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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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).

<IP_ADDRESS>	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).

<IP_ADDRESS>	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).

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	  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 <IP_ADDRESS>.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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	  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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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 <IP_ADDRESS>, 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 <IP_ADDRESS>.

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 <IP_ADDRESS>, 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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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).

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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

<IP_ADDRESS>	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 <IP_ADDRESS>, 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 <IP_ADDRESS>, 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.

<IP_ADDRESS>	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