Energy and Environment Monitorwww.eem.jacksonkelly.com

USEPA Tightens Air Quality Standards on Coal Prep Plants Again – Twice in Last 13 Months!

Are you old enough to remember those catchy TV ads back in the 60s and 70s for Wrigley’s Doublemint® gum? Well, I do. Perhaps it was the cute jingle that got into your head and stayed there: “Double your pleasure®, double your fun™,… it’s two, two, two gums in one…”. Or maybe it was something else…. Apparently I’m not the only one who fondly recalls those memorable lyrics. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently decided that it would propose sweeping changes, and more stringent air quality requirements, on coal prep plants for the second time in just over a year. 

On May 15, 2009, the EPA proposed additional revisions to emissions control requirements for new coal preparation and processing plants.  These proposed standards of performance “supplement” those proposed on April 28, 2008 (dated as April 16, 2008 on EPA’s web site), and would expand emissions reduction at new coal preparation and processing plants that process more than 200 tons of coal per day. 

Coal preparation plants are used at facilities such as coal mines, power plants, cement plants, coke manufacturing facilities, and industrial facilities. These plants have been subject to air emission regulations under the federal new source performance standards (NSPS), at 40 CFR 60 Subpart Y - Standards Of Performance For Coal Preparation Plants, first issued for these sources in 1976, and previously amended in 1983, 1989 and 2000.  

The proposed revisions would apply to new, modified, and reconstructed coal preparation and processing plants, and per EPA, reflect improvements in emission control technologies for pollutants that have been developed since the original NSPS. 

The EPA’s proposed April 2008 revisions would have accomplished the following significant changes: 

• For thermal dryers constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, EPA proposed to revise the PM emission limit to 0.046 grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.020 grains per dry standard cubic foot, (gr/dscf)). Note that the current Subpart Y limit is 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf), meaning EPA initially proposed a 34% PM emission reduction for thermal dryers. Also note that EPA proposed to retain the existing 20 percent opacity limit. 
• For pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, EPA proposed to revise the PM emission limit to 0.011 g/dscm (0.005 gr/dscf), and lower the opacity limit to 5 percent. Note that the current Subpart Y limit is 0.040 g/dscm (0.017 gr/dscf) and 10 percent opacity, meaning EPA initially proposed a 72% PM emission reduction, and cut allowable opacity in half, for pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment. 
• For coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, EPA proposed to lower the opacity limit to 5 percent. Note that the current Subpart Y limit is 20 percent opacity, meaning EPA initially proposed a 75% reduction in allowable opacity for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems. 
• Also for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, EPA proposed to add for the first time the requirement that all PM emissions be vented to a stack and that emissions from the stack meet a PM standard of 0.011 g/dscm (0.005 gr/dscf) for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems that process coals other than bituminous.
• Finally, EPA proposed to add or revise many monitoring, testing and recordkeeping requirements, including for thermal dryers and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, the requirement to either install and operate a PM continuous emissions monitoring system (PM CEMS) or to conduct annual PM performance stack tests. 

EPA’s proposed May 2009 revisions would make the following significant changes to their proposed 2008 revisions and to the current rule: 

• For thermal dryers and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, EPA proposes to amend the definition of thermal dryer to include both direct and indirect dryers drying all coal ranks. The current Subpart Y definition of thermal dryer is limited to bituminous coal dried by contact with a heated gas stream (direct thermal dryers) only. 
• For pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, EPA proposes to amend the definition of pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment to include cleaning all coal ranks. The current Subpart Y definition of pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment is limited to bituminous coal only. 
• For thermal dryers, EPA is now proposing separate standards for new, reconstructed, and modified units. For thermal dryers constructed after April 28, 2008, EPA proposes to revise the PM emission limit to 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) and drop the opacity limit to 10 percent. Note that the current Subpart Y limit is 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf), meaning EPA now proposes a 67% PM emission reduction for new thermal dryers, plus cuts the allowable opacity in half.
• For thermal dryers reconstructed after April 28, 2008, EPA proposes to revise the PM emission limit to 0.045 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) and retain the 20 percent opacity limit. Note that the current Subpart Y limit is 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf), meaning EPA now proposes a 36% PM emission reduction for reconstructed thermal dryers.
• For thermal dryers modified after April 28, 2008, EPA proposes to retain the current Subpart Y limit of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf) and 20 percent opacity limit.
• The existing NSPS does not limit emissions of SO2, NOX, or CO from coal preparation facilities, and in the April 2008 proposed rule, EPA did not propose to add limits for these pollutants. However, EPA now proposes for thermal dryers constructed, modified, or reconstructed after date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register,   the following emissions limits:  

• For new, reconstructed, and modified units, a SO2 limit of 85 nanograms per Joule (ng/J) (0.20 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu)), or 50 percent reduction of potential SO2 emissions and no more than 520 ng/J.
• For new units, a combined NOX and CO limit of 280 ng/J (0.65 lb/MMBtu).
• For reconstructed units and modified units, a combined NOX and CO limit of 430 ng/J (1.0 lb/MMBtu). 

• For pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment and mechanically vented coal handling equipment constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008, EPA proposes to revise the PM emission limits for equipment processing all coal ranks to 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf), and lower the opacity limit to 5 percent. Note that the current Subpart Y limit is 0.040 g/dscm (0.017 gr/dscf) and 10 percent opacity, meaning EPA now proposes a 42% PM emission reduction, and cut allowable opacity in half, for pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment. 
• As previously proposed in April 2008, for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008, EPA proposes to lower the opacity limit to 5 percent. Note that the current Subpart Y limit is 20 percent opacity, meaning EPA proposes a 75% reduction in allowable opacity for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems.
• However, note that EPA has backed off of this aspect of their April 2008 proposal -- the agency concluded it is not appropriate to require coal handling equipment processing subbituminous and lignite coals to be vented to a control device.
• EPA also proposes to add or revise many monitoring, testing and recordkeeping requirements, many of which are substantially different than their April 2008 proposal. For example, EPA now proposes to require bag leak detection systems for owners/operators of thermal dryers and pneumatic-coal cleaning equipment only if the fabric filter control device has a design controlled annual potential emissions rate of 25 Mg (28 tons) or more. There are very many other complex proposed revisions to Subpart Y monitoring, testing and recordkeeping requirements. Affected sources need to carefully decipher and document what will/will not apply to their affected coal processing equipment units. 

Pop Culture Tie-In?

In case you’ve actually read this far, I decided to share with you an interesting and recent Pop Culture tie-in to the DoubleMint® theme of this article. Chris Brown, who I’ve come to learn through the wonder of Google™, is a major R&B/Pop singing star. I’ve also decided that he exudes more coolness in 5 minutes than I have in my entire life. Anyway, Mr. Brown released a song in 2008 entitled Forever, which became a top-10 hit. I never even heard of it – go figure. But, you ask, what ties this fact into the subject of the blog article? Mr. Brown’s inclusion of an old chewing-gum jingle’s tag line "Double your pleasure®/double your fun™" within the chorus of Forever!    Perhaps the rule makers at EPA are big Chris Brown fans, or big DoubleMint® fans, or both? 

For further details on EPA’s rule changes to NSPS Subpart Y, see the following web sites:

• Revised 5-15-09 NSPS Subpart Y Fact Sheet

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fact_sheets/cppp_nsps_supp_prop_fs_051509.pdf

• Revised 5-15-09 NSPS Subpart Y Proposed Rule

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/cppp_nsps_supp_prop_051509.pdf

• Revised 4-16-08 NSPS Subpart Y Fact Sheet

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fact_sheets/cpp_nsps_fs041608.pdf  

• Revised 4-16-08 NSPS Subpart Y Proposed Rule

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/cpp_nsps_pr041608.pdf

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  For more information on the author see here.

The Industrial Accident Emergency Notification Bill Summary (SB 279)

            The Industrial Accident Emergency Notification Bill (SB 279) was proposed by Governor Manchin in the 2009 regular legislative session.  

This bill was developed to strike the proper balance between effectively regulating industrial accidents to protect public safety and ensuring the requirements are not an over reaction to one incident that creates a heavy burden on industry throughout the state. It creates a new section of the West Virginia Code in Chapter 15 Public Safety, Article 5B Mine and Industrial Accident Rapid Response System, just after Section 3 Emergency Mine Response. The new Section 3a is entitled the “Industrial facility emergency event notification and access”. The legislation passed the legislature on April 11^th, 2009 and was signed into law by the Governor on May 12^th, 2009. It will become effective 90 days from passage on July 10^th, 2009. 

There are several important provisions set forth by this bill including but not limited to:

·        providing that before any facility may be subject to the legislation, the owner or operator of each facility must be placed on actual written notice via certified mail, return receipt requested, of the facility's inclusion

·        requiring certain industrial facilities notify either the Mine and Industrial Accident Emergency Operations Center or their local 911 Center of an emergency event within 15 minutes

·        requiring facilities provide access to certain state and local officials access to the location where the emergency event is being managed or coordinated and to the location of the incident once it becomes safe

·        establishing a fine of up to $100,000 for not reporting 

·        requiring the industrial facility establish a communications system designed to provide timely information to appropriate state and local officials

·        requiring state and local officials to notify the public within 30 minutes of obtaining information regarding hazardous materials that affects the public health, safety or welfare

·        establishing that a facility can be subject to additional civil penalties depending on how it handles the continuing communications and access requirements of the bill

·        designating that any moneys collected pursuant to the bill will be deposited in the Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund managed by the WVDEP

·      authorizing the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to promulgate rules, including emergency rules that among other things will establish a list of industrial facilities to be regulated by this legislation

In summary, the legislation mandates 3 primary requirements for industrial facilities that are regulated by this legislation upon the occurrence of an emergency event: (1) accident reporting, (2) providing access to public officials, and (3) development of an emergency event communications system. The Department of Homeland Security’s development of rules for this legislation on these issues is set to begin in early June. 

This article was authored by Donnie L. Adkins, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Waste Issues Addressed in EPA’s FY 2010 Budget Proposal

On May 12, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on EPA’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2010. Administrator Jackson announced that President Obama is requesting $10.5 billion for EPA’s FY 2010 budget. The Administrator stated that: “This budget represents a 37 percent increase over [the agency’s] FY 2009 budget -- the highest level ever for EPA.” The budget proposal includes funding for a number of waste-related issues, including research and development, programs focused on the cleanup of contaminated sites, and funding for EPA’s partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments.  

Among U.S. EPA’s research and development programs, the FY 2010 budget proposal contains $14.5 million to enable the Integrated risk Information System (IRIS) to increase assessment production and reduce the agency’s backlog of assessments for chemicals previously identified as priority needs. This is $5 million increase over EPA’s FY 2009 budget. 

With respect to EPA programs focused on the cleanup of contaminated sites, the budget request contains funding for EPA’s Superfund, Brownfields, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Programs. For Superfund, the proposed budget is $1.3 billion, an increase of $24 million over last year. Administrator Jackson testified that the funding would be used to enhance enforcement and removal work as well as support in the Superfund program. The budget request also includes a proposal to reinstate the Superfund Tax that expired in 1995. Beginning in FY 2011, EPA projects that the taxes should generate $1 billion per year, rising to $2 billion per year by 2019. In addition to the Superfund budget, the proposal for the Brownfields program totals $175 million, a $5 million increase from FY 2009. This funding proposal includes $149.5 million for Brownfields State and Tribal Assistance Grants to continue to provide Brownfields assessment, revolving loan fund, clean-up, and job-training grants. The $128 million LUST budget includes $113 million for the LUST Trust Fund. Administrator Jackson testified that while almost 80 percent or 377,019 of all reported leaks have been addressed to date, a backlog of almost 103,000 cleanups still need to be addressed. 

The 2010 budget also includes funding to support EPA’s partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments. EPA is requesting $106.3 million for Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants. These grants are used for implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste program, including permitting, authorization, waste minimization, enforcement, and corrective action activities. The 2010 budget also provides $14.6 million for lead grants. Administrator Jackson testified that the funding will be used for work under the new Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule to prevent lead poisoning through the training of workers who remove lead-based paint, the accreditation of training programs, the certification of contractors, and renovation education programs.  

Finally, EPA’s FY 2010 budget proposes $600 million for enforcement and compliance across all environmental media and EPA programs. This represents the largest enforcement and compliance budget in history and an increase of $32 million from FY 2009. For additional information on EPA’s FY 2010 Budget Proposal, contact Gale Lea Rubrecht at 304-340-1200 or galelea@jacksonkelly.com. 

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.