions Controls and Work Practice Standards

3.4.6.1	Coal Conveyors

Comment:  Two commenters (114 and 117) stated that that coal conveyors
do not need to be fully enclosed, full enclosures are required only at
the conveyor belt transfer or drop points. 

Coal preparation facilities located at coal-fired power plants differ
dramatically from those co-located at mines, and thus what might work at
a power plant may not be appropriate for larger, integrated facilities. 
Unlike conveyors at typical coal-fired power plants, conveyors at coal
preparation plants receiving coal from coal mines often move coal for
substantial distances, sometimes for miles, and they have particularly
large capacity.  Under these conditions, it would be unreasonable to
require conveyors to be fully enclosed and vented through a stack (and
hence under pressure).  Not only would such a requirement raise
practicality and safety concerns by increasing the potential for coal
dust and methane gas to accumulate in dangerous concentrations, but it
would create myriad inspection and maintenance difficulties.  For these
reasons only transfer points are typically enclosed (117).

A covered conveyer belt is not going to have any fugitive emissions
along the belt runs.  The only points where fugitive emissions can be
created are at the drop points.  As such, it should be specified that,
for systems that are enclosed, the emission control and monitoring
points for coal conveying equipment should be limited to the material
drop points (114).

Response:  The April 2008 proposal proposed to require conveyers to be
fully enclosed, but the supplemental proposal did not.  The standard of
performance established in the final rule applies to the entire
conveyor.  However, it is common for sources to monitor emissions only
at transfer or drop points on conveyer belts.

3.4.6.2	Coal Storage Piles

3.4.6.2.1	Work Practice Standards

Comment:  Several commenters (089, 091 and 121) stated that it is not
feasible to establish emission standards for open storage piles or
roadways, and if open storage piles are to be regulated by Subpart Y
then the only appropriate method for controlling PM emissions from such
sources is by using work practice standards.  A third commenter (126)
does not support establishing an opacity limit for open storage piles or
roadways and concurs with the proposal to establish work practice
standards instead of opacity or PM limits.  If an opacity limit is
established for storage piles, it should be limited to stationary open
storage piles not including piles of coal that have been loaded into
trucks, railcars, and/or ships.  Another commenter (113) disagrees that
only work practices are suitable for controlling PM emissions open
storage piles (and roadways).  The 20 percent opacity limitation under
Subpart Y has been an existing applicable requirement for fugitive dust
sources in the coal-handling system for decades.  It was not proven
infeasible to conduct opacity monitoring over all of those years.  A
more detailed explanation of why opacity monitoring for these fugitive
dust sources cannot be conducted would be very helpful.

Response:  As explained elsewhere in this document, EPA is withdrawing
its proposed requirements for roadways.  EPA concurs that it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance for open
storage coal piles and has therefore promulgated work practice
standards, which EPA believes provide the most effective method of
limiting emissions from open storage piles.  In addition, EPA believes
that the size of open storage coal piles makes the use of Method 9
opacity observations unreasonable in many situations.

Comment:  One commenter (096) recommended that if EPA declines to
promulgate standards of performance for coal storage piles, the work
practice standard for open piles must be revised to include guidance on
the effective use of wet suppression.

Response:  EPA believes that it is inappropriate to go into the level of
detail suggested by the commenter.  Rather, EPA believes that the
subpart Y requirement is sufficiently detailed as written.

3.4.6.2.2	Enclosure of Coal Storage Piles

 Comment:  One commenter (096) states it is entirely feasible for
fugitive dust from coal storage piles to be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or capture that fugitive dust.  Coal
storage piles can be enclosed and their fugitive dust emissions vented
to a fabric filter where those emissions can be captured and measured. 
The commenter references their comments on the original Subpart Y
amendment proposal for a list of facilities around the country that are
currently utilizing enclosures for coal and coke piles, as well as a
discussion of the economic costs and benefits of enclosing piles.  In
contrast, another commenter (099) stated that power plants typically
have both short-term and long-term storage piles which are vastly
different in size.  Cost and practical considerations in controlling
dust from short- and long-term coal piles will vary considerably. 
Long-term piles can be massive, and may range from 40 acres to over 80
acres in size.  The expense of a partial enclosure at such a coal
storage pile would be “enormous” according to the commenter.

Commenter 129 disagrees with Commenter 096 regarding requiring open coal
piles to be enclosed and vented to control emissions.  Commenter 129
states that EPA has ample facts in the record to reject the contention
that all storage piles should be covered and vented to a fabric filter
because long-term piles can become massive and the cost to cover and
control emissions for these massive piles can become quite enormous. 
Commenter 129 refers to the cost estimates submitted by a third
commenter (033) concerning the building of a coal silo for short-term
coal storage use and Commenter 129 states that these costs are far
beyond what is considered reasonable cost under CAA section 111. 
Commenter 129 also points out that building domes at the port of Los
Angeles Terminal to hold coal before moving it to barges for transport
to Asia also exceeds reasonable costs under CAA section 111.  They also
stated that other examples given by Commenter 096 do not support
enclosing coal piles for long-term storage.

Response:  EPA continues to believe that the cost of requiring open coal
storage piles to be enclosed is unreasonable and thus has not determined
that complete enclosures with fabric filters constitute adequately
demonstrated control technologies for open storage piles at this time.

3.4.6.3	Coal Preparation Plant Roadways

3.4.6.3.1	Coal Haul Road Exemption

Comment:  Two commenters (096 and 113) disagree with the proposal to
exclude “roadways that do not leave the property (e.g., haul roads at
coal mines)” from this requirement (74 FR 25313).  The only reason
given for this exclusion is the particular impracticality of, for
example, paving roadways that are frequently rerouted (74 FR 25313). 
The proposal offers no explanation for why wetting the road surface
would pose a “particular impracticality” to facility operators, even
given that internal haul roads are frequently rerouted.  Furthermore,
road wetting can be accomplished in a manner that is easy to adjust with
the re-routing of haul roads, including the use of water trucks and
temporary sprayers.  EPA’s rationale also statement is contradicted by
the fugitive dust control requirements already included in the title V
permits for certain coal preparation plant facilities, and by State
regulations that apply to all road types.  The commenter cited examples
of several title V permits and State regulation requiring implementation
of roadway-specific fugitive dust control work practice at coal
preparation plants.  Commenter 113 states that the final rule should
describe the O&M of each open storage pile practice [enclosure, chemical
suppressants (including encrusting agents), wet suppression, a wind
barrier, or a vegetative cover to control emissions], and operation and
maintenance for roadway practices (pave the roads, wet the road surface,
sweep up excess coal dust, or install tire washes to remove entrained
dust to control PM emissions.)

Response:  As discussed in the responses to comments 3.4.1.1.1 and
3.4.1.3 above, EPA’s intent under this action was only to cover
operations on the premises of the coal preparation and processing plant
and, thus, not roadways that lead to the first hopper or from the
loadout operations.  In addition, as previously explained, further
review of the SMCRA regulations and the comments received has led EPA to
withdraw its proposal to regulate roadways on the contiguous coal
preparation and processing site. EPA will continue to assess the need
for regulation of roads beyond the contiguous coal preparation and
processing site.

EPA disagrees that the final rule should describe the O&M of each open
storage pile practice.  One reason for requiring approval of the
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan is to ensure that whatever
control measure is selected by an owner/operator, including its
operation and maintenance, is appropriate considering the site-specific
conditions.

3.4.6.3.2	Truck Washes

Comment:  One commenter (096) stated that the issue of entrained dust is
not limited to truck tires.  The work practice standards for roadways
“require the owner/operator to pave the roads, wet the road surface,
sweep up excess coal dust, or install tire washes to remove entrained
dust to control PM emissions” (74 FR 25313).  Subpart Y must be
amended to require the installation of “truck washes” as opposed to
merely “tire washes.”  Truck washes clean the entire truck body,
including the undercarriage and other areas where mud and dust may
collect.  Limiting the standard to only tire washes would not adequately
address the dust entrainment problem.

Response:  As noted elsewhere, EPA is withdrawing its proposed
requirements for roadways to be included in the Subpart Y fugitive coal
dust emissions control plan as it believes that these sources are
adequately covered under the requirements of SMCRA.   EPA believes that
such emissions as the commenter notes would also be covered under the
required SMCRA fugitive dust plan.

3.4.6.3.3	Weather-Related Exemptions

Comment:  One commenter (114) suggested that the rule should acknowledge
that the listed control methods for haul roads may not be available when
temperatures are below freezing.  In addition, prevailing weather
conditions may reduce the effectiveness of, or eliminate the need for, a
particular control method on a given day.

Response:  As noted elsewhere, EPA is withdrawing its proposed
requirements for roadways.  However, with respect to open storage piles,
section 60.254 of Subpart Y specifies that the fugitive coal dust
emissions control plan must describe the control measures the
owner/operator will use to minimize fugitive emissions from each source
addressed in the plan, and explain how the measures are applicable and
appropriate for the site conditions.  Weather-related issues such as
those noted by the commenter thus can be addressed in the fugitive coal
dust emissions control plan.  

3.4.6.4	Coal Truck Dumps

Comment:  Two commenters (117 and 124) support the use of stilling sheds
as BDT for truck dumps.  Truck dumps using stilling shed technology
control fugitive coal dust more effectively than those using baghouses. 
The WDEQ considers stilling sheds effective enough to constitute BACT. 
Therefore, if EPA decides to establish truck dump standards, despite the
foregoing concerns, the commenter requests that EPA make a finding that
stilling sheds constitute BDT for truck dumps.  Another commenter (122)
stated that many coal mines utilize stilling sheds; however, there are
some truck dump control systems that utilize baghouses or water spray
bars and their data is presented here as well.  Regardless of the
method, these truck dump control systems are rated to control 50-85
percent of the fugitive emissions from truck dumping.  It should be
noted that some mines operate belly dump trucks, for which no safe
stilling shed design is available. 

Commenter 126 stated that the truck dumps are proposed to be regulated
as a point source and the commenter does not consider it appropriate to
regulate a truck dump in the same manner as a baghouse or PEC.  The PSD
rules define fugitive emissions as those which could not reasonably pass
through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent
opening.  With haul truck capacities of 400 tons, it is not reasonable
to assume that the emissions could be routed through a stack.  Commenter
suggests that truck dumps be regulated as fugitive sources.

Response:  EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to require coal
truck dump operations, whether unloading coal into a hopper, onto an
open storage pile, or elsewhere, to be subject to the same opacity limit
as other coal-handling facilities.  As previously explained, an
owner/operator may use any control measure that enables them to meet the
opacity limit.  Data indicate that the various control measures
currently used on truck dump operations (e.g., baghouses, water sprays,
stilling sheds) are capable of meeting the final rule’s opacity limit
of less than 10 percent.  However, as explained in the response to
comment 3.5.3.2, EPA has determined that separate testing and monitoring
requirements are appropriate for coal truck dumps.

3.4.6.5	Affected Facilities in Enclosed Buildings

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, and 120)
requested that Subpart Y provide the same compliance alternative for
affected sources located in enclosed building stated provided in subpart
OOO.  Under subpart OOO performance standards and applicable monitoring
techniques for the exhaust systems of these buildings have been
specified as an appropriate alternative to individual compliance by each
affected facility enclosed within the building.  Building enclosure of
certain coal-handling and processing operations at coal preparation
plants has become more commonplace throughout the industry for several
reasons, including the ability to effectively control emissions and to
protect personnel and equipment from the elements. These commenters urge
EPA to extend this practical and achievable alternative to Subpart Y and
recognize within the rule the beneficial control technique of enclosing
coal preparation facilities within buildings.

Response:  EPA has determined that if a building in which affected coal
processing and conveying equipment (e.g., breakers, crushers, screens,
conveying systems), coal storage systems, and coal transfer system
operations are enclosed is found to be in compliance with Subpart Y
limits then the affected facilities enclosed in that building also are
in compliance.  Because exhaust from a building that encloses affected
facilities would be comprised of exhaust from the affected facilities,
it follows that in order for the building to be able to meet a specific
opacity limit, each facility enclosed in the building also would have to
meet that same opacity limit.  That is, for coal processing and
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading
systems constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before April 28,
2008, fugitive emissions from the building openings must not exhibit 20
percent opacity or greater. Fugitive emissions from buildings that
enclose coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems,
and transfer and loading systems constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after April 28, 2008, must not exhibit opacity of 10 percent or more. 
For buildings enclosing coal processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems, and transfer and loading systems constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, that discharge
emissions from a mechanical vent, emissions must not contain PM in
excess of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf).

3.4.6.6	Site-Specific Fugitive Emission Control Plan

3.4.6.6.1	Need for Plan in Subpart Y

Comment:  One commenter (103) requested that EPA delete the proposed
fugitive emission control plan requirements from the final Subpart Y
amendments for the following reasons:  

Regulated entities have the right to know exactly what requirements
apply to their facilities, particularly those applicable to new sources,
and the proposed language does not provide any objective basis for
determining what might have to be included or how to comply. 

Making fugitive emission control plan requirements these subject to
negotiation and air regulatory agency approval adds potentially
significant delays in getting new sources approved and into operation. 

Fugitive emission control plans to minimize emissions from coal piles
and roadways are commonly embodied in state implementation plans and
existing air permits for iron and steel plants and coke plants. 

Subpart Y should not duplicate and should not conflict with existing
fugitive emission control requirements that have been in place for many
years in the title V operating permits for individual plants.  Affected
sources should be exempt from NSPS fugitive emission control
requirements if covered by an applicable fugitive emission control plan
referenced in a Title V permit.

Response:  EPA disagrees that fugitive coal dust emission control plans
should not be required by the NSPS.  The commenter states that such
plans are “commonly” embodied in State implementation plans but does
not suggest that they are contained within all such plans.  Adding to
the NSPS a requirement that sources must control fugitive coal dust
emissions from fugitive sources at the facility by operating according
to a written fugitive coal dust emissions control establishes a uniform
requirement that applies to all sources in the Subpart Y source
category.  The final rule also provides very specific requirements
regarding the control measures that must be included in the fugitive
coal dust emissions control plans.  The fugitive coal dust emissions
control plan must identify and describe the control measures the
owner/operator will use to minimize fugitive coal dust emissions from
each affected facility addressed in the plan.  The owner or operator is
also required to explain how the measures are applicable and appropriate
for the site conditions.

The owner/operator may petition the Administrator requesting approval of
a control measure other than those specified in the final rule.  The
petition must either demonstrate that the alternate control measure will
provide equivalent overall environmental protection or demonstrate that
it is either economically or technically infeasible for the affected
facility to use the control measures specifically identified in the
final rule.  The final rule clarifies that the owner/operator must
submit a fugitive coal dust emissions control plan that includes the
alternative measures along with the petition and operate in accordance
with that plan while the petition is pending.  It further clarifies that
while operating in accordance with the plan that includes the
alternative control measures, the affected facility is considered to be
in compliance with the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan
requirements while the petition is pending.

3.4.6.6.2	Plan Requirements

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 087, 088, 095, 099, 107, 112, 114, 115,
117, 119, 120, and 121) stated that EPA’s proposal for
owners/operators to develop a fugitive dust emissions control plan for
open storage piles, roadways, and other site-specific sources of
fugitive emissions is not clear with respect to the affected sources and
information owners and operators are required to include in their
written fugitive emissions control plans. 

EPA has failed to properly develop revisions to Subpart Y in accordance
with established procedures for developing NSPS that specifically
designate each type of affected facility subject to proposed standards. 
EPA needs to clarify what exactly what affected sources are intended to
be addressed by the plan.  The requirement for a plan seems to be an
attempt by EPA to apply standards to any and all facilities and
activities at a coal preparation plant. Additionally, this appears to be
an open-ended and indeterminate expansion of Subpart Y. This intent is
further reflected in preamble language indicating that proposed
procedures for developing a “fugitive dust plan” must include
procedures for limiting emissions from “all types” of coal
processing and conveying equipment at coal preparation plants (74 FR
25312). It is unclear what EPA means by “all types” of equipment
when “coal processing and conveying equipment” has a well-settled
meaning within Subpart Y. 

EPA appears to be using inappropriate terminology, at times referring to
a “fugitive dust emissions control plan” and alternatively referring
to a “fugitive dust plan.”  Fugitive process emissions are not the
same as fugitive dust, or non-process emissions. 

EPA intent is unclear of what information owners and operators are
required to include in their written fugitive emissions control plans.

Proposed rule amendment does not, but should, make clear that an owner
or operator can choose from the methods stated in the rule or an
alternative method, if one exists, approved by the permitting authority.
 As currently proposed, any alternative methods would have to be
approved by the Administrator.  Such a requirement would be unduly
burdensome.

60.254(b)(3) discusses the need for a fugitive emissions control plan
for fugitive sources “at the facility.”  The use of the term
“facility” is inconsistent with its meaning throughout the remainder
of the rule and the historical use of the term in this subpart. 
Applicability is determined on a unit-by-unit basis.  Haul roads have
not been identified as an “affected facility” per the existing
definition under the NSPS.  Consequently, EPA needs to rewrite this
section in order to remove the confusion generated by the ambiguous
wording.

60.254(b)(3)(ii) requires the fugitive emissions control plan to specify
one or more of several listed control methods for open storage piles and
haul roads.  The regulation should acknowledge that these measures might
not be available when temperatures are below freezing and that
prevailing weather conditions may reduce the effectiveness of, or
eliminate the need for, a particular control method on a given day.

It is confusing and unclear as to what roads to be included in plan.  Is
it all roads associated with the facility, , or is it roads associated
only with the footprint of the coal-handling facility and used in the
coal-handling itself.  All facility roadways are handled in accordance
with SMCRA requirements and permits and it would appear that there is no
need to duplicate existing regulatory requirements with another layer of
oversight.  Further, ramps and roadways directly associated with a
coal-handling facility often are not defined as “roads” per se;
rather, like the structures and buildings, they are simply part of the
“facility.”

Response:  EPA has decided to omit, from the rule, the proposed
requirement that the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan address
“other site-specific sources of fugitive emissions that the
Administrator or permitting authority determines need to be included.”
 EPA agrees with the commenters that Subpart Y should specifically
identify each type of affected facility that must be addressed in the
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan.  As explained earlier in this
preamble, EPA also has decided not to address roadways under Subpart Y
at this time.  Thus, open storage coal piles are currently the only
affected facilities that must be addressed by the plan.  As pointed out
by the commenters, an owner/operator must either use one of the control
measures specifically identified in subpart Y or, alternatively, seek
approval from the Administrator to use an alternate control measure. 
Because the NSPS is a Federal standard, we believe it is appropriate for
the Administrator to be the one who makes determinations regarding
whether an alternative control measure achieves equivalent overall
environmental protection.  Weather-related issues such as those noted by
the commenter should be addressed in the fugitive coal dust emissions
control plan prepared by the owner/operator.

.

 The regulatory text in Subpart Y has been revised such that use of the
terms “facility ”and “fugitive dust emissions control plan” are
consistent throughout the rule. 

3.4.6.6.3	Plan Implementation

Comment:  One commenter (117) stated that the proposed requirements that
the permitting authority approve the site-specific fugitive dust plan
would be unnecessary. The better and less burdensome approach is to
require owners/operators to submit their fugitive dust controls plans to
the permitting authority, and those plans would automatically take
effect unless the permitting authority objects to the terms of the plan.
 Another commenter (096) stated that the proposed requirements do not
specify which permitting authority will be required to approve fugitive
dust emissions plans under the proposed regulation.  It is entirely
unclear, for instance, whether fugitive dust emissions plans will be
required to be incorporated into a coal preparation plant’s title V
permit.  EPA must clarify these requirements for the preparation and
approval of the fugitive dust emissions control plans.  At a minimum,
the commenter stated that EPA must require that these fugitive dust
emission control plans be subject to public notice and comment, whether
or not they are incorporated into a plant’s title V permit. 

Response:  The requirement to control fugitive coal dust emissions by
operating according to a written fugitive dust emissions control plan is
a Federal requirement and is Federally enforceable.  The final rule does
not require approval of the plans by the Administrator or delegated
authority.  In addition, the commenter does not identify any provision
of CAA section 111 that would require the NSPS itself to establish a
notice and comment process for the plans.  However, this rule does
require the owner/operator to submit the fugitive coal dust emissions
control plan to the Administrator or delegated authority to provide an
opportunity for the Administrator or delegated authority to object to
the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan.  The final rule requires
the owner/operator to submit the fugitive coal dust emissions control
plan to the Administrator or delegated authority before startup of the
new, reconstructed of modified facility.  If an objection is raised, the
owner/operator has 30 days from receipt of the objection to respond with
a revised fugitive coal dust emissions control plan.  The owner/operator
must operate in accordance with the revised fugitive coal dust emissions
control plan.

The requirement for the owner/operator to prepare and operate according
to a submitted fugitive coal dust emissions control plan that is
appropriate for site conditions must be included in the title V
operating permit for the source.  This and other requirements for title
V permits are addressed in 40 CFR part 70.

Finally, to the extent the comment raises issues beyond the scope of the
supplemental proposal, EPA has no obligation to respond in this
rulemaking.

3.4.6.6.4	Plan Submittal Date

Comment:  Three commenters (087, 099, and 119) stated that EPA’s
proposal requires submittal of the fugitive emissions control plan to
the permitting authority 90 days prior to the compliance date. 
Commenters assume this means the date for conducting the performance
test under section 60.8, which is 60 days after reaching maximum
production but not more than 180 days.  If EPA finalizes its proposed
approach and subjects existing units to fugitive emissions control
plans, commenters request guidance on how the 90-day requirement is
applied with respect to the effective date of the final rule and the
proposed April 2008 applicability date.  A modified open coal storage
pile that is required to submit a fugitive dust plan may be required to
comply before the rule is effective and therefore could not meet the
90-day requirement.  The 90-day requirement also is difficult to meet
with the provision giving the permitting authority discretion to decide
what site-specific sources must be covered by the plan.  An affected
owner/operator would not know what to put in the plan.

Response:  The commenter’s statement that some open storage coal piles
are required to comply before the rule is effective is not completely
accurate.  With respect to open storage piles, May 27, 2009, is the date
used to determine which sources qualify as “new sources” as that
term is defined in CAA section 111(a)(2).  The rule requirements for
open storage piles apply to any stationary open storage pile sources,
the construction or modification of which is commenced after that date. 
The compliance obligation doesn’t arise until the effective date of
the revised NSPS rule.  However, because CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
provides that standards of performance or revisions thereof shall become
effective upon promulgation, all sources that qualify as “new
sources” must be constructed in accordance with the regulations. 
Further because both the requirement that new sources include sources
constructed or modified after the date of the proposed regulations and
the requirement that the standards become effective upon promulgation
are statutory requirements, EPA does not have authority to alter these
requirements.  The specific situation raised by the commenters is no
longer relevant because the final rule does not require approval of the
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan.

3.4.7	Reconstructed and Modified Sources

3.4.7.1	Coal Storage Piles

Comment:  Many commenters (087, 094, 099, 103, 105, 109, 114, 117, and
119) stated concerns about the inherent difficulties in determining when
an open storage pile is “reconstructed” or “modified.”  There is
simply no way that an “increase in the emission rate” of PM or any
other pollutant could be measured with any certainty for an open coal
storage pile (or roadway).  Unlike other “affected facilities” or
plant equipment, open storage piles by their nature fluctuate in size
and activity.  As the Subpart Y amendments are proposed, any time large
coal inventory was added to an open storage pile and then reclaimed,
Subpart Y potentially could be triggered.  If EPA proceeds with the
establishment of work practices for coal piles, EPA should provide
clarification and guidance as to what constitutes a physical or
operational change for an open storage pile or roadway through a
subsequent rulemaking proposal that would allow public review and
comment.  Commenters requested that EPA limit the applicability of the
Subpart Y control requirements for coal storage piles to only new
sources.

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenters that open storage piles are
always changing (i.e., coal is being added and coal is being removed for
processing) and, for purposes of subpart Y, we do not consider the
routine addition and removal of coal to be a physical change or a change
in the method of operation.  A change to an open storage pile that
requires the source’s operating permit be opened for revision may be a
modification or reconstruction of the storage pile.  Instances where a
physical change or change in the method of operation of an open storage
pile will result in an increase in emissions would be considered a
modification or reconstruction (e.g., increasing the permitted size of
the storage pile).  Changes to the equipment used in loading, unloading,
and conveying operations of open storage piles are among the things that
can be assessed in order to determine when an open storage pile has been
reconstructed or modified.  Thus, in the final rule, EPA defines “open
storage pile” to mean “any facility, including storage area, that is
not enclosed that is used to store coal, including the equipment used in
the loading, unloading, and conveying operations of the facility.” 
The inclusion of a definition for “open storage pile” should provide
additional clarification as requested by the commenters.  In addition,
40 CFR 60.5 provides that when requested to do so by an owner/operator,
the Administrator will make a determination of whether action taken or
intended to be taken by such owner/operator constitutes construction
(including reconstruction) or modification or the commencement thereof
within the meaning of this part.

3.4.7.2	Coal Preparation Plant Roadways

Comment:  Many commenters (087, 094, 099, 103, 109, 114, 117, and 119)
stated that there are  inherent difficulties in determining when a plant
roadway is “reconstructed” or “modified” and therefore requested
that EPA limit the applicability of the Subpart Y control requirements
for plant roadways only to new sources.  Activities on power plant
roadways (onsite haul roads) can include realignment, scraping, grading
and paving.  Furthermore, the dynamic nature of these types of
activities makes it very difficult to determine what would constitute a
modification or reconstruction of a haul road.  If EPA proceeds with the
establishment of work practices for plant roadways, EPA should provide
clarification and guidance as to what constitutes a physical or
operational change for a roadway through a subsequent rulemaking
proposal that would allow public review and comment.

Response:  As noted elsewhere, EPA is withdrawing its proposal to
regulate roadways under Subpart Y, believing that the requirements of
SMCRA are sufficient.  However, EPA will continue to assess the issue.

3.5	Subpart Y Testing and Monitoring Requirements

3.5.1	PM Emissions Testing

3.5.1.1	PM Performance Test Frequency

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, 119, and 117) stated that the
proposed requirements for subsequent PM emissions performance test after
the initial compliance test are either not needed or require too
frequent testing resulting in unnecessary testing.

For most units, repeat PM performance testing should be required no more
often than every five years.

One commenter stated that once a source has established based on an
initial performance test that a PM control device is properly sized and
installed to meet the applicable PM limit, stack testing is not
necessary to ensure continued compliance.  Compliance can be determined
through visible observations using procedures like Method 22 or other
operating parameters, like BLDS.  The recent revisions to subpart OOO,
EPA agreed and required no repeat PM performance testing for facilities
performing ongoing monitoring under section 60.674 (e.g., those
facilities using BLDS, monitoring scrubber parameters, or performing
quarterly Method 22 observations). 

One commenter (117) noted that if EPA ultimately adopts the BLDS
requirement; it should recognize that facilities that use such devices
are likely to operate in compliance with EPA’s proposed standards
because deviations would be detected before any noncompliance occurs.
These facilities should, therefore, be exempt from ongoing opacity
monitoring requirements, other than the initial and five-year
performance tests.  This would be consistent with the approach EPA
adopted for the electric arc furnace NSPS under 40 CFR 60 subparts AA
and AAa.

Response:  The emissions testing requirements for PM, SO2, NOX, and CO
accomplish two goals.  First, emissions measurements are necessary to
directly determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit. 
Direct measurement will also provide data necessary to verify the
accuracy of the annual compliance certifications.  The data will also
augment the data supporting the regional and national emissions factors
and emissions inventories.  Second, periodic performance testing will
verify the calibration and representativeness of the continuous
monitoring system (e.g., BLDS, scrubber pressure drop) and, as
necessary, indicate that readjustment is required.  EPA does not believe
that these goals can be met with emissions testing for each separate
source on a 5-year cycle.  EPA has, however, provided a provision that,
for affected facilities that emit at 50 percent or less of the
applicable standard, repeat performance testing is required every 24
months (as opposed to every 12 months).  Also, for well-performing
(emitting at 90 percent or less of the applicable standard) similar,
separate sources using identical control equipment, the final rule
allows a single repeat performance test as adequate demonstration for up
to four other similar, separate sources. Under this provision, a
performance test for each of these similar affected sources is required
to be conducted at at least once every 5 years (i.e., one similar source
would be required to conduct repeat performance testing every 12
months).

3.5.1.2	Small Fabric Filters PM Performance Test Exemption

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, 119, and 117) stated that
implementation of the proposed provision exempting small fabric filters
from PM performance tests may be hindered by the same difficulties
regarding calculation of the “design controlled potential PM emissions
rate,” and conditioning the exemption on use of COMS or qualification
for use of the Method 22 alternative is either unnecessary or
unreasonable.  In light of these problems, EPA should reconsider its
approach and, consistent with subpart OOO, utilize ongoing monitoring
and corrective action requirements, rather than repeat performance
testing, to assure compliance. EPA and states would retain authority
under section 60.8 to require performance testing at individual
facilities on a case-by-case basis in response to audits of the facility
or its monitoring reports.

Response:  As explained in response to one of the comments in 3.5.1.5
below, the final rule does not contain any provisions that require the
alternative monitoring the commenter refers to (i.e., digital opacity
monitoring system or COMS).  The final rule does continue to base one of
its provisions regarding the frequency of subsequent emissions
performance testing on “design controlled potential PM emissions
rate” (Mg/year).  The final rule includes a definition of the term
“design controlled potential PM emissions rate

3.5.1.3	Performance Test Delay for Non-operating Affected Sources

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, and 119) suggested a revision to
the proposed provision authorizing a delay in PM performance testing for
any facility that “has not operated for the 60 calendar days prior to
the due date of a performance test.”  Although the commenters support
the proposed relief, they suggest that EPA instead allow a grace period
for any unit that “is shutdown and not operating” on the due date. 
This more flexible language would prevent the need for submission of a
waiver request for a unit that is unexpectedly shut down prior to
testing and would avoid the inequity of denying relief to a unit that
might operate only briefly in the 60 days before the due date, but not a
sufficient time to complete testing.

Response: EPA believes it is inappropriate to allow a delay in PM
performance testing for “any unit that is shutdown and not operating
on the due date of the performance test.”  Because there can be
various reasons for a unit to be shutdown and not operating at the time
a performance test is required, EPA considers it imprudent to provide a
general waiver allowing a delay in testing for these units.  In order to
consider the merits of each situation, EPA believes it is appropriate to
require case-by-case waiver requests for situations where an affected
facility is shutdown and not operating on the due date of the
performance test, with the exception of affected facilities that have
not operated for the 60 calendar days prior to the performance test due
date.

3.5.1.4	Use of Method 17 as Alternative PM Test Method

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, and 119) support EPA’s
proposal allow use of Method 17 of Appendix A-6 to determine PM
concentration for the purpose of complying with subpart Y.

Response:  EPA appreciates the commenters’ support of its approach.

3.5.1.5	Performance Testing of Multiple Similar Affected Facilities

Comment:  One commenter (113) disagrees with the proposal to allow a
performance test at one facility to count for an adequate demonstration
of performance at “up to four other similar, separate affected
facilities.”  This is flawed because different facilities will be
operated differently in different jurisdictions.  Each facility may have
conditions unique to that facility that could result in performance
variations.  Also, an operator may operate facilities in different
States to a different degree of compliance with CAA title V permit terms
and conditions because some States are less effective at enforcing
permits than are other States.

Response:  The commenter has misinterpreted section 60.255(d) of the
supplemental proposal. The term “affected facilities” refers to
affected “sources” at the same plant (e.g., five conveyor transfer
points that are identically controlled and vented).  The provision does
not apply to affected sources across plant sites, even if those sources
are identical.  Section 60.255(d) includes additional conditions that
must be met in order to take advantage of the provision (e.g., regarding
the level of PM emissions, recommended control device maintenance
procedures, type of monitoring, PM testing frequency).

Comment:  One commenter (108) states that the EPA proposes an
alternative for showing opacity monitoring compliance.  This alternative
plan proposes that one test per four similar systems.  The proposal
appears to state that the operator could conduct a Method 22 observation
for up to 4 similar affected facilities, and agree to an
inspection/maintenance program for the equipment.  But observations
would be required weekly for each source, and the facilities must still
conduct a monthly formal observation for each piece of equipment.  So
the commenter is confused as to how this is any less than the initial
proposal.  Also, the proposed rule, at 60.255(d) appears to discuss five
facilities (not four), so this is also confusing.  This one for four
proposals is getting closer to being acceptable, but is still excessive.
 The commenter suggests an alternative where the EPA should use the
inspection program the EPA recently approved for subpart OOO facilities
and which is similar to the program proposed in the proposed Subpart Y
at section 60.258 of 74 FR 25326.

Response:  The “one test per four similar systems” provision
included in the supplemental proposal regards emissions testing (i.e.,
PM, SO2, NOX, CO), not opacity testing.  Additionally, this provision
allows a single performance test for up to four “other” similar,
separate affected facilities, for a total of five simultaneous
performance tests.  The supplemental proposal also included a provision
that allows simultaneous visible emission observations using Method 9
for up to three emission points.  The final rule retains both of these
provisions.  However, the final rule includes revised opacity testing
and monitoring requirements which are described in the responses to
comments below.   

Comment:  Two commenters (099 and 119) stated that although the
commenter agrees with EPA’s proposal to reduce the number of initial
performance tests required for identical facilities, there are concerns
how some of the proposed criteria can be implemented.  Their concerns
include:

How a facility would calculate the “design controlled potential PM
emission rate” of a control device in terms of Mg per year.  Although
the design efficiency of the control device and design flow rate may be
known, the resulting theoretical annual emissions cannot be calculated
without knowing the annual uncontrolled emissions (or how much dust will
be vented to the control device in a year).

The term “design emissions limit” of the “affected facility” in
proposed section 60.255(d)(1) is not defined and must be different from
the “design controlled potential PM emissions rate” of the control
device, which is defined in terms of Mg per year and not in the terms of
the applicable PM limit (gr/dscf).  The commenter requests clarification
regarding this term.  The commenter also does not understand how an
owner/operator would establish that the performance test results for
“each individual affected facility” is 90 percent or less of the
standard, if each individual affected facility or control device is not
being tested.

Commenters 099 and 109 do not understand why EPA would condition the
provision on compliance with use of the alternative opacity monitoring
in proposed section 60.255(e) or (f), given that the facilities already
would be subject to periodic opacity performance testing under proposed
section 60.255(b)(2), and could use the alternatives under subsections
(e) and (f), if applicable.  Imposition of this condition has the effect
of unnecessarily limiting the facilities’ options for monitoring of
opacity.  If by imposing the alternative opacity monitoring EPA intends
to require the facilities to either maintain opacity less than 3 percent
based on Method 9 to qualify for use of the Method 22 alternative, or to
install COMS, the commenter objects.  The commenter does not believe
that Method 9 has been adequately demonstrated for determining opacity
at 5 percent, let alone “less than 3 percent,” and installing COMS
on each stack would impose expense that is inconsistent with EPA’s
goals of reducing the cost of determining compliance at identical
facilities.

Response:  The supplemental proposal required initial emissions
performance testing for all affected facilities.  The provision that
allows, under certain conditions, simultaneous emissions testing of five
similar, separate affected facilities using identical control equipment
regards subsequent performance testing.  As previously noted, the final
rule includes this provision.

The final rule does not contain any provisions that require “design
emissions limit” to be determined or that require the alternative
monitoring the commenter refers to (i.e., digital opacity monitoring
system or COMS).  The final rule does continue to base one of its
provisions regarding the frequency of subsequent emissions performance
testing on “design controlled potential PM emissions rate”
(Mg/year).  The final rule includes a definition of the term “design
controlled potential PM emissions rate.

3.5.2	Visible Emissions Testing 

3.5.2.1	Need for Method 9 Performance Tests

Comment:  One commenter (114) stated that for affected facilities
subject to both an opacity limit and a PM limit, requiring testing for
both limits.  This is excessive in both cost and effort, especially
considering the total contribution of these sources to the emissions at
a given operation.  Testing for both PM and opacity should not be
required. 

Response:  We disagree with the commenter on two counts.  The facility
owner must be able to certify compliance with all applicable limits
initially and periodically.  Because Subpart Y establishes both PM and
opacity standards for certain sources, testing for both PM and opacity
is necessary to determine an affected source’s compliance with those
standards.  Direct measurement of compliance, including compliance with
opacity limits, is critical to a valid certification.  Second,
conducting opacity emissions testing is a small incremental additional
cost to the cost of the initial and periodic PM emissions testing.

Testing for both PM and opacity is important.  It is not necessary to
show that the PM standard is being violated to support enforcement of
the opacity standard.  Further, the PM standard is established at a
level which will result in the design, installation and operation of
BDT; the opacity standard is established at a level which will require
proper continuous O&M of such control systems on a day-to-day basis, but
not require a more efficient or more expensive control system.  In
addition, opacity is established as an independent enforceable standard
rather than only an indicator of O&M because O&M procedures are
particular to each facility (and are impractical to enforce).  Opacity
standards are a necessary supplement to the PM standards because stack
tests are expensive, take a long time to schedule, cannot be performed
frequently, and are not indicative of continued O&M.

3.5.2.2	Method 9 Accuracy and Limitations

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 099, 107, 109, 112, 115, 116,
117, 119, and 120) restated concerns raised in comments on the original
Subpart Y amendment proposal about the accuracy and limitations of the
Method 9 test method at levels below 10 percent opacity that would be
used to determine compliance with the proposed Subpart Y opacity
standards.  As long as EPA continues to propose a Subpart Y opacity
limit of less than 10 percent, EPA must present compelling proof that an
opacity standard below 10 percent can be accurately and reliably
enforced by Method 9 observations.  Detailed explanations summarizing
the basis for the commenters’ concerns about Method 9 are presented by
two of the commenters (085 and 099).

Response:  We disagree with the implication that measurements made with
Method 9 for opacity levels less than 10 percent are inaccurate or not
suitable for compliance determinations.  Foremost, the data used to
establish the applicable opacity limit for the rule were collected using
Method 9 in a manner consistent with the directions in the method.  It
is also worth noting that the method provides no restrictions on the use
of the method for applicable limits less than 10 percent opacity.  The
introduction to the method acknowledges the potential for measurement
error in applying Method 9 and, in particular, the greater potential for
negative bias than for positive bias if ambient contrasts between
background and the emissions plume are less than ideal.  In addition, we
applied substantial allowance for measurement imprecision in
establishing the limits.  Thus, we believe that the relevant opacity
limits established in the rule are reasonable and that Method 9
measurements may be used to determine compliance with those limits.

3.5.2.3	Method 9 Observation Period

Comment:  Several commenters (095, 099, 119 and 109) support EPA’s
proposal to allow the owner/operator of an affected facility to decrease
the observation period for a Method 9 performance test from 3 hours to
60 minutes, but suggest EPA consider a 30-minute test, consistent with
what EPA has implemented under subpart OOO.  EPA has provided no
rationale for requiring a longer observation period in this NSPS than it
is requiring under the subpart OOO NSPS.  Commenter 109 questions
EPA’s proposed provision that would allow the performance test
observation time reduction only if all 6-minute average opacity readings
are less than or equal to 3 percent and all the individual 15-second
opacity observations are less than 20 percent during the initial 60
minutes.  Commenter 109 notes that the accuracy of Method 9 readings
below 5 percent is very questionable.  First, allowing an owner/operator
to decrease the observation period for Method 9 from 3 hours to 60
minutes under certain circumstances, we believe that a 60 minute test is
still unnecessarily long, given the number of emission points and the
low expected variability.  When EPA finalized its NSPS for subpart OOO,
it required only 30 minutes of Method 9 testing for compliance with the
fugitive emissions standard in all cases (section 60.675(b)(3), 74 FR
19313, column 3).  EPA has provided no rationale for requiring a longer
observation period in this NSPS than required under subpart OOO.

Response:  EPA continues to believe that a 60-minute observation period
is reasonable and has decided that Method 9 opacity testing for a
duration of 60 minutes should be required for all affected sources. 
However, an owner/operator may decrease the observation period for a
Method 9 performance test from 60 minutes to 30 minutes if, during the
initial 30 minutes of the performance test, all 6-minute averages are
less than or equal to half the applicable opacity limit.  This is a
significant reduction from the standard 3-hour observation period for
Method 9 performance tests.  We disagree with the commenters apparent
assumption that subpart Y and subpart OOO are comparable and that the
observation period should be the same in both rules.  EPA believes that
the Method 9 opacity testing observation period required by subpart Y is
appropriate for coal preparation and processing operations.   

3.5.2.4	Method 9 Repeat Performance Test Frequency

Comment:  One commenter (126) stated that EPA has proposed incentives
for sources to operate with minimal visible emissions to qualify for
reduced monitoring frequency.  The WDEQ’s experience is that for any
of the BDT technologies to meet the no greater than 5 percent opacity,
the control equipment has to be properly operated and maintained.  Based
on the WDEQ’s experience, the trigger levels in proposed section
60.255(b)(2)(i-iii) are not necessary because the proposed opacity limit
already requires the control equipment to be properly operated and
maintained.  If the affected source passes the performance tests,
alternative monitoring should be allowed.

Response:  The alternative monitoring frequency is intended to be an
incentive to improve control measures and operations beyond the minimum
necessary and expected to meet the standard.  We believe it is
appropriate to offer an incentive to facility owners whose equipment and
processes perform better than the practices and equipment necessary to
meet the minimum requirements and achieve additional emissions
reductions.

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 087, 088, 095, 099,107, 108, 110 112,
114, 115, 117, 119, and 120) stated concerns about the need for and
requirements for EPA’s proposal to determine the frequency of repeat
Method 9 performance testing for an affected source according to a
schedule based on the “maximum 15-second opacity reading” during the
most recent Method 9 performance test.  This proposal would be
incredibly burdensome and unnecessarily stringent for no discernible
reason.  EPA provided insufficient justification for significantly
increasing the frequency of proposed monitoring.  Specific reasons cited
by commenters include:

Although it is certainly possible for a Method 9 reader to calculate
opacities below 5 percent by averaging observations recorded at zero
with those recorded at higher opacities (like 5 and 10 percent), the
accuracy and precision of Method 9 readings at levels below 5 (even
below 10 percent) are questionable at best.  Under EPA’s proposal,
even a small bias in a single observation could make a facility
ineligible for use of Method 22, or result in a requirement to repeat a
performance test in 7 days, rather than 30 days.  As a result, commenter
099 believes that for facilities with generally low visible emissions,
eligibility under EPA’s proposal for reduced Method 9 testing and for
use of the Method 22 alternative would largely be a matter of chance. 
Although basing testing frequency and eligibility for alternatives on a
source’s margin of compliance may be a generally sound concept, EPA
has not provided any basis for applying that concept to such small
differences in opacity readings (e.g., 3 versus 4 or 5 percent
opacity), or to such low opacity levels.  The precision and accuracy of
full 6-minutes Method 9 averages likely are not sufficient to make those
distinctions meaningful, let alone the individual 15-second
observations.

EPA’s proposed scheme for determining the frequency of Method 9
testing would require extensive tracking, scheduling, and paperwork. 
Owners/operators would be required to track for each emission point (1)
the alternative being used and the basis for eligibility, (2) the
results of the required observation, and (3) the deadline for the next
test. For each point, the method and deadline could and probably would
change over time. 

For each new Method 9 performance test, the owner/operator would need to
provide 30 days notice to the state or local regulatory authority and,
for Method 9 tests that cannot be conducted on time due to weather
conditions, provide notice of rescheduling and report a deviation from
applicable testing requirements (potentially subjecting the facility to
enforcement). 

Commenter 108 believes there are no cost savings by using consultants to
come out and read Method 9 or Method 22 results.  Because of mining
regulations, a consultant would need to be accompanied by a certified
coal miner, eliminating any cost reduction.

The administrative burden and costs imposed, to implement the proposal
cannot be justified considering the availability of simpler and more
effective options.  As with repeat PM performance testing, if the goal
is to ensure that controls are maintained and that sources are
identified and take action promptly to investigate and correct the cause
of any visible emissions, then the same result could be accomplished
with a combination of equipment inspection and Method 22 readings.  EPA
adopted this alternative approach in the recent revisions to Subpart OOO
by requiring monthly equipment inspections (section 60.674(a)(2)) and
EPA has provided no rationale for rejecting the same, or a similar,
approach under this rule. 

EPA proposes to provide exemption from the repeat Method 9 performance
testing for thermal dryers that continuously monitor scrubber parameters
under proposed section 60.256, but only if Method 9 performance tests
are conducted concurrently with each PM performance test.  Commenter 099
supports this exemption, but questions why Method 9 performance tests
should be required.  If the facility demonstrates compliance with its PM
limit by virtue of proper operation of the scrubber, and monitors to
ensure continued proper operation of that scrubber, testing for opacity
(which is used only as a surrogate for PM) is unnecessary.

Response:  The commenters are correct that the incentives to monitor
less frequently provided to very well performing facilities will be
predicated on demonstrations of very near zero visible emissions.  Such
conditions are consistent with findings made during the rule development
that indicated that some facilities consistently reported no visible
emissions.  First, as previously explained, the final rule includes an
opacity limit of less than 10 percent for coal handling facilities.  The
final rule includes a number of changes from the supplemental
proposal’s opacity testing and monitoring requirements.  The final
rule bases subsequent Method 9 opacity testing frequency on 6-minute
average opacity readings from the most recent performance test.  As an
alternative to subsequent Method 9 opacity testing, the final rule
provides an option that includes daily walkthrough observations
consisting of a single 15-second observation (visible emissions or no
visible emissions) of each affected facility and requires that
corrective actions be conducted when any visible emissions are observed.
 If visible emissions are still observed after corrective actions have
been conducted, a Method 9 performance test is required within 45
operating days.

EPA agrees that the monitoring provisions of the final rule will
increase the recordkeeping and reporting burden to implement the rule. 
EPA rules require documentation of any measurements and the associated
process operating conditions and regulatory compliance requirements;
however, we disagree that this rule imposes any additional record
keeping or reporting burden specifically in order to provide for the
reduced monitoring frequency allowances.  The subject provisions do not
change those generic requirements.  It is also worth noting that the PM
and opacity limits are two distinct and separate applicable requirements
of this rule. Opacity is an independent applicable requirement that is
not necessarily a surrogate of the PM emissions limit or vice versa. 
Further, there is no potential for enforcement action for a test delayed
by weather or other unforeseen conditions (see section 60.8(d)).

Comment:  One commenter (089) suggests that EPA further simplify
monitoring requirements for plants that have little or no opacity. 
Requiring weekly, 10-minute observations at numerous emission points
will necessitate that plants keep 3 or more certified observers at the
plant at all times.  Because recertification is required at 6-month
intervals, the plants would lose the services of 2 to 3 staff members
for a day or two at a time.  Small plants could be greatly encumbered by
losing this much staff at one time. Specifically, EPA could:

Increase the duration of time between monitoring intervals.  Although a
requirement of annual Method 9 readings would be most appropriate,
commenters 089 and 124 believes that the demands of monitoring
necessitate that such readings should not be required any more
frequently than quarterly.  In between scheduled readings, daily
walkthrough observations could be required, which would consist of a
single recordable observation of either visible or no visible emissions.
 If any opacity is observed, corrective action would be triggered and
the problem would be corrected.

The supplemental proposal does not seem to appreciate that numerous new
coal-handling systems, including many of those operated by commenter
089’s members, do not have observable opacity absent a problem with
the facility.  The final rule should incentivize design of systems with
no observable opacity and recognize that clean facilities should not
have to spend inordinate amounts of time reading zero opacity.

The requirement for a stack test on a baghouse every two years for
facilities operating at 50 percent or less of the applicable limit
should be removed altogether or modified to require no more than a
onetime initial test.  The baghouses used for coal-handling emission
control are off-the-shelf items that should perform adequately for such
applications.  The vents on these baghouses are so short that facilities
at which they are used would have to add an extension onto the ducts to
adhere to the sitting requirements for PM testing.  The only
compliance-related question is whether these baghouses are operated and
maintained according to the manufacturer’s specifications.  Between
opacity observations and pressure drop readings, operators of facilities
using small filters can adequately assess whether the filter is
functioning properly.  A stack test will not disclose anything that is
not apparent from a visible observation.  In short, stack testing of
such small filters is not cost effective and does not provide data not
otherwise obtainable through more accessible means.

Response:  As described in the previous comment response, the final rule
includes a number of revisions to the testing and monitoring
requirements.  Under certain conditions, the final rule provides for an
increase in the duration of time between monitoring intervals and an
alternative to subsequent opacity testing that consists of daily
15-second visible emissions/no visible emissions observations of each
affected facility.  For affected facilities complying with this option
and that consistently observe no visible emissions, Method 9 performance
testing is required at least once every five years.  Also, as previously
explained, the final rule includes provisions that under certain
conditions result in reduced PM emissions testing requirements, beyond
the two years referenced by the commenter, for baghouse-controlled
coal-handling facilities such as those described by the commenter.  

3.5.2.5	Method 9 Application to Affected Sources in Enclosures

Comment:  Two commenters (099 and 119) requested that EPA clarify in the
final rule that visible emission testing on sources of fugitive
emissions that are enclosed such that the criteria in proposed section
60.257(a)(2) (e.g., distance from the source and sun angle) cannot be
met should be performed on the enclosure, and not on the equipment
inside the enclosure. Commenter 089 states that EPA should clarify that
not every opening in a coal-handling system requires observations
because there may dozens of openings along a conveyor system where coal
moving along a belt is the only activity which would not require opacity
observations.  Not all of these openings are considered transfer points
where dust is potentially generated and would typically be aspirated to
a dust collector or other equivalent controls would be provided.
Additionally, it may not be feasible to read opacity on all openings
while the system is in operation especially given the number of these
non-emitting openings and the fact that many plants only load coal for a
short time at the outset of a given day.

Commenter 089 also notes that most new plants will be designed to
operate with no opacity, and minimizing the labor necessary to operate
the plant should be one of the benefits of designing a clean
coal-handling operation.  These plants will have no observable opacity
from their coal-handling operation.  If the number of emission points
requiring observation cannot be minimized, even conducting weekly
10-minute readings could be tremendously burdensome. One alternative
would be to allow for daily observations consisting of a single reading
while the system is operating.  If any opacity is observed, corrective
action would be triggered and the problem would be corrected.  

Response:  As explained in the response to comment 3.4.6.5, EPA has
determined that if a building in which affected coal processing and
conveying equipment (e.g., breakers, crushers, screens, conveying
systems), coal storage systems, and coal transfer system operations are
enclosed is found to be in compliance with Subpart Y limits then the
affected facilities enclosed in that building also are in compliance. 

Emission control and monitoring requirements under Subpart Y apply to
all openings in an enclosed conveyor system where fugitive coal dust
emissions potentially can be released to the atmosphere.  However, it is
common for sources to monitor emissions only at transfer or drop points
on conveyer belts.  We agree that the visible emissions limits apply to
emissions releases from the affected unit or operation to the
atmosphere.  Releases from a process inside an enclosure such as the
conveyor system described by the commenter where the dust generated is
collected and routed to a control device, are not subject to the opacity
or other visible emissions limits in this rule.  Finally, as previously
explained, the final rule includes revisions to the opacity testing and
monitoring requirements.

3.5.3	Periodic Visible Emissions Compliance Monitoring 

3.5.3.1	Visible Emissions Monitoring Procedure

Comment:  One commenter (113) agrees with the proposal to require daily
opacity monitoring for all affected facilities.  In the proposed rule,
it is not clear whether this frequency would apply only to facilities
where Method 9 observations have resulted in readings of less than
3 percent, or if it would apply to all facilities.  The commenter
supports EPA’s logic for requiring more frequent opacity observations.
 It makes the most sense to require at least daily opacity observations
- not only for the facilities with better performance but for facilities
where opacity is at or exceeding 5 percent.  Commenter 113 recommends
that EPA clarify that the daily opacity monitoring schedule applies to
all Subpart Y affected facilities.

Response:  As described in the responses to previous comments, the final
rule includes revisions to the opacity testing and monitoring
requirements.  The final rule requires that all affected facilities
conduct initial Method 9 opacity testing.  The frequency of subsequent
opacity testing is predicated on each affected facility’s performance
during their initial compliance test.  The final rule includes an option
to conduct daily visual observations of each affected facility in lieu
of subsequent Method 9 opacity testing. 

Comment:  Many commenters (086, 087, 089, 093, 099, 103, 107, 108, 109,
115, 117, and 119) objected to the proposed visible monitoring procedure
as being unreasonable, burdensome, too complex, and confusing. Reasons
cited by individual commenters for opposing the proposed procedure
include the following.

Proposed procedure would significantly expand the number of visual
emission evaluations that an affected owner or operator will be required
to perform using Method 9 and Method 22 for each affected source. 

Proposed schedule sequencing for determining repeat Method 9 tests is
unnecessarily complex and confusing and has provided no basis for the
frequency at which these tests need to be conducted (see Section 3.5.2.4
of this document).

Proposed requirement that all 6-minute averages in the initial 60
minutes be less than or equal to the greater of 3 percent opacity or
“half the applicable limit” is not reasonable or warranted.  Method
9’s precision and accuracy at the 3 percent level is questionable at
best and EPA has provided no rationale for requiring a facility that
does not achieve 3 percent to test for a longer period.  Specifically,
EPA has provided no data to suggest that PM emissions are significantly
more variable over time when opacity is at the proposed limit of
5 percent than when opacity is at 3 percent. 

EPA should standardize the criteria for Method 9 testing of fugitive
emission sources between proposed Subpart Y and subpart OOO.  The minor
differences between the two rules do not appear to be justified on any
technical basis and could lead to confusion. Because subpart OOO has
been finalized, the Subpart Y provisions should be made consistent with
subpart OOO.  Section 60.675(c)(1)(i)-(iii). 

Required schedules for Method 9 and Method 22 readings do not reflect
the intermittent activities that take place at a typical coal mine. 
Because most coal mines do not run all the facilities handling systems
at the same time, the observer would have to set up to do the Method
22’s or Method 9 observations for those locations that are operating,
then take a break and come back later during the week to do the
remaining points.  So the time to do the observations will be much more
time demanding than is envisioned by the regulators.  It is difficult
now for remotely located Wyoming coal mining operations to schedule a
qualified and certified individual to do semi-annual readings throughout
portions of our remotely located facilities.  Trains rarely run on
schedule, so some or all of the processes are unable to be tested when
the consultant is scheduled to be at the mine.  The commenter does not
see how the mines can comply with a requirement for daily Method 22
readings, with a qualified individual, without missing some readings. 
This will be a difficult standard for nearly any mine to comply with.

All affected facilities are required to perform daily Method 22 for 10
minutes or weekly three hour Method 9’s for any source which has a
single 15 second reading which exceeds 5 percent opacity, where the
frequency and duration of inspections may be appropriate for title V
facilities, which are staffed for this type of detailed program, but it
appears well beyond what Congress intended for non-Title V facilities. 
EPA has not adequately distinguished between the requirements between
title V and non-title V facilities.  The sheer cost and staffing
difficulties required by this method is a major issue.

Proposed procedure requires that opacity be less than 5 percent for all
15-second interval readings in order to extend opacity observations from
weekly to monthly and zero opacity for all 15-second intervals to extend
the Method 9 frequency to 120 days.  Single 15-second interval
readings, particularly at levels as low as 5 percent, are poor
indications of proper operation and is an unreasonable basis for
reducing monitoring obligations.  Commenter 103 stated that a more
reasonable threshold for reduced monitoring would be 50 percent of the
required 6-minute Method 9 observations.

One commenter (117) provided an alternative monitoring protocol which
included (1) Initial performance tests for each affected facility
pursuant to Method 9; (2) thereafter, quarterly 10-minute Method 22
observations for each unit; (3) the facility must conduct monthly
inspections of the applicable pollution control equipment. This
inspection shall include observations of the physical appearance of the
equipment; and (4) The facility must conduct a Method 9 performance test
at least once every five years.

Response:  As explained in the responses to previous comments, the final
rule includes revisions to the opacity testing and monitoring
requirements.  EPA believes that these revisions reduce the complexity
and burden associated with the monitoring frequency and incentives
thresholds and, thus, address the concerns described by the commenters. 
Further, some of the commenters’ suggestions have been incorporated
into the revised opacity testing and monitoring requirements. 

3.5.3.2	Coal Truck Dump Monitoring

Comment:  Two commenters (095 and 126) stated that EPA is requesting
comment on whether requiring an annual average instantaneous opacity
from 10 dumps is appropriate as an alternate to the Method 22 for other
affected facilities.  The commenter clarified that the control
effectiveness is not an annual average and WDEQ  uses this 10 truck dump
approach to evaluate whether BACT is being continuously maintained at
any given truck dump.  The 10-truck evaluation currently in use in
Wyoming is not a compliance determination.  If WDEQ finds the 10-truck
opacity greater than 20 percent, corrective action is required to
return the dump to BACT requirements.  The commenter does not support
the rule mandating how a permitting authority determines the control
effectiveness of truck dumps nor the trigger levels (section
60.255(b)(2)) proposed for other coal-handling equipment.  Rather, the
commenter supports including truck dumps as part of the fugitive
emissions control plan.  This would allow the permitting agency to
tailor the alternate monitoring to fit their source and type of controls
employed.  One option for alternative monitoring would be the control
effectiveness test using the 20 percent opacity limit as determined by
taking the maximum instantaneous opacity of fugitive emissions observed
from each truck dump activity, averaged for ten trucks or less as
determined by the permitting authority.  Truck dumps are intermittent
sources and typically will always show compliance using Method 9. 
Absent of any other EPA methods for evaluating intermittent sources, the
commenter supports an opacity limit of no greater than 5 percent
opacity.

Comment:  Four commenters (095, 117, 122, and 124) stated that EPA
misinterpreted the WDEQ method for monitoring truck-dump facilities and
expressed concerns with applying the WDEQ method for the purpose of
determining compliance with some, as yet unknown, opacity standard.

The method is neither a Reference Method, nor an Equivalent Method, as
defined by the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. 
Furthermore, the existing opacity certification training protocol does
not address the observation technique the State of Wyoming is using. 
The WMA Regulatory Affairs Air Quality Subcommittee and the WDEQ agreed
to initiate a study of an alternative opacity monitoring protocol for
truck dump systems just over a year ago in May.  This protocol defines a
process to designate an appropriate averaging time for 15-second opacity
readings taken during the part of the operation in which the largest
amount of emissions are expected to occur.  A preliminary summary of the
results of the study, which just ended on June 30, 2009, show that
approximately 96 percent of the average opacity readings fell at 15
percent or lower (117).

An opacity limit based solely on the small amount of time that the truck
is dumping should not be comparable to a opacity limit on a continuous
point source such as a stack.  Opacity read only while the truck is
dumping, inappropriately skews the results to read the worse-case
scenario and don’t take into account the time when the emissions are
non-existent due to the non-continuous nature of this particular source
(124).

Commenters recommended as a better and more reasonable approach to
monitoring truck-dump facilities would be: (1) An initial compliance
test using the visual observation protocol provided in Reference Method
9.  Compliance with the 15 percent opacity standard would be determined
by averaging the 15-second opacity readings made during the duration of
three separate truck dump events.  Each test would commence when the
truck bed begins to elevate and conclude when the truck bed returns to a
horizontal position.  This would provide a reasonable evaluation of
opacity during the actual dumping event, as opposed to Method 9 protocol
that would allow for observations long after the dumping event
terminates. (2) Thereafter, an owner/operator would conduct quarterly
Method 9 compliance test consistent with the above described truck-dump
protocol. (3) Owners and operators would supplement their quarterly
Method 9 compliance testing with monthly visual observations of the
physical appearance of the equipment and the requirement to repair any
deficiencies found.

Comment: One commenter (122) stated that when utilizing a new
methodology for opacity compliance standards will take time to develop
the proper protocols.  The current standard utilized in Wyoming is for
the 6-minute Method 9 has been criticized in the past, but it may be the
most representative approach for non-continuous or sporadic emissions
sources.  Typically, the 6-minute Method 9 readings have been taken
quarterly.  The time between truck dumps are times of zero potential
emissions from the truck dump control system. In some ways the 6-minute
Method 9 reading is very appropriate because it reflects most
activities: the dumping, the coal passing through the hopper, and the
periods of time when no activity is occurring. Opacities read only when
trucks are dumping skew the results to read worse than they really are
because they do not take into account the time when emissions are
non-existence due to the non-continuous nature of truck dumping.  It is
important to adopt an opacity standard that is associated with the
methodology as required by Method 9 procedures.  If EPA wants to modify
the existing requirement on truck dumps for Wyoming, an appropriate
requirement would be to utilize the 6-minute Method 9 and set the
opacity standard at greater than 10 percent.  This standard would
likely be appropriate for a variety of truck types (i.e. rear and belly
dump) and control systems (i.e. stilling sheds, baghouses, and water
spray bars).  Commenters 112 and 115 stated that until the necessary
foundation for possible NSPS regulation can be established for coal
unloading, any revision to Subpart Y must expressly withdraw the
Agency’s interpretation of the late-1990s that Subpart Y applies to
coal unloading at coal preparation plants.

Response:  As explained in the response to comment 3.4.6.4, EPA
continues to believe it is appropriate to require coal truck dump
operations to be subject to the same opacity limit as other
coal-handling facilities.  Data indicate that the various control
measures currently used on truck dump operations are capable of meeting
the final rule’s opacity limit of less than 10 percent.  However, due
to the intermittent frequency of coal dumping, EPA has determined that
it is inappropriate to require the same testing and monitoring of
opacity emissions from coal truck dumps as are required for other
affected coal-handling facilities subject to opacity limits.  The
variability in the number of coal trucks during any given period is
likely to render Method 9 opacity testing over a 60-minute period
meaningless.  EPA disagrees with commenters who believe that opacity
read only while the truck is dumping, inappropriately skews the results
to read the worse-case scenario because it doesn’t take into account
the time when the emissions are non-existent due to the non-continuous
nature of this truck dump operations.  In fact, EPA believes that
opacity measurements taken during truck dumping is the appropriate time
to conduct Method 9 opacity testing.  We agree with other commenters who
believe that this approach would provide a reasonable evaluation of
opacity during the actual dumping event, as opposed to Method 9 protocol
that would allow for observations long after the dumping event
terminates.

In the supplemental proposal, EPA requested comment on whether requiring
an annual average instantaneous opacity from 10 truck dumps is
appropriate as an alternate to monitoring required for other affected
facilities.  After considering the public comments, we have decided to
include in the final rule an approach to monitoring truck dump
operations that was suggested by a commenter.  Owners/operators of all
affected facilities would be required to conduct an initial compliance
test using Method 9.  Compliance with the less than 10 percent opacity
standard will be determined by averaging the 15-second opacity readings
made during the duration of three separate truck dump events.  A truck
dump event begins when the truck bed begins to elevate and concludes
when the truck bed returns to a horizontal position.  The final rule
also requires monthly visual observations of the equipment and
expeditious maintenance if any deficiencies are observed.  Finally,
subsequent Method 9 opacity testing using the three-truck dump procedure
is required every 90 days.

3.5.4	CEMS

Comment:  One commenter (096) stated that EPA must require use of CEMS
for all pollutants subject to Subpart Y emissions limits to assure
compliance with the limits.  In comments on the original Subpart Y
proposal the commenter provided a detailed justification for requiring
CEMS to monitor stack PM emissions and hereby incorporate by reference
those arguments.  In addition, the commenter presented the following
reasons to support their statement.

Reliance on periodic stack tests supplemented with intermittent visual
assessments violates the CAA, which requires standards of performance to
reflect “application of the best system of continuous emissions
reduction” (42 U.S.C. §7411(g)(4)(B) (emphasis added)).  The proposed
testing schedule for coal dryer PM stack tests (annual or biannual,
depending on test results) provides only a snapshot of the affected
source’s compliance status.  Commenter referenced their comments
submitted to EPA on the original subpart Y amendment proposal for a
detailed justification to require CEMS to monitor stack PM emissions. 

EPA itself has recognized that “for rules that establish PM emission
limits, we believe that PM CEMS are the appropriate technology for
compliance monitoring” (69 FR 1786, 1791, dated January 12, 2004). 
Similarly, in a recent enforcement case, EPA argued that periodic stack
tests provide no certainty as to whether a source is in compliance with
its PM limit on the vast majority of days when no test is performed.
U.S. v. Cinergy Corp., No. 1:99-cv-01693-LJM-JMS (S.D. Ind. Feb. 6,
2009) Trial Tr., Vol. 5-1050:17-1051:4 (Cross Exam of Richard McRanie). 
Reliance on irregular stack testing only invites problems when prep
plants apply for operating permits.  EPA’s title V regulations provide
that “[a]ll . . . permits shall contain . . . monitoring . . .
requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the permit” (§70.6(c)(1)).  In failing to adopt
adequate monitoring requirements into the NSPS, EPA is setting up a
scenario in which activists will have to object to individual operating
permits to ensure that those permits contain monitoring requirements
sufficient to assure compliance.  EPA could avoid the laborious process
of responding to objections to multiple operating permits by simply
codifying into the NSPS monitoring requirements that satisfy the mandate
to assure compliance with the underlying limits.

BACT emission limits must be met on a continual basis at all levels of
operation and must be federally enforceable, which requires practical
enforceability (see §52.21(b)(17); EPA, NSR Workshop Manual at B.56
(Draft 1990)).  Practical enforceability means the source must be able
to show continuous compliance with each limitation or requirement.  That
is why EPA’s own NSR Manual states that “[e]mission limits should
reflect operation of the control equipment, be short-term, and, where
feasible, the permit should require a continuous emissions monitor.”

Although use of COMS to supplement periodic stack tests yields a more
accurate picture of compliance than visual opacity monitoring methods,
as EPA itself has recognized, there are serious problems with the
assumption that opacity is an accurate surrogate for PM emissions. EPA
has explained that the relationship between opacity and PM levels “is
particularly uncertain for short term and site-specific analyses” (72
FR 18,428, 18,431, dated April 12, 2007) such as the brief periods of
visual opacity monitoring that EPA has proposed for affected facilities
at coal preparation plants.  EPA has also observed that “opacity is
directly related to particle size, with particles of an aerodynamic
diameter of approximately 1.0 micrometer having the greatest potential
for impairment of visibility, or increased opacity. As particles
increase in size, their impact on opacity diminishes, despite the fact
that their mass may increase” (72 FR 18,432).

Another commenter (093) agreed with EPA’s decision to list a PM CEMS
in the April 28, 2008, proposal as an option for compliance monitoring. 
This commenter questions EPA’s decision to eliminate the PM CEMS
language from the supplemental proposal.  The use of PM CEMS may become
more widespread in the future and may be used by companies that are
subject to more than one type of PM limitation at a site also subject to
the subpart Y NSPS.

Response:  EPA supports the use of CEMS whenever possible.  However, we
continue to believe that it is not “feasible” at this time to
install and operate PM CEMS on Subpart Y affected facilities. 
Installing and operating a PM CEMS is not a trivial cost ranging from
$100,000 to $150,000 or more to install, and then $50,000 per year to
operate.  Further, we do understand that there are relationships between
opacity, PM mass emissions, and the type of control measure applied.  We
have established limits and monitoring that reflect that understanding
and are representative of the data we collected from the best operating
units in this category.   Also, for clarity, we note that the NSR
workshop manual cited by the commenter discusses BACT, not NSPS
standards.  EPA has also determined that CEMS for SO2, NOX, and CO will
not be required by the final rule at this time.  EPA will continue to
assess the development of CEMS, including their costs.

3.5.5	COMS Alternative

Comment:  One commenter (113) supports the proposal to allow a COMS as
an alternative, granted that the 5 percent opacity limitation is
maintained for those facilities and that the COMS is used to ensure
compliance with the 5 percent limit.  Commenter 093 proposes that EPA
should conclude that COMS can substitute for other kinds of continuous
monitoring, such as BLDS for all mechanical vents with baghouses and
pressure drop and water-supply-pressure monitoring for all mechanical
vents with wet scrubbers.

Several other commenters (087, 099, and 119) stated that EPA’s
proposal allowing the use of COMS in lieu of Method 9 performance
testing must be limited to those facilities willing to accept the
potential measurement errors.  EPA should make clear that States should
not rely on EPA’s addition of the COMS option as a rationale for
attempting to require use of COMS at Subpart Y facilities.  There are
many sources of COMS measurement error, and measurements at levels below
10 percent opacity are fundamentally more difficult.  Many of the
important specifications in EPA’s current performance specification
for COMS (PS 1), which EPA proposes to rely on in this rule (proposed
section 60.255(f)(1)) have not been revised since 1975. And EPA has
never promulgated ongoing QA requirements.  In 2008, ASTM issued a
revised Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to Certify
Conformance with Design and Performance Specifications, D6216-07.  To
disclose the measurement uncertainty for low level opacity measurements
by COMS, the ASTM standard includes an “error budget” for COMS
(D6216-07, Appendix X1).  The ASTM budget is 5.7 percent opacity for
existing monitors, and 1.8 percent opacity for monitors certified under
the revised standard.  If the ASTM budget is correct, a monitor meeting
PS 1 could exceed EPA’s proposed standard based on measurement error
alone.  However, even the error budget for COMS meeting the revised
standard is significant relative to a 5 percent opacity standard. 
Finally, EPA has provided no COMS data to support achievability of the
proposed opacity standard using COMS.

Response:  EPA does not agree that COMS should be a substitute for
continuous monitoring as suggested by the commenter, but does agree that
the use of COMS is an appropriate alternative to conducting Method 9
opacity testing.  EPA made significant changes to PS1 in 2000, including
most of the calibration procedures and, therefore, we disagree with the
commenters’ assertion on this point.

3.5.6	Digital Opacity Compliance System Alternative

3.5.6.1	Digital Opacity Compliance System in Subpart Y Rulemaking

Comment:  Several commenters (087, 099, and 119) objected to the use of
a digital opacity compliance system based on a site-specific plan as an
alternative to Method 9 performance testing.  One commenter (099)
presented detailed reasons in their comments for opposing the use of a
digital opacity compliance system for Subpart Y on the basis of
technical considerations and legal procedural requirements for
establishing such an alternative method.  If EPA believes that a digital
opacity compliance system is a viable new technology for determining the
presence of visible emissions in lieu of Method 22, or establishing the
opacity of a visible plume in lieu of Method 9, EPA must develop a
proposal with sufficient detail and supporting data to allow for
meaningful comment on the new method, just as EPA would do before
approving a new technology to measure SO2, PM, or NOx.  EPA cannot use a
provision that purports to provide authority for approval of an option
that is limited to determining the presence of visible emissions at
levels less than 3 percent opacity, as a back door to approve a system
for determining actual percent opacity over a range from zero to 60
percent (as EPA’s reference to draft PRE-008 suggests).  If EPA
intends to use the Subpart Y amendment rulemaking to approve a system to
determine percent opacity in lieu of Method 9, EPA must re-propose the
rule to make that intent clear and solicit formal comment on the
numerous regulatory issues such an approval would raise.

Response:  The proposed approach to approving the use of the digital
opacity measurement method mirrors the alternative method approval
process allowed for any alternative test method. That is, we are not
proposing a blanket approval of this or any other technology by
circumventing the public review and comment process.  Instead we are
alerting the affected community to one tool that may be approvable on a
site-specific basis in a manner consistent with the general provisions
of 40 CFR 60 (section 60.8(b)), and the Agency’s delegations manual
7-119 and 7-121 (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-022r3.pdf).

3.5.6.2	Digital Opacity Compliance System Implementation

Comment:  One commenter (108) states that EPA offers cameras as an
alternative to the Method 9/Method 22 inspection regime.  Camera
methodology is available for stack sources, but is not an approved
method for fugitive sources.  What happens if cameras are not operating?
 How long are we supposed to keep picture data?  Can we invalidate
photos taken during a high wind dust storm event?  Can we invalidate
photos taken when interference from fugitive dust sources in the area
interferes with the photo?  Additional concerns are the high cost of
operating cameras, and data recovery if the camera or series of cameras
goes offline?  Is the missed data a violation? Will backup cameras with
backup data recovery systems be needed in order to avoid a violation? If
so, all costs above are doubled.

Response:  We agree that the commenter raises several concerns that the
source owner should consider and address in developing a proposal to
apply this or any other alternative method.  The issues raised are in
most cases the same ones the source owner would address in developing a
monitoring plan based on a Method 9 or Method 22 observer (e.g., back-up
observer, training and certification, data storage and retrieval,
missing data).  It is worth noting that potential for interferences and
adverse weather conditions are issues addressed in Method 9 and would in
almost every case also apply to an alternative visible emissions
measurement method.  In such cases, the Method 9 applicability criteria
could serve as guidance when applied to alternative technology.

3.5.7	Process and Control Device Operation Monitoring

3.5.7.1	Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS)

Comment:  A broad range of comments were received on the proposed
requirement to use BLDS for fabric filters with a controlled potential
PM emissions rate of 28 tons per year or more.

One commenter (103) supports EPA’s proposed to require BLDS only for
those fabric filters used to comply with Subpart Y that have designed
controlled potential emission rates exceeding 28 tons per year.  The
commenter concurs with EPA’s conclusion that such systems are cost
prohibitive for small, intermittently operated units. 

One commenter (096) stated that because there is a high potential for
significant emissions from fabric filters of any size, EPA must require
installation and use of a BLDS at each affected facility using a fabric
filter to comply with Subpart Y.  EPA’s analysis to support the
decision to exempt small fabric filters from the requirement to use a
BLDS is flawed for two reasons: (1) a failure to provide support for the
cost estimate or to account for cost differentials in BLDS used for
large and small fabric filters; and (2) a failure to consider the
potential for high emissions from “smaller” fabric filters.  The
commenter provides additional details to support the cited reasons.  EPA
must base its decision on whether to require BLDS for all fabric filters
on the absolute potential for significant emissions from fabric filters
of all sizes, rather than a proportional comparison of emissions between
larger and smaller fabric filters. 

Two commenters (114 and 119) requested that no fabric filters be
required to use a BLDS and each fabric filter be monitored for visible
emissions on an ongoing basis  The commenter has concluded that these
visual observations should detect significant problems such as holes and
tears in the filter medium or if the filter becomes unseated.  These
concepts are true for sources with potential emissions greater than 28
ton/day as well.  The use of a BLDS is too expensive considering for
what fabric filter operating problems they might alert the operator that
would not be detected by visible emissions checks.

Response:  EPA continues to believe that the requirement for BLDS for
larger baghouses but not for smaller ones is justified as discussed in
the supplemental proposal (74 FR 25315).  The costs are considered
unjustifiably high for smaller fabric filters with low potential
emissions at Subpart Y affected facilities.  Because potential emissions
from a bag leak are more significant for larger fabric filters and
because the cost of BLDS would not be significantly different for small
or large fabric filters, the final rule requires a BLDS only for those
fabric filters with a design controlled potentialPM emissions rate of 25
Mg (28 tons) or more.  For smaller fabric filters, the opacity
monitoring requirements provide ample assurance that smaller fabric
filters are operating properly, while for larger fabric filters, the
BLDS requirements provide an added degree of assurance that the more
significant sources of PM emissions are well-controlled on a continuous
basis.

3.5.7.2	 Wet Scrubber Operating Parameters

Comment:  One commenter (085) stated that although pH and water flow are
important surrogate parameters for monitoring SO2, the appropriate pH
and flow rate is unit specific and a blanket “one size fits all”
approach is inappropriate.  The pH and flow rate will vary depending
upon which alkaline solution is used and the characteristics of the
thermal dryer itself. Approximately 19 of the remaining 20 bituminous
thermal coal dryers in the eastern United States are ‘once through’
fluidized bed thermal coal dryers designed and built by FMC, ENI,
McNally, or Heyl & Patterson.  A McNally design is different from the
Heyl & Patterson design which is different from the FMC design.  Because
one McNally design could operate effectively at a given pH and flow rate
does not necessarily mean the Heyl & Paterson would also.  A unit
utilizing magnesium hydroxide will have different pH and flow rate
characteristics and requirements than a unit using sodium hydroxide.

Response:  EPA has concluded that, pH and water flow rate are
appropriate parameters to be monitored for thermal dryers using wet
scrubbers.  We determined that water flow rate, which is a measure of
volume of water delivered in a period of time, is the more relevant
parameter to monitor.  Water supply pressure, which is a measure of the
force of the water, is a parameter that is related to measurement of
flow rate.  The final rule includes these parameters as continuous
monitoring requirements.  Because the parameter values for each affected
thermal dryer will be based on site-specific performance testing, the
commenter’s concern regarding a “one size fits all” approach is
unfounded.

3.5.7.3	Coal Dryer Temperature Monitoring

Comment:  One commenter (103) stated that the existing Subpart Y
requires an owner/operator of a thermal dryer to continuously monitor
the temperature of the gas stream at the exit of the thermal dryer. 
However, some coal drying systems operate at relative low temperatures,
especially at the coal mixture interface.  Due to relatively low
temperature designs of pulverized coal injection system dryers, the
basis, benefit, or purpose served by such temperature monitoring is not
clear, especially for thermal dryers that have high temperature
interlocking (automatic burner shutoff) safeguards.  Furthermore, the
temperatures of the drying gas stream are well below the ignition
temperature of the media (coal) and there is no risk of ignition (or the
potential for increased emissions) when performing the drying operation.
 We do not believe removal of this obligation from the proposed rule
will pose any risk of increased emissions.  The commenter requested that
EPA eliminate this unnecessary compliance burden.

Response: EPA has determined that the requirement to continuously
monitor the temperature of the gas stream at the exit of the thermal
dryer is not necessary.  This requirement is not included in the final
rule.

3.5.8	Recordkeeping and Reporting

3.5.8.1	General

Comment:  One commenter (121) stated that because all coal-handling
equipment, transfer points, etc. have undergone initial visible
emissions compliance testing prior to final approval of State Air
Emissions permits, subsequent formal visible emissions testing has not
been required. Records are kept of emission control facilities to ensure
compliance with opacity requirements. To transition to the proposed
opacity monitoring requirements on modified coal-handling equipment
seems overly extreme and burdensome and very confusing, especially in
light of the fact that a particular transfer point may be surrounded by
many other existing sources not subject to the revised Rules.  We do not
see in the rules any demonstrable benefit from increasing the monitoring
to the extreme as proposed by EPA.  The increased burden of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting appear to be a solution in search of a
problem.

Several commenters (087, 099, and 119) stated that for recordkeeping and
reporting, EPA has essentially republished its original proposal to
require affected owners and operators to maintain in on-site logbook
records of: (1) periodic visual observations; (2) the amount of coal
processed in a month; (3) the amount of chemical stabilizer or water
purchased for use; and (4) a monthly certification of operation of any
dust suppressant system in compliance with manufacturers
recommendations.  One commenter (009) referenced and reiterated comments
made by the commenter on the original proposal that only the records of
the periodic observations and corrective action have any usefulness. 
The other records specified in EPA;s proposal should not be required.

Response:  EPA does not agree that the proposed monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are overly burdensome. 
Similar information is required by other rules.  We need direct
compliance information as often as reasonable, and monitoring provides
useful information that is reflective of the facility’s compliance
status.  The rule provides for decreased testing in specific cases.  In
addition, reporting and recordkeeping requirements are important tools
in helping to ensure compliance with standards.

Comment: T wo commenters (114 and 119) stated that 60.258(a)(5)
establishes the requirement to keep a logbook that includes a monthly
certification that the dust suppressant systems were operational when
any coal was processed and that manufacturer recommendations were
followed for all control systems.  40 CFR 60.258(a)(6) requires a
monthly certification that the fugitive dust emissions control plan was
implemented as described.  Both of these requirements are unnecessary. 
Semi-annual deviations reporting and annual compliance certification are
already required under Part 70.6(a)(3)(iii).  This makes the requirement
for certifications in Part 60.258 redundant.

Response:  The monthly certifications required in section 60.258 are to
be documented in the logbook maintained by the coal preparation and
processing plant.  The monthly certifications, along with notations
regarding any variances from the requirements, would provide information
necessary to comply with the section 70.6(a)(3)(iii) requirement to
submit reports of any required monitoring, including identification of
all instances of deviations from permit requirements, at least every 6
months.  EPA does not consider the monthly certifications redundant and
is retaining the monthly certification requirements in section 60.258.

Comment:  One commenter (108) stated that the monthly documentation of
dust suppression systems required in section 60.258 demonstration is
acceptable, and should be utilized in lieu of the complicated and
confusing opacity monitoring protocol that the EPA proposes at 60.255.
This monthly documentation and certification that the dust suppressant
systems were operating properly is similar to the procedures the State
has implemented.  We suggest the EPA adopt the maintenance program
supplemented with 1-hour Method 9 readings taken each one to five years.
This frequency of inspection and certification is feasible with existing
staff, is not overly burdensome, and is realistic for us to achieve. 
That would seem to be more than adequate given the minor emissions that
these sources generate.  It is also consistent with what EPA is
requiring of subpart OOO sources, which are similar in nature. 
Implementing a system to document work practices each month, instead of
a convoluted methodology that could entail daily 10 minute Method 22
readings or weekly Method 9 readings is consistent with how the State of
Wyoming has managed these systems.  It is economical, logical, and
practical, while also providing the proof that the systems are operating
properly.

Response:  As explained in previous responses to comments, the final
rule includes revised opacity testing and monitoring requirements that
are less complicated and burdensome than those included in the
supplemental proposal.  EPA believes that monitoring of opacity, along
with monthly certification that the dust suppressant systems were
operational and that control system manufacturer’s recommendations
were followed, are not unreasonable or overly burdensome requirements
and, thus, they are included in the final rule. 

3.5.8.2	Electronic Compliance Data Reporting to EPA Data Base	

Comment:  Two commenters (109 and 117) stated they did not object to the
proposed reporting requirement for affected owners/operators to be able
to enter data from their performance evaluations conducted at their
plants to demonstrate compliance with the applicable Subpart Y standards
electronically into an EPA database ( identified as WebFIRE).  These
commenters requested that once the data base is operational the
reporting to WebFire on an annual or quarterly basis should be optional
for affected owners/operators and more guidance provided by EPA
regarding whether electronic reporting applies to all tests, including
Method 22 tests, or just PM performance tests.  Several other commenters
(087, 092, 099, 119, 130 and 108) specifically object to this specific
reporting requirement.  Commenter reasons for opposing the proposal are
collectively summarized below.

Electronically reporting Method 22 test results, including daily
observations, would be unnecessarily burdensome for affected owners or
operators.

EPA’s recently amended subpart OOO regulations do not require
submission of test results to WebFIRE.

EPA must comply with the ICR requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). Yet, EPA has certified that the proposed amendments, including
this new reporting requirement that is intended to reduce EPA’s
burden, “result in no changes” to the information collection
requirements of the existing standards of performance and therefore have
no impact on the existing estimates.

EPA must address whether the proposed reporting meets the requirements
of the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), which is
codified at 40 CFR Part 3. 

EPA has not provided sufficient justification for requiring that all of
these data be reported electronically, rather than merely standardizing
where results are sent and in what form.

EPA has not provided any information on the proposed electronic
reporting format to understand what sort of burden this requirement
would impose and whether the requirement is more or less burdensome than
other forms of reporting.

EPA has not provided any mechanism for sources to confirm the
authenticity of data submitted to this website for their facility by a
stack testing company. 

EPA does not expect WebFIRE and the ERT to be operational until early
2011, and that EPA “expects” the ERT also to be CROMERR compliant
before 2011 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031-0284, p. 9).  Finalizing a regulatory
requirement based on an “expectation” of what will have occurred two
years from now is not appropriate. 

EPA should proceed with its plans for development of WebFIRE/ERT and
allow sources the option to report electronically with those tools when
it becomes available.  If WebFIRE does become available in the future,
and EPA still believes that mandatory electronic reporting through
WebFIRE is appropriate, EPA can re-propose the requirement with the
required detail and accompanying ICR.  In the meantime, EPA must provide
sources the option of continuing to submit reports by mail after 2011,
just as EPA did in Subpart Da (section 60.49Da(v)(4), 74 FR 5072 and
5083, dated January 28, 2009).

The ERT does not currently accept opacity data or CMS data.  So there
appears to be no ability to utilize the collected monthly Method 9s, or
daily Method 22 data.  Additionally, Method 22 does not actually
generate opacity data.  The method specifies that it is a determination
of the period of time emissions are generated.

EPA stated in the preamble that entry required access to the internet
and is expected to be completed by the stack testing company as part of
the work they are contracted to perform; however, §3.10(b) requires
that the person submitting an electronic document must be a responsible
official or delegated responsible official to sign the compliance
reports.  By this definition, a contractor does not qualify as a
delegated responsible official and thus the expectation by EPA that the
contractor enter data is WebFire is a serious judgment error.

Under 42 USC 7411(b)(1)(B), the EPA is required to conduct 8-year
reviews.  It is irrational and burdensome for EPA to expect affected
facilities to maintain 8 years of data when the CAA requires companies
to keep data for a minimum of 5 years especially because the EPA waited
30 years to do a review of Subpart Y.  It is also irrational for the EPA
to believe that mandating on the industry the redundant reporting of
“data already collected for other purposes” save industry time and
money.  Therefore, requiring mandatory electronic reporting should be
considered arbitrary and capricious because the EPA has failed to
provide a rational connection between the basis of fact presented in the
preamble and the decision to promulgate the electronic reporting rule on
industry only.

EPA’s decision to promulgate the electronic reporting requirement for
NSPS by the authority under 42 USC 7401 is arbitrary and therefore must
be completely removed from this rulemaking.  EPA would best utilize it
resources for the next two years developing an electronic data exchange
with the state/local/tribal agencies to get the performance test data
you desire.  This would truly be the most cost effective method, remain
consistent with the spirit and intent the Congress has for the CAA, and
keep EPA and industry in line with the regulations.

When the title V was promulgated, it was Congress’s clear intent that
title V permits contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements and be a one, central document that lists all applicable
requirements from all air programs from Federal and States regulations.
That program was delegated to most state/local/tribal agencies with
intention simplifying compliance activities for both the regulators and
regulated communities.  EPA has failed to consider that a large majority
of entities subject to Subpart Y are also subject to multiple NSPS’s. 
Without modifying the title V program and the underlying state
implementation plans (SIPs), as required by proper rule making,
confusion about which performance tests to submit to EPA is to be
expected.

EPA is using CAA Section 111 authority to collect data when in the past
the EPA has always used CAA section 114.  This makes section 114
unnecessary and section 111 is overstepping its authority to require the
collection of this data.

Response:  The commenters are correct that the Agency does not intend to
store visible emissions or continuous parametric (CMS) operating data
used for compliance on WebFIRE. Source owners and testers need not
submit visible emissions or CMS data to WebFIRE or any other national
database.  The source owners must address only those data reporting and
record keeping requirements relevant to compliance determinations and
certifications (e.g., operating permitting requirements).  In this rule,
we intend that source owners submit to WebFIRE pollutant emissions data
particularly those data from performance tests for PM or other
pollutants.  The purpose of WebFIRE is to be the vehicle for making such
data available for use in establishing the most representative emissions
factors for use in developing effective national and regional emissions
inventories and other purposes.  With this provision, the Agency is
exercising the authority provided under CAA section 114(a)(1) to have
sources collect and submit environmental data needed to implement the
Act.

3.6	Petroleum Coke 

3.6.1	Applicability of Subpart Y to Petroleum Coke Producers

Comment:  Many commenters (087, 089, 090, 098, 099, 104, 105, 111, 117,
118, 119, 130, and 127) objected to EPA extending the applicability of
Subpart Y to facilities producing petroleum coke by adding petroleum
coke to the subpart Y definition of “coal”.  The emission standards
in the proposed rule appear to have been developed primarily for coal
processing plants, and do not seem to reflect the differences between
coal and petroleum coke, or contemplate the emissions associated with
petroleum coke handling operations.  Without more information on these
emissions, it is inappropriate for EPA to broaden the definition of coal
to include petroleum coke at this time.  Commenters recommend that EPA
not expand the definition of coal to include petroleum coke in this
rulemaking.  If petroleum coke is included, several commenters
recommended specific petroleum coke operations to be specifically
exempted from being subject to subpart Y.  Reasons stated by commenters
are summarized below.

Petroleum coke is a petroleum product that should not be subject to a
rule (i.e., NSPS subpart Y) intended to pertain to standards of
performance for coal preparation and processing plants. Facilities that
are co-located or adjacent to a refinery and manufactures, treats,
stores, consumes as a feedstock, or loads petroleum coke should be
exempt.  The definition in section 60.251 should be changed to
specifically exclude petroleum refineries and co-located or adjacent
cogeneration, gasification and calcining operations.

Petroleum refining operations that include petroleum coke production
have already been reviewed by EPA, and numerous NSPS rules have been
promulgated to ensure protection of public health and the environment. 
The petroleum refining industry is regulated by two separate MACT rules
specific to air emissions from process units, including petroleum coke
production, and in both rules EPA found that the handling, transport,
treatment and storage activities of petroleum coke production processes
are fully protective of public health and the environment.  Refinery
petroleum coke operations are also regulated through the new source
review (NSR) permitting process to ensure compliance with NAAQS for PM. 
NSR construction permits outline numerous BACT operating practices and
limitations designed to control PM emissions, including requirements
such as applying dust suppression to petroleum coke storage piles,
limiting overall size of storage piles, ensuring conveyor systems are
covered, etc.  New and modified coke handling operations are required to
employ BACT controls to limit PM emissions from the same emission
sources EPA intends to regulate under the proposed Subpart Y amendments
(see EPA RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse).  Consequently, further
regulation of these refinery sources under this proposed NSPS amendment
is unnecessary and will not reduce emissions based on the control
options contained in the proposed rule.  Several states already regulate
PM from petroleum coke calcining and terminal facilities, making further
regulation unnecessary.

EPA did not provide adequate notice that petroleum coke manufacturing
equipment (e.g., refinery coker units) was being considered for new
standards.

EPA neither gathered or requested data to determine if petroleum coke
manufacturing equipment should be included in the affected sources
subject to Subpart Y.  Petroleum coke calcining and terminal facilities,
where petroleum coke is neither processed alongside coal, nor used as
industrial or utility boiler fuel in their list of processes are not
supported in EPA’s rationale.  No data was gathered to determine if a
standard is warranted for these sources and if a standard can meet the
cost-effectiveness criteria required under the CAA provisions.

Standards for coal processing, conveying equipment and storage systems
and transfer system operations are not suitable for petroleum coke. 
Preparing and processing petroleum coke at calcining and terminal
facilities is different from preparing and processing coal.  Transfer
facilities at petroleum refineries and terminals that screen, crush and
transfer petroleum coke, could by the proposed amendment to Subpart Y be
classified as a “coal preparation and processing plant” and subject
to Subpart Y.  Equipment used in the manufacture of petroleum coke as a
by-product of coker operations should be specifically excluded from
Subpart Y. This equipment includes coke drums, cutting equipment and
pit/pads/railcar dumping at delayed coker units and fluid coking units. 
These production processes are essentially the corollary of the
“mining operation” for coal.

Response:  Based on a review of the comments received and because of the
limited amount of currently available data, EPA has decided not to
include “petroleum coke” in the subpart Y definition of “coal”
at this time.  EPA plans on obtaining additional data on petroleum
coking activities at petroleum refineries through current actions on the
refinery NSPS review (40 CFR 60 subpart J).  In addition, additional
data will also be obtained on petroleum coke activities at end-user
locations (e.g., coal-fired power plants).

3.6.2	Applicability of Subpart Y to Petroleum Coke Users

Comment:  Two commenters (105 and 118) suggested that EPA change the
approach to include end-user petroleum coke processing in the existing
NSPS for “Coal Preparation and Processing Plants” by retaining the
existing definition of coal and adding petroleum coke as a separate
material with associated provisions.  If EPA expands the source category
by including facilities that handle only petroleum coke (and not coal),
it should do so only for end-users of petroleum coke used as fuel.  This
should be accomplished by changing the source category name to include
petroleum coke in the title (i.e., Coal and Petroleum Coke Preparation
and Processing Plants).  Commenter 98 also suggested that EPA include in
the preamble to the final Subpart Y rule a clarification to the effect
that Subpart Y does not apply to any of the “affected facilities”
set forth in Subpart Y that are located at petroleum coke calcining and
terminal facilities, or any other facilities where petroleum coke is not
used interchangeably with coal as a boiler fuel.

Response:  See response to comment 3.6.1.

3.6.3	Petroleum Coke Calciners are not Coal Thermal Dryers

Comment:  Many commenters (090, 098, 104, 105, 111, 118, and 127)
presented arguments that petroleum coke calciners are not same as a coal
thermal dryers, and therefore it is inappropriate to apply the Subpart Y
thermal dryer standards to coke calciner.  The purpose and function of a
petroleum coke calciner is to fundamentally change the material by
rearranging carbon molecules.  Thus, it acts as a reactor, not a
“dryer”.  Calciners in the petroleum industry operate at much higher
temperatures than typical coal dryers would and intuitively would have
different emission profiles.  Petroleum coke calciners use different
methods than coal thermal dryers to control PM emissions.  For example,
many petroleum coke calciners use thermal oxidizers for PM control at
high temperatures (~2,200 ºF) and cannot use filter fabric filters. 
The NSPS for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries under 40 CFR 60
subpart UUU makes the distinction between dryers and calciners.  EPA
should clarify that the manufacturing of petroleum coke is not included
in NSPS Subpart Y and that petroleum coke manufacturing equipment (e.g.,
refinery coker units) is not considered an affected facility for
purposes of Subpart Y.  EPA should categorically exclude these
operations from the applicability of this NSPS.

Response:  EPA does not intend for coke calciners to be Subpart Y
affected facilities.  The Subpart Y definition of “thermal dryer”
only covers equipment that reduces the moisture content through contact
with a heated gas stream and not equipment that produces a chemical
change in the material.  However, as noted in the response to comment
3.6.1, petroleum coke will not be included in Subpart Y at this time. 

3.6.4	Definition of Fugitive Emissions

Comment:  One commenter (111) stated that there is no definition of
“fugitive emissions.”  In petroleum refineries, that typically means
emissions of volatile organic compounds from non-point source leakage. 
However, in this case, it appears to relate to entrained coal dust. 
However, to avoid confusion, a definition should be added to make it
clear that the term refers to “coal” dust whenever the term is used
in this rule.

Response:  EPA will clarify that the term “fugitive emissions,” as
it is used in Subpart Y, refers to fugitive PM emissions rather than
fugitive VOC emissions.

3.7	Subpart Y Amendments Impact Analyses

3.7.1	Cost and Economic Analyses

Comment:  One commenter (093) stated that the supplemental proposal
continues the same inadequate approach to consideration of the costs and
environmental, energy, and economic impacts of amendments to the Subpart
Y NSPS.  Even though the supplemental proposal greatly expands the
coverage of the Subpart Y NSPS, both in terms of operations covered and
in terms of pollutant regulated, EPA asserts that it will not increase
control costs or recordkeeping and reporting costs above those of the
April 2008 proposal.  That simply is not credible, and the two short
paragraphs in the supplemental proposal do not satisfy EPA’s
obligations under CAA section 111 nor under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Executive Order 12866.  EPA should evaluate the costs and
emission reduction benefits of the proposed standards, rather than just
incorrectly assuming the costs away.  The commenter stated that their
July 14, 2008 comments took issue with EPA’s assumption that the
proposed amendments to the Subpart Y would have little economic impact
because “the controls presently required by State permitting
authorities are equivalent to what would be required by the proposed
amendments; therefore, the primary impact resulting from the proposed
amendments to Subpart Y for coal preparation facilities is a slight
increase in recordkeeping costs for new units subject to subpart Y”
(73 FR 22907). Because of the definitions of “modification” and
“reconstruction” as applied to NSPS, a coal preparation plant at a
cement manufacturing facility may be considered “modified” or
“reconstructed,” and therefore subject to the amended Subpart Y,
even when the activity that constitutes a “modification” or
“reconstruction” results in little or no increase in actual
emissions.  Under these circumstances, State regulations may not impose
any particular control technology requirement (such as Best Available
Control Technology), and State permitting authorities may not require
(and may not even have authority to require) emission limitations that
would be equivalent to the proposed amended Subpart Y limitations.

Response:  EPA has assessed the costs, economic, environmental, and
energy impacts associated with the requirements of the final rule. 
Control costs and recordkeeping and reporting costs have been estimated
for each coal preparation and processing operation and each pollutant
regulated for each operation.  As previously explained in this document,
in-line coal mills at Portland cement manufacturing plants are not
regulated by Subpart Y.  Impacts for coal handling operations that would
be regulated by Subpart Y and are located at a Portland cement
manufacturing plant have been estimated.

Comment:  Two commenters (100 and 101) stated that the NSPS must reflect
“the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application
of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the
cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated” (Section 111(a)(1), 42
U.S. § 7411(a)(1)).  Yet, EPA has failed to adequately analyze the
costs associated with the implementation of various control
technologies, and has failed to explain why existing and adequately
demonstrated technologies that EPA itself acknowledges achieve greater
emission reductions have not led to the adoption of more stringent NSPS
in the proposed rule.  In several instances, the proposed rule cites
certain costs; however, the proposed rule fails to analyze why costs are
too high and how the costs of control technologies compare to
environmental costs resulting from increased pollutants.  An example is
that existing plant layouts and equipment make it more expensive to
reduce emissions than from new units or new plant layouts.  EPA relies
on this statement to justify lower emissions rates for modified or
reconstructed units.  Another example is the EPA concluded that costs of
scrubbing units were too high for smaller plants to utilize to reduce
emissions and without further analysis stated that they do not
constitute BDT for this source category.  This commenter gives other
examples as part of their comment including the cost of environmental
harm versus the cost of available emission reduction technologies. 
Because Section 111(a)(1) specifically requires EPA to perform a cost
analysis and to consider any “health and environmental impact” of
its actions, EPA’s failure to conduct this analysis (and adjust its
NSPS accordingly) violates the requirements of the CAA.

Response:  As noted in the previous comment response, EPA has assessed
the costs, economic, environmental, and energy impacts associated with
the requirements of the final rule.  The case law requires EPA to
consider economic costs.  However, the Court has rejected arguments that
the Administrator is required “to prepare a quantified cost-benefit
analysis, showing the benefit to ambient air conditions as measured
against the cost of the pollution devices.” Portland Cement v.
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 387 (1973).

3.7.2	Environmental Impacts of Chemical Dust Suppressant Use

Comment:  Two commenters (095 and 096) stated that EPA must evaluate the
full range of environmental impacts posed by the use of chemical dust
suppressants before requiring or allowing their use for dust suppression
at coal preparation plants, and should provide guidance on the most
effective use of wet suppression.  EPA’s own internal report on the
environmental impacts of dust suppressants identifies several potential
impacts, including: “surface and groundwater quality deterioration;
soil contamination; toxicity to soil and water biota; toxicity to humans
during and after application; air pollution from volatile dust
suppressant components; accumulation in soils; changes in hydrologic
characteristics of the soils; and impacts on native flora and fauna
populations.”  Not all chemical dust suppressants operate in the same
way – or pose the same threat to the environment.  EPA report lists
several major categories of dust suppressants, including “hygroscopic
salts, organic petroleum-based, organic nonpetroleum-based, synthetic
polymer emulsions, electrochemical products, mulches of wood fiber or
recycled newspaper, and blends that combine components from the major
categories.”  EPA report concludes that “[a]pplication of all types
of chemical dust suppressants should not be ruled out or permitted under
all conditions.”  By including the generic use of unspecified chemical
dust suppressants as an acceptable “work practice standard,”
however, the supplemental proposal violates the report’s
recommendation and adopts exactly the sort of broad brush approach
warned against.  Instead, EPA must provide more detailed guidelines on
the acceptable uses of chemical suppressants, and should incorporate the
report’s instructions that “[a]pplication of chemical dust
suppressants should be avoided near sensitive environments, near water
bodies and fractured rock, in areas with a shallow groundwater table,
and other areas where water could quickly reach the saturation zone,”
and that “[s]ite specific characteristics should be considered when
approving the use of dust suppressants.”  At the very least, EPA’s
work practice standards must identify those categories of dust
suppressants and application methods least likely to cause environmental
impacts at coal preparation plant facilities.  The commenter recommends
that only suppressants with OSHA compliant Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS) be allowed, and that the MSDS be included in the fugitive dust
plan.  The amendment to the NSPS must also require state permitting
authorities to consider non-air quality environmental impacts when
reviewing fugitive dust plans that call for the use of chemical
suppressants.

Response:  EPA considers the commenter’s recommendations that where
chemical dust suppressants are to be used as a control measure to
minimize fugitive coal dust emissions, (1) only chemical dust
suppressants with OSHA-compliant MSDS be allowed; (2) that the MSDS be
included in the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan; and (3) that
the permitting authority should, on a case-by-case basis, consider
site-specific impacts (e.g., water run-off, water quality concerns)
associated with use of chemical dust suppressants when reviewing each
plan to be valid and has modified the regulatory language accordingly. 
EPA notes, however, that we are not requiring the use of chemical dust
suppressants.  Instead, section 60.254 includes “chemical dust
suppression agents” in a list of possible measures to control fugitive
emissions from open storage piles.  Section 60.254 also provides that
“the fugitive emissions control plan must describe the control
measures the owner or operator shall use to minimize fugitive emissions
from each affected facility addressed in the plan, and explain how the
measures are applicable and appropriate for the site conditions.”  It
is possible that some of the measures included in the list of control
measures for open storage piles may not be appropriate for some site
conditions.  For this reason, commenters’ statement that the
supplemental proposal adopts a “broad brush approach” is incorrect. 
Although the regulatory text identifies chemical dust suppressants as a
possible control option, it also requires the owner/operator to explain
how the measures selected are applicable and appropriate for the site
conditions.  The rule thus explicitly provides for the consideration of
site specific characteristics.  EPA believes that it is inappropriate to
prescribe more detailed guidance on the use of suppressants.  Rather,
EPA believes that the Subpart Y requirement is sufficiently detailed as
written.

3.7.3	Information Collection Request (ICR) Burden Analysis

Comment:  Several commenters (084, 086, 093, and 095) were received
regarding EPA’s approach to analyzing the ICR burdens of affected
owners and operators that would result from the implementation of
Subpart Y amendments proposed in the supplemental proposal notice.  The
supplemental proposal preamble stated that  EPA did not prepared a new
ICR because the  supplemental proposal does not result in additional
recordkeeping and reporting requirements beyond those that existed in
the April 2008 proposed rule (74 FR 25319).  To the contrary, commenters
state that EPA has grossly underestimated the annual monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the effort of the increased
monitoring and opacity performance testing for specified affected
facilities because it will significantly expand the number of visual
emission evaluations that operators will be required to perform using
Methods 22 in addition to the more complex sequence of required Method 9
tests.  These existing ICR estimates do not take into account
significant additional monitoring requirements contained in the proposed
new amendments.  Commenters believe that EPA’s approach to analyzing
the ICR burdens associated with that rulemaking is inconsistent with the
directives of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and fails to address the
actual burdens that will result from the amendments proposed in the
supplemental action.  Commenters request that EPA to prepare a new ICR
for the May 2009 supplemental proposal that accurately projects the
burdens associated with the most recently proposed requirements for
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting.

Response:  EPA submitted a revised ICR to the Office of Management and
Budget along with the promulgation package for the final rule.  The
revised ICR addresses all revisions to the Subpart Y NSPS made in the
final rule – both those proposed in the April 2008 proposal and those
proposed in the May 2009 supplemental proposal

3.8	Regulatory Text Clarifications

3.8.1	Subpart Y Title

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, and 120) stated
that EPA proposed to add “processing” to the title of subpart Y. 
Although EPA indicated in the preamble that it did not intend to change
the applicability of Subpart Y, the commenters are concerned that EPA
has not adequately justified the need to make the change.  Subpart Y
already defines “processing equipment” as “machinery used to
reduce the size of coal or to separate coal from refuse.”  Despite
EPA’s stated intentions, the risk exists that EPA, in future
applicability interpretations, will determine that additional,
non-preparation operations meet the meaning of processing, and will
thereby bring them under Subpart Y purview.  To avoid confusion, EPA
should remove “processing” from the title.

Response:  In the preamble to the supplemental proposal, EPA indicated
that the proposed title change was for clarification purposes (i.e., to
more accurately reflect the affected facilities subject to subpart Y). 
The affected facilities covered by Subpart Y since its 1976 promulgation
have included both preparation and processing units.  We do not intend
the title change to have any impact on the extent of EPA’s authority
to regulate specific affected facilities now or in the future.  The
final action promulgates the proposed title change “Standards of
Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants.”

3.8.2	Use of Term “Coal Handling”

Comment:  Many commenters (085, 088, 095, 107, 112, 115, and 120) stated
that EPA uses the term “coal handling” repeatedly in the preamble to
the supplemental proposal.  The term, however, is not defined.  In
previous submissions to EPA on this rulemaking, commenters have used the
term “coal handling” to describe coal processing equipment, coal
storage systems, and coal transfer and loading systems.  We are
concerned, however, that EPA’s use of the term in the proposal is not
necessarily limited to these designated facilities, and that the meaning
of the term could be expanded in future applicability interpretations to
include activities beyond the currently designated affected Subpart Y
facilities.  In developing NSPS, EPA should specifically name each type
of affected facility in the subpart that is subject to promulgated
standards. EPA’s use of the term “coal handling” in the preamble
negates the specificity required for establishing NSPS.

Response:  EPA has clarified the “coal handling” as appropriate in
the final action’s text.

3.8.3	Subpart Y Rule Citation Errors

Comment:  One commenter (114) stated that section 60.255(c) discusses
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4).  There is no paragraph (c)(4).

Response:  EPA appreciates the commenter pointing out the citation
error.  The error has been corrected in the final regulatory text.

3.9	Other Comments

Comment:  One commenter (099) in reference to their comment on the
Subpart Y proposed amendments presented in Section 3.5.1.3 of this
document stated that they previously submitted the same comment to EPA
on a similar provision in the proposed amendments to the Electric
Utility Steam Generating Unit NSPS under 40 CFR 60 subpart Da, section
60.48Da(o)(1) (73 FR 33642 and 33650; June 12, 2008).  When EPA
finalized the provision in Subpart Da, EPA stated only that it had
“concluded” that it is appropriate for owners/operators to be
required to submit case-by-case requests in those instances
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031-0284, p. 11).  If EPA reaches the same conclusion
for the provision in Subpart y that was made by EPA for subpart Da, then
the commenter requests that EPA explain the reasons for that conclusion.
 The commenter can think of no reason why a delay of testing would be
any less justified, or the consequences of delaying testing any greater,
for a facility that experienced an unexpected outage, or that operated
for just a few days, than for a facility that did not operate at all for
60 days before the testing deadline. 

‰

@

¯

 

/

0

1

6

7

g

h

i

ƒ

„

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

¦

§

¨

®

å

æ

ç

-

9

:

;

=

>

?

@

A

]

^

_

d

e

Œ

Ž

¨

©

ª

¬

®

¯

°

Ì

ࠆᘁ쨭唀Ĉ　Ì

Í

Î

Ñ

Ò

ó

ô

õ

h

ᄉ脈栖氳}㌀

hZ

kd

kd

hZ

hZ

kd

”ÿÄ

”ÿÄ

hÆM

”ÿÄ

摧䷆





 

.

2

6

8

 h,

 h,

hÍ

hÍ

摧䜮

摧䜮

Ѐ'摧䜮

Ѐ&摧䜮

N

O

Ð

Ñ

 h.G

h

 h

h

 h

h

H* h

h

 h

 h

萎ː萏ː葝ː葞ː摧㨻¼

摧倆÷Ѐ'摧倆÷Ѐ&摧倆÷Ѐ'摧毚ᄀ

^

_

¬

ñ

ò

O

P

R

S

]

^

摧烘

摧倆÷Ѐ'摧琵>

 hZ

Q

R

e

÷

v

w

h

h/(

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

a

b

'

h“

h“

hÕ

ᔌ轨霍ᘀ腨܎䜀

q

r

ä

å

ppropriate to require owners/operators of units that are shutdown and
not operating on the due date of the performance test, with the
exception of units that have not operated for the 60 calendar days
prior to the performance test due date, to submit waiver requests.  EPA
believes it is inappropriate to allow a delay in PM performance testing
for “any unit that is shutdown and not operating on the due date of
the performance test.”  Because there can be various reasons for a
unit to be shutdown and not operating at the time a performance test is
required, EPA considers it imprudent to provide a general waiver
allowing a delay in testing for these units.  In order to consider the
merits of each situation, EPA believes it is appropriate to require
case-by-case waiver requests for situations where an affected facility
is shutdown and not operating on the due date of the performance test,
with the exception of affected facilities that have not operated for the
60 calendar days prior to the performance test due date.

  PAGE  2 

		  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  vii 		

	

 Introduction

Table 1-1. (Continued)

 Introduction

Introduction

Table 1-2. (Continued)

Introduction

	Subpart Y Final Amendment