Article V

Hearing Transcripts
1-1 - 01

BEFORE THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF:

DAPC STATIONARY SOURCES

voe RULES HEARING

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

In the above-captioned matter, taken before

Teresa A. Pollard, a Court Reporter and Notary Public

in and for the State of Ohio, at the State of Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency, 50 West Town Street,

Suite 700, Room A, Columbus, Ohio, on Wednesday,

october 3, 2007, at 2:30 p.m.

fRoLe(Y

Cooper<

& assocIates Prllfl'ssil)n~i Court Rl'pllrters

Newark, Ohio

(740) 345-8556

Main Office

8036 Smoke Road

Pataskala, Ohio 43062

(740) 927-3338

(800) 852-6163

Fax (740) 927-3436

e-mail: FraleyCooper@earthlink.net

Columbus, Ohio

(614) 228-0018
1

2

3

4

IN THE MATTER OF DAPC STATIONARY SOURCES

VOC RULES HEARING

APPEARANCES

2

5 MR. WILLIAM F. JURIS, P.E., Environmental Supervisor

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

6 Division of Air Pollution Control

Tax Exemption & Special Projects

7 Lazarus Government Center

122 South Front Street

8 Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 644-3593

9 E-mail: Bill.juris@epa.state.oh.us

10

11 MS. HEIDI GRIESMER

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

12 PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER

Lazarus Government Center

13 50 West Town Street, Suite 700

Columbus, Ohio 43215

14 (614) 644-2160

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(800) 852-6163 (614) 228-0018 (740) 345-8556
1

2

3

3

Wednesday Afternoon Session,

October 3, 2007.

2:30 p.m.

4 MS. GRIESMER: Good afternoon. My name is

5 Heidi Griesmer. I am with the Public Interest Center

6 at Ohio EPA. I will be presiding over today's public

7 hearing.

8 Thank you for taking time to attend this

9 hearing before Ohio EPA. The purpose of the hearing

10 today is to obtain comments from any interested person

11 regarding Ohio EPA's proposed rules.

12 Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution Control

13 is proposing new language for Ohio Administrative Code

14 Rule 3745-21-07, control of emissions of organic

15 materials from stationary sources.

16 This rule has been filed with the Joint

17 Committee on Agency Rule Review. Copies of the rule

18 are available for public review at Ohio EPA's Columbus

19 office and may be obtained by contacting Todd Brown

20 with Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution Control at

21 (614) 644-4839.

22 All interested persons are entitled to attend

23 or be represented and to present oral and/or written

24 comments concerning the proposed rule. All written and

25 oral comments received as part of the official record

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(800) 852-6163 (614) 228-0018 (740) 345-8556
4

1 will be considered by the Director of Ohio EPA before a

2 final decision is made.

3 To be included in the official record,

4 written comments must be received by Ohio EPA by the

5 close of business today, October 3 rd , 2007. These

6 comments may be filed with me today, or e-mailed to

7 Todd dot Brown at EPA dot state dot O-H dot U-S. All

8 written comments submitted for the record receive the

9 same consideration as oral testimony given today.

10 Written statements submitted after today may

11 be considered as time and circumstances permit, but

12 will not be part of the official record of the hearing.

13 If you wish to present oral testimony at this

14 hearing today and have not already signed the

15 registration sheet, please do so at this time. Persons

16 will be called in the order in which they have

17 registered.

18 There is no cross-examination of speakers or

19 of representatives of Ohio EPA in public hearings.

20 Ohio EPA hearings such as this afford citizens the

21 opportunity to provide comments on the official record.

22 Therefore, we will not be able to answer questions

23 during the hearing. However, members of the panel may

24 ask clarifying questions of the person testifying to

25 ensure the record is as complete and accurate as

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(800) 852-6163 (614) 228-0018 (740) 345-8556
5

1 possible.

2 The first person, if he wishes to testify,

3 would be David Lipiro.

4 MR. DAVID LIPIRO: Yes. I'll just state

5

6

something very briefly.

MS. GRIESMER:

My name is David Lipiro.

And if you could spell your

7 name for the Court Reporter.

8 MR. DAVID LIPIRO: Yes. Lipiro, L-I-P as in

9 Peter, I -R-O.

10 I'm a consultant working for the American

11 Composites Manufacturing Association, ACMA. That is a

12 trade group that represents companies that make

13 fiberglass re-enforced composite products and those are

14 companies that some of those people have sheet molding

15 compound machines. There's specific portions of this

16 rule that talks about the sheet molding compound

1 7 machines.

18 For the record, ACMA's position is that this

19 rule, as currently proposed, is a good rule. They're

20 strongly in favor of it. It properly acknowledges

21 years of data that was collected by u.S. EPA on the

22 composites industry and we are strongly in favor of the

23

24

25

rule. As proposed.

Thank you.

MS. GRIESMER: Thank you for your testimony.

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(800) 852-6163 (614) 228-0018 (740) 345-8556
6

1 The next person registered is Perry Bennett.

2 Would you like to testify?

3 MR. PERRY BENNETT: My name is Perry Bennett,

4 B-E-N-N-E-T-T. And I am the Health Safety

5 Environmental Director for Mold and Fiberglass Company.

6 And I am also in favor of the rule as

7 proposed. I think it does a good job again, as

8 David said, I think I agree with what he said that it

9 definitely addresses the work that the EPA's put in ten

10 years ago, being the max standards of the composites

11 industry, addresses sheet molding compound equipment,

12 as does the -- as it should be.

13 So I guess the bottom line is I'm in favor of

14 the rule as proposed.

15 MS. GRIESMER: Okay. Thank you.

16 The third person registered is Matt Johnston.

17 MR. MATT JOHNSTON: I have no oral testimony.

18 MS. GRIESMER: Okay. Bill Hills?

19

20

MR. BILL HILLS: No thanks.

MS. GRIESMER: Is there anyone else who

21 wishes to testify at this time?

22 (No response.)

23 MS. GRIESMER: Seeing no further requests for

24 testimony, at this time we will go off the record until

25 3:00 p.m. to give anyone who is running late an

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(800) 852-6163 (614) 228-0018 (740) 345-8556
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

opportunity to come here.

And the time is now 2:36 and we will go off

the record.

(Recess taken.)

7 MS. GRIESMER: All right. It is three

8 o'clock and we will go back on the record. Is there

9 anyone else who wishes to testify at this time?

10 (No response.)

11 MS. GRIESMER: Seeing no further requests for

12 testimony, I remind you that written comments can be

13 submitted through the close of business today. Thank

14 you for attending.

15

16 adj ourned .

The time is now 3:01 and this hearing is

17 - - -

18 Thereupon, at 3:01 p.m., on Wednesday,

19 October 3, 2007, the hearing was concluded.

20

21

22

23

24

25

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(800) 852-6163 (614) 228-0018 (740) 345-8556
8

1 CERTIFICATE

2 STATE OF OHIO

SS:

3 COUNTY OF FRANKLIN

4

I, Teresa A. Pollard, a Notary Public in and

5 for the State of Ohio, duly commissioned and qualified,

do hereby certify that the aforesaid proceeding on

6 October 3, 2007, was by me reduced to stenotype and

afterward transcribed upon a computer; that the

7 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the

proceedings; that the proceeding was taken at the time

8 and place in the caption specified and was adjourned;

and that I am in no way related to or employed· by any

9 attorney or party hereto, or financially interested in

the action.

10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

11 hand and affixed my seal of office at Columbus, Ohio,

on this 3rd of October, 2007.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

------------------------------ ~().P~Wm+)

TERESA A. POLLARD

NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF OHIO

20 My Commission Expires: October 21, 2007.

21

22

23

24

25

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(800) 852-6163 (614) 228-0018 (740) 345-8556
In the matter of: DAPC Stationary Sources VOC Rules Hearing, taken on October 3, 2007

Page 1

A C 6:8 H 6:3 8:7

able 4:22 called 4:16 decision 4:2 hand 8:11 new 3:13 products 5: 13

about 5:16 caption 8:8 definitely 6:9 Health 6:4 next 6:1 Projects 2:6

above-captioned Center 2:7,12,12 Director 4:1 6:5 hearing 1:2,72:2 Notary 1:13 8:4 properly 5:20

1: 12 3:5 Division 2:63:12 3:7,9,94:12,14 8:15 proposed 3: 11 ,24

accurate 4:25 CERTIFICATE 3:20 4:237:15,19 5: 19,23 6:7,14

acknowledges 8:1 dot 4:7,7,7,7 hearings 4: 19,20 0 proposing 3:13

5:20 certify 8:5 duly 8:5 Heidi 2: 11 3:5 obtain 3:10 Protection 1:1,15

ACMA5:11 circumstances during 4:23 hereto 8:9 obtained 3: 19 2:5,11

ACMA's 5:18 4:11 hereunto 8: 10 October 1:17 3:1 provide 4:21

action 8:9 citizens 4:20 E Hills 6:18,19 4:57:198:6,11 public 1:2,13

addresses 6:9,11 clarifying 4:24 emissions 3:14 8:20 2: 12 3:5,6,18

adjourned 7:16 close 4:57: 13 employed 8:8 I off 6:24 7:2 4:198:4

8:8 Code 3:13 ensure 4:25 included 4:3 office 3:19 8:11 PUBLIC-STA.•.

Administrative collected 5:21 entitled 3:22 industry 5:22 official 3:25 4:3 8:15

3:13 Columbus 1:16 Environmental 6:11 4:12,21 purpose 3:9

affu:ed 8: 11 2:8,13 3:18 1:1,15 2:5,5,11 Interest 2: 12 3:5 Ohio 1:1,14,14 put 6:9

afford 4:20 8:11 6:5 interested 3:10 1:162:5,8,11 P.E 2:5

aforesaid 8:5 come 7:1 EPA 3:6,94:1,4,7 3:228:9 2:13 3:6,9,11 p.m 1:17 3:2 6:25

after 4:10 comments 3:10 4:19,205:21 I-R-O 5:9 3:12,13,18,20 7:18

afternoon 3: 1,4 3:24,25 4:4,6,8 EPA's 3:11,12,18 4:1,4,19,208:2

afterward 8:6 4:21 7:12 3:206:9 J 8:5,11,15 Q

again 6:7 Commission 8:20 equipment 6: 11 job 6:7 Okay6:15,18 qualified 8:5

Agency 1:1,15 commissioned Exemption 2:6 Johnston 6: 16,17 opportunity 4:21 questions 4:22,24

2:5,11 3:17 8:5 Expires 8:20 Joint 3:16 7:1

ago 6:10 Committee 3: 17 E-mail 2:9 JURIS 2:5 oral 3:23,25 4:9 R

agree 6:8 companies 5: 12 e-mailed 4:6 just 5:4 4:13 6:17 receive 4:8

Air 2:6 3:12,20 5:14 order4:16 received 3:254:4

already 4:14 Company 6:5 F L organic 3: 14 Recess 7:5

American 5: 10 complete 4:25 F2:5 language 3: 13 over 3:6 record 3:25 4:3,8

and/or 3:23 composite 5:13 favor 5:20,22 6:6 late 6:25 o'clock 7:8 4:12,21,255:18

answer 4:22 composites 5: 11 6:13 Lazarus 2:7,12 O-H4:7 6:247:3,8

anyone 6:20,25 5:226:10 fiberglass 5: 13 like 6:2 reduced 8:6

7:9 compound 5:15 6:5 line 6:13 P regarding 3:11

APPEARANC... 5:166:11 filed 3:16 4:6 Lipiro 5:3,4,5,8,8 panel 4:23 registered 4: 17

2:3 computer 8:6 final 4:2 L-I-P 5:8 part 3:254: 12 6:1,16

Association 5:11 concerning 3:24 financially 8:9 party 8:9 registration 4: 15

attend 3:8,22 concluded 7:19 first 5:2 M people 5:14 related 8:8

attending 7: 14 consideration 4:9 foregoing 8:7 machines 5: 15,17 permit 4:11 remind 7:12

attorney 8:9 considered 4: 1 FRANKLIN 8:3 made 4:2 Perry 6:1,3,3 Reporter 1: 13

available 3: 18 4:11 from3:10,15 make 5:12 person 3:10 4:24 5:7

consultant 5:10 Front 2:7 Manufacturing 5:26:1,16 representatives

B contacting 3: 19 further 6:237:11 5:11 persons 3:22 4:15 4:19

back7:8 control 2:6 3:12 materials 3:15 Peter 5:9 represented 3:23

before 1:1,12 3:9 3:14,20 G Matt 6:16,17 place 8:8 represents 5: 12

4:1 Copies 3:17 give 6:25 matter 1:5,12 2:1 please 4: 15 requests 6:23

being 6:10 correct 8:7 given 4:9 max 6:10 Pollard 1:13 8:4 7:11

Bennett 6: 1,3,3 COUNTY 8:3 go 6:24 7:2,8 may 3:19 4:6,10 8:15 response 6:22

BiIl6:18,19 Court 1: 13 5:7 good 3:45:196:7 4:23 Pollution 2:6 7:10

BiII.j uris@epa.•.• cross-examinat... Government 2:7 members 4:23 3:12,20 review 3: 17,18

2:9 4:18 2:12 Mold 6:5 portions 5: 15 re-enforced 5: 13

bottom 6:13 currently 5: 19 Griesmer 2: 11 molding 5:14,16 position 5: 18 right 7:7

briefly 5:5 3:4,55:6,25 6:11 possible 5: 1 Room 1:16

Brown 3:19 4:7 D 6:15,18,20,23 must 4:4 present 3:234:13 rule 3: 14, 16,17

business 4:57: 13 DAPC 1:62:1 7:7,11 presiding 3:6 3:17,245:16,19

B-E-N-N-E-T-T data 5:21 group 5:12 N proceeding 8:5,7 5:19,236:6,14

6:4 David 5:3,4,5,8 guess 6:13 name 3:45:5,7 proceedings 1: 10 rules 1:7 2:2 3:11

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
In the matter of: DAPC Stationary Sources VOC Rules Hearing, taken on October 3, 2007

running 6:25 third 6:16 8:6

three 7:7 3rd 4:58:11

S through 7:13 3:006:25

Safety 6:4 time 3:84:11,15 3:017:15,18

same 4:9 6:21,247:2,9 3745-21-073:14

seal 8:11 7:158:7

Seeing 6:23 7:11 today 3:10 4:5,6 4

Session 3:1 4:9,10,147:13 432152:8,13

set 8:10 today's 3:6

sheet4:155:14 Todd 3:19 4:7 5

5:166:11 Town 1:152:13 501:152:13

signed 4:14 trade 5:12

some 5:14 transcribed 8:6 6

something 5:5 transcript 1: 10 6142:8,143:21

sources 1:62:1 8:7 644-21602:14

3:15 true 8:7 644-35932:8

South 2:7 644-48393:21

speakers 4: 18 U

Special 2:6 until 6:24 7

specific 5:15 U-S4:7 7001:162:13

specified 8:8 U.S5:21

spell 5:6

SS8:2 V

standards 6: 10 very 5:5

state 1:14,144:7 VOC 1:72:2

5:4 8:2,5

statements 4:10 W

stationary 1:6 way 8:8

2:13:15 Wednesday 1: 16

stenotype 8:6 3:1 7:18

Street 1:15 2:7 West 1:15 2:13

2:13 WHEREOF 8:10

strongly 5:20,22 WILLIAM 2:5

submitted 4:8,10 wish 4:13

7:13 wishes 5:26:21

Suite 1:162:13 7:9

Supervisor 2:5 WITNESS 8: 10

work 6:9

T working 5:10

taken 1:12 7:5 written 3:23,24

8:7 4:4,8,107:12

taking 3:8

talks 5:16 y

Tax 2:6 years 5:216:10

ten 6:9

Teresa 1:13 8:4 1

8:15 1222:7

testify 5:26:2,21

7:9 2

testifying 4:24 2:301:173:2

testimony 4:9,13 2:367:2

5:25 6: 17,24 20071:173:14:5

7:12 7:198:6,11,20

Thank 3:8 5:24 218:20

5:256:157:13

thanks 6:19 3

think 6:7,8 31:173:1 7:19

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556

Page 2
Article VI

Response to Comments
CJiIJEa\

Division of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

Received prior to, and just after, scheduled JCARR hearing on

12·3·07

Rule: OAC rule 3745-21-07, "Control of emissions of organic materials from

stationary sources (Le., emissions that are not regulated by rule 3745-21-09,

3745-21-12,3745-21-13,3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 of

the Administrative Code)."

Agency Contact for this Package

Division Contact: Todd Brown, DAPC, (614) 644-4839, todd.brown@epa.state.oh.us

The following comments were submitted by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur

LLP on behalf of PPG Industries Ohio, Inc., PPG Barberton, and Kraton

Polymers U.S., LLC, via telephone on 12-3-07, and follow-up telephone and

email contacts:

Comment 1:

Paragraph (A)(3) of the proposed rule can potentially be interpreted in a manner

inconsistent with that described in the White Paper.

Response 1:

The language in paragraph (A)(3) of the proposed rule has been modified to

eliminate possible misunderstandings. Exempt emissions language has changed

from "except for VOG emissions that," to "but shall not apply to VOG emissions

from any such source or operation that" are regulated by rule ...

Comment 2:

PPG Industries Ohio, Inc., (Facility ID 0165000007) would like to have its

emissions units removed from Table (M)(1). The facility is subject to, and

already in compliance with, the MACT Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON)

requirements, and will be testing to demonstrate compliance with these

requirements prior to the April, 2008, deadline.
Response 2:

Ohio EPA has removed the emissions units listed in Table (M)(1) ofthe proposed

rule for PPG Industries Ohio, Inc., (Facility 10 0165000007) because the

emissions units are subject to the MON MACT, which is more stringent than the

rule requirements. By meeting the MON MACT, the rule requirements are also

being met.

Comment 3:

Kraton Polymers U.S., LLC, has a new emissions unit (P004) that should be

incorporated into Table (M)(1) with other Kraton emissions units. In addition,

only the "wet end" emissions are currently subject to OAC Rule 3745-21-07, so

this should be specified in Table (M)(1).

Response 3:

Ohio EPA has added emissions unit P004 to emissions units P006, P007, and

P010 in Table (M)(1), and clarified that only "wet end" emissions from these

emissions units are subject to paragraph (M), pursuant to the permits for these

emissions units. The equipment making up the "wet end" is defined in the PTls

and/or Title V permit for these emissions units.

Comment 4:

In paragraph (M)(3)(c)(ii) there is reference to "federal enforceability". It is

suggested that that the phrase "or legally and practically enforceable by the

state" be added to make the paragraph consistent with federal case law on the

concept of "potential to emit" as defined in OAC 3745-31-01 (HHH).

Response 4:

Ohio EPA has made the suggested change in order to maintain consistency with

the definition ofPTE contained in Chapter 31 of the Ohio Administrative Code.

CommentS:

Emissions unit POBO at PPG Industries, Barberton Plant, should not be included

in Table (M)(1). Control of the emissions from this emissions unit is only required

to the point that emissions remain at or below 40 pounds per day, and no

efficiency requirements are specified.

Response 5:

Ohio EPA has reviewed PTI 16-1102 for emissions unit POBO at the PPG

Industries, Barberton plant. Ohio EPA agrees that emissions unit POBO should

2
not have been included in Table (M)(1) of the proposed rule, and has moved it

instead to paragraph (M)(3)(d)(ix) and cited specific PTI requirements.

Comment 6:

Emissions unit T001 at PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. should not be included in Table

(K)(3). The tank is de minimis pursuant to ORC 3704.011, and therefore not

subject to regulation.

Response 6:

Ohio EPA agrees that emissions unit T001 at this facility is de minimis, and has

removed it from Table (K)(1) of the proposed rule.

The following comments were submitted by Honda of America Mfg., Inc.,

for emissions unit R201 at their Honda Marysville Auto Plant via telephone

on 12-7-07, and follow-up telephone and email contacts:

Comment 7:

Honda is still concerned that specific permit limits appear in paragraph

(M)(3)(d)(vi) of the proposed rule. In order to maintain maximum flexibility when

making necessary production line modifications, Honda would like language

included in the rule that does not include specific permit limits, so production line

changes could be made in a more timely basis (Le., they would not require rule

and SIP changes).

Response 7:

Ohio EPA has eliminated permit limits for this emissions unit by incorporating

RACT requirements that are based upon Rule 3745-21-09(8)(6) of the Ohio

Administrative Code and the USEPA's Control Technology Guideline for

automotive/transportation plastic parts coating lines.

Comment 8:

In paragraph (M)(3)(d)(vii), the facility name and 10 were incorrectly changed

during the last round of rule modifications.

Response 8:

Ohio EPA corrected the facility name and 10 contained in paragraph (M)(3)(d)(vii)

that had inadvertently been changed during the last round ofrule changes.

3
Qiam\

Division of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

Proposed Rule Language Comment Period

Rule: OAC rule 3745-21-07, "Control of emissions of organic materials from

stationary sources (Le., emissions that are not regulated by rule 3745-21-09,

3745-21-12,3745-21-13,3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 of

the Administrative Code)."

Agency Contact for this Package

Division Contact: Todd Brown, DAPC, (614) 644-4839, todd.brown@epa.state.oh.us

The following comments were submitted by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency on 9·26-07

Comment 1:

(A)(5) - Consistent with existing 3745-21-07, the requirements of M (3) and M (4)

should apply to any new source which is installed after the effective date of this

rule. There is no apparent reason to relax these control requirements for such

new sources and this relaxation violates the provisions of the General Savings

Clause in Section 193 of the Clean Air Act.

Response 1:

Ohio EPA does not believe that the new rule can be considered a relaxation of

the provisions of the General Savings Clause in Section 193 of the Clean Air Act

because emissions from sources that do not currently exist are not currently

being accounted for; therefore, a "relaxation" can't be determined. It is not Ohio

EPA's intent to apply this rule to new sources instal/ed after the effective date of

this amended rule, but, instead, to account for such "new" emissions in the new

source review ("NSR', permitting process.

Comment 2:

(A)(6) - Emission factors and test data from similar facilities are useful for

estimating emissions but are not an acceptable substitute, in determining

compliance, for the test methods in paragraphs (A) to (C) of rule 3745-21-10.

Although material balance calculations can be quite accurate for many coating

operations, such calculations are not appropriate for some source categories

covered by this rule. In addition, a requirement for a total temporary enclosure

(TIE) is only required in 3745-21-10 if there is an add-on control device. Such a
requirement is also needed, and should be added to 3745-21-07, to determine

emissions from uncontrolled sources.

Response 2:

Ohio EPA has modified language in paragraph (A)(6)(a) to account for

uncontrolled sources, and paragraph (A)(6)(c) to require approval by USEPA.

Comment 3:

(K)(1) - The owner or operator of any storage tank greater than 65,000 gallons,

that would otherwise be listed in K (1), must have records available (for 5 years

after the effective date of this rule) documenting that no photochemically reactive

material had been stored for the 12 month period prior the effective date of this

rule. Failure to have such documentation would cause any such storage tank to

be subject to the control requirements in K (2). This is not a more stringent

control requirement and, although recordkeeping was not explicitly required in

existing OAC 3745-21-07, such storage tank owners and operators would have

had to make an equivalent (to recordkeeping) effort to establish this rule

applicability. In response to Ohio EPA's concern that retroactive records are

unreasonable, then the above language could be changed to "the 12 month

period after the effective date of the rule."

Response 3:

Ohio EPA would like to discontinue the use of the term "photochemically reactive

materia/': or "PRM", since determinations as to whether a material is a PRM are

difficult and confusing. The suggested documentation would not only maintain

the use of this term, but it is an unnecessary requirement because Table (K)(1)

includes all the tanks in the State that are subject to the provisions of paragraph

(K)(2).

Additionally, the suggested recordkeeping would be burdensome to sources that

are not subject to this paragraph, and the recordkeeping itself could be

considered to be more stringent than the current rule.

Ohio EPA would like to point out that the Statewide permit system requires

facilities to submit and maintain permit applications that contain records of the

materials that are employed or stored at the facility. The facility is required to

keep these records for a period of between three and five years, depending upon

the type ofpermit obtained.

Comment 4:

K (3) - The owner or operator of any storage tank greater than 500 gallons, that

would otherwise be listed in K (3), must have records available (for 5 years after

2
the effective date of this rule) documenting that no photochemically reactive

material has been stored for the 12 month period prior to the effective date of this

rule. Failure to have such documentation would cause any such storage tank to

be subject to the control requirements in K (4). This is not a more stringent

control requirement and, although recordkeeping was not explicitly required in

existing OAC 3745-21-07, such storage tank owners and operators would have

had to make an equivalent (to recordkeeping) effort to establish this rule

applicability. In response to Ohio EPA's concern that retroactive records are

unreasonable, then the above language could be changed to "the 12 month

period after the effective date of the rule."

Response 4:

See Response 3.

Comment 5:

(M)(1) - Except as provided in (M)(3)(d)(ii,iii,iv,v,x), (M)(3)(e,f,g), (M)(4) or (M)(5),

the owner or operator of any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance

that would otherwise be listed in (M)(1) must have records available (for 5 years

after the effective date of this rule) documenting that no such article, machine,

equipment or other contrivance emitted over forty pounds of organic material into

the atmosphere in anyone day, nor more than eight pounds in anyone hour for

the 12 months prior to the effective date of this rule but that if such emissions did

occur, only nonphotochemically reactive materials were employed or applied.

Failure to have such documentation would cause any such article, machine,

equipment or other contrivance to be subject to the control requirements in M)(2).

This is not a more stringent control requirement and, although recordkeeping was

not explicitly required in existing OAC 3745-21-07, owners and operators of such

operations using liquid organic materials would have had to make an equivalent

(to recordkeeping) effort to establish this rule applicability. In response to Ohio

EPA's concern that retroactive records are unreasonable, then the above

language could be changed to " the 12 month period after the effective date of

the rule."

Response 5:

See Response 3.

Comment 6:

USA LLC Emission unit P067 has a thermal oxidizer - documentation is required

that it was not subject to 3745-21-07(G) in order to delete it from Table (M)(1).

3
Response 6:

Emissions unit P067 at USA LLG is subject to 40 GFR 63, Subpart JJJ, which is

more stringent that the proposed rule. Inclusion of this emissions unit in Table

(M)(1) is not necessary.

Comment 7:

Documentation for the Dolco Packaging BAT determination is required (as it is

not available online) to support that it is exempt from (M)(1) because of

(M)(3)(c)(ii).

Response 7:

Ohio EPA has attached copies of the PTls for these emissions units to show that

OAG rule 3745-21-07 does not require the use of a control device for VOG

emissions.

Comment 8:

An adequate explanation has not been provided for deleting Florida Production

Engineering's emission unit K003 (other than for the two color booths), from

Table M1. The relaxed limits contained in (M)(3)(d)(x) require an explanation

and documentation of why they would not be subject to existing 3745-21-07(G).

In addition, there is no explanation for deleting the remaining portions of K003

(other than the color booths and those portions of K003 that are included in

(M)(3)(d)(x)) from Table M1 and there is also no explanation of where the overall

64% reduction requirement discussed in Response 93 is contained.

Response 8:

Emissions unit K003 consists of 2 color booths, 3 deco booths, oven, parts mask

washers, and drying oven. PTI 08-04088, issued 3/9/2006, specifies that the

color booths be equipped with a permanent total enclosure with 100% capture

efficiency and be vented to a thermal oxidizer operating at a destruction

efficiency of at least 95%. This PTI specifies that the three deco booths comply

with OAG rule 3745-21-07(G)(2) by the usage of non-photochemically reactive

materials and that Deco Booth 1 and the mask washers shall have a capture

efficiency of at least 80% and shall be vented to that same thermal oxidizer. The

mask washers use an aqueous wash material. For the two color booths, the PTI

limits exceed the 85% overall control efficiency requirement of paragraph (M)(2),

and as such the two color booths do not need to be included in Table M1.

Because the add-on control for Deco Booth 1 and the mask washer does not

meet the 85% overall control efficiency requirement of paragraph (M)(2), the PTI

limits for these operations have to be specified as site-specific limits under

paragraph (M)(3)(d). The PTI for this facility can be found at

4
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/pti issued/pti pdf 06/0B040BBm1.pdf. DAPG

understands that the limits and control requirements for the deco booths and

washers in this PTI may be modified. The PTI modification may have to be

processed as a SIP revision, depending upon the subsequent requirements.

Comment 9:

Documentation is required demonstrating that the Honda Marysville Motorcycle

Plant Emission units K401, K403, and K404 have not been subject to 3745-21-

07(G). Also, these ovens should also be subject to 3745-21-07 (M)(4).

Response 9:

Ohio EPA has attached copies of the PTls for these emissions units to show that

OAG rule 3745-21-07 does not require the use of a control device for VOG

emissions.

The ovens for emissions units K401, K403 and K404 are not considered to be

subject to OAG rule 3745-21-07(G)(1) because the coatings are not "heat cured"

within the ovens. The coatings sprayed on the plastic parts already have a

catalyst in place to "cure" the coating chemically. The oven is only used to dry

the coating quickly and does not cause any cure volatiles to be released.

Therefore, paragraph (M)(4) would not apply to the current coatings.

Comment 10:

No basis has been provided for deleting Hollinee Glass Fibers from Table M1.

Response 10:

The control equipment serving emissions unit P001 at Hol/inee Glass Fibers was

installed to control particulate emissions, not organic compound emissions.

Emissions unit P001 at Hol/inee Glass Fibers is still subject to paragraph (M)(4)

of the new rule.

Comment 11:

(M)(3)(g) - This paragraph should also apply to bulk molding compound

manufacturing operations. EPA disagrees with Ohio EPA's position that "mixing"

is not considered "employing" as it relates to employing any photochemically

reactive material (PRM) or substance containing such PRM based upon the Ohio

Supreme Court Case of Ashland Chem. Co. v. Jones, 92 Ohio St.3d 234, 2001-

Ohio-184 (Ashland). EPA disagrees because Ashland "uses its facility to store,

transfer, and ship various chemical products to its customers. The stored

chemicals are transferred from stationary tanks or tank cars into smaller, portable

containers in accordance with customer specifications. To accomplish this task,

5
three container-filling lines pump various types of chemicals, including liquid

organic materials such as PRMs, into the smaller containers. No coating

operations, chemical manufacturing, or chemical reaction takes place at this

facility." Essentially, Ashland is pumping liquids around, which is substantially

different than mixing/manufacturing bulk molding compound. As indicated in

Ashland, especially the first full paragraph on page 4, a facility need only

evaporate materials to "employ." In the bulk molding compound mixing operation

materials are evaporating from the mixing tank and are therefore employed.

(M)(3)(h) - A basis has not been provided for the relaxed limits for Venture

Holdings Corporation - Conneaut Facility.

Response 11:

Ohio EPA continues to maintain that the Ohio Supreme Court decision in

Ashland Chemical Co. v. Jones does not embrace the broad definition of

"employing" endorsed by US EPA. Rather, it's Ohio EPA position that the Court

limited application of the term "employing" to operations that put a chemical into

action or service. The mixing that occurs at bulk molding compound mixing

operations does not cause a chemical reaction or result in the formation of a new

product, and therefore fails to satisfy the criteria established in Ashland Chemical

v. Jones. Furthermore, the fact that incidental evaporation occurs during the bulk

molding process does not subject these operations to paragraphs (M)(2) or

M(3)(g) of the proposed rule.

Comment 12:

(M)(4) - As stated earlier, this paragraph should apply to new sources installed

after the effective date of this rule.

Response 12:

See Response 1.

Comment 13:

(M)(5)(b) - This exemption is ambiguous and apparently incorrectly worded

because the exempted sections refer to control of articles, machines, equipment

or other contrivances and not "to the emission from any materiaL" Also, this

language would require testing to determine whether or not the emissions are

VOCs. If the intent is not to exempt (G)(1) type sources, then (M)(4) should not

be included in this exemption. This exemption is only appropriate if Method 18

testing is required to confirm that there are no VOC emissions.

6
Response 13:

This exemption is based upon the exemption specified in paragraph (G)(9)(f) of

the former OAG rule 3745-21-07. The suggested change would aI/ow the

exemption of the VOG portion of emissions if both VOG and non-VOG emitting

materials were present. It is Ohio EPA's intent to continue to regulate the VOG

portion of the emissions, even when VOG and non-VOG emitting materials are

both present. No changes are needed.

Gomment 14:

(M)(5)(f) - This exemption should apply to sources and not emissions.

Response 14:

This exemption was designed to apply to liquid organic material emissions that

are regulated by other rules. For example, if a coating line was coating a part

that contained both metal and plastic and this exemption applied to a source

(e.g., a coating line), the liquid organic material emissions that could be attributed

to coating the metal portion of the part would be regulated by OAG rule 3745-21-

09(U), but the liquid organic material emissions that could be attributed to the

plastic portion of the part would not be regulated by this rule. The current

exemption language allows for the regulation ofliquid organic material emissions

that are attributed to the coating of the plastic portion of the part. In this case, if

the language were changed to regulate the source, there would be the potential

for large amounts of liquid organic material emissions to go unregulated. No

changes are needed.

Gomment 15a:

(M)(5)(h) - This exemption to the sheet molding control requirements in (M)(3)(g)

is not approvable because the use of add-on control equipment can be costeffective at other than low (e.g. 2000 hours/year) operating hours. The rationale

for this exemption appears to be based on comments received from the SMC

manufacturing industry that EPA concluded add-on controls for SMC machines

were not cost-effective. However, the cost analysis performed by EPA in

development of the Reinforced Plastics Composites NESHAP cannot not be

used to make any definite statements on the cost-effectiveness of add-on

controls for the SMC machines in Ohio due to significant differences between the

current Ohio rule requirements and the requirements evaluated in the NESHAP,

and the fact that EPA used national average numbers for hours of operation that

may not be applicable for many such Ohio sources. The commenters also stated

that EPA did not consider the one SMC machine that has add-on controls (Core

Materials) to be a similar source. That statement is not correct. EPA did

consider it to be a similar source, but it was not the best-controlled similar source

because there were other sources (that happen to be located in Ohio) that had

7
higher levels of control than Core Materials. We did consider Core Materials to

be representative of the industry. Furthermore, EPA was requested to and would

not certify that the MACT standards for SMC meet reasonably available control

technology. In addition, this exemption violates the provisions of the General

Savings Clause in Section 193 of the Clean Air Act, because it relaxes the

control requirements of existing 3745-21-07.

Response 15a:

USEPA's MACT rule documentation indicates that it is not reasonable or costeffective to control organic HAP emissions from this type of machine unless it is a

part of a very large new source (i.e., new facility), capable of emitting more that

100 tons of organic HAP-per year. Ohio EPA is in the process of developing a

RACT rule to address the regulation of SMC machines and other sources within

the composites manufacturing sector.

Comment 15b:

(N) and (0) - Because existing 3745-07(J) does not rely on the definition of

photochemically reactive material, it is recommended that existing (J) remain for

waste gas disposal.

Response 15b:

This comment appears to be an inadvertent repeating of a comment for a former

version of the proposed rule. Paragraph (J) has remained for waste gas

disposal.

The following comment was submitted by Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

East Liberty Plant, on 9·28-07

Comment 16:

Honda has been working with Ohio EPA COO, ... and SWDO, ... to revise

Honda's Marysville Motorcycle Plant (MMP) and East Liberty Plant (ELP) permit

requirements for the sources that are subject to this rule. MMP has just recently

received a final PTI that eliminates the requirement to use our control device and

would therefore remove MMP from listing in the Table (M)(1) and remove the

need for any sort of exemption in (M)(3)(d). ELP is currently in negotiations with

Ohio EPA to remove the control device requirements for K015 and expects to

have a permit change by the end of this year, which would again eliminate the

need to have this source listed with an exemption. If I understand correctly

removing the control devices from these sources would make them no longer

subject to (M)(3)(a) and would no longer then remain a concern for Honda.

8
Response 16:

Ohio EPA has removed Honda's MMP and ELP from the rule because the latest

permits to install for these facilities do not contain control requirements for

organic compounds. Copies ofthese permits are attached.

The following comment was submitted by Premix, Inc., on 9·28-07

Comment 17:

In the "Response to Comments - Proposed Rule Language Comment Period", on

page 56 of 60, Response 115, we have a question. The comment states:

"Recently, however, USEPA has updated the SMC emissions factor based on

actual emissions testing data." The question is: Where can we find this

updated factor?

Response 17:

The issue of an updated emission factor from USEPA for SMC manufacturing is

being clarified in this response. The USEPA had removed section 4.4 (Polyester

Resin Plastic Products Fabrication) from its AP-42 website on March 18, 1998,

because the emission factors presented in that section for open molding

operations appeared to under-predict styrene emissions. On February 16, 2007,

USEPA returned section 4.4 to its AP-42 website with the original emissions

factors for polymer casting (marble casting), pultrusion, continuous lamination,

filament winding, and closed molding. Although USEPA has not provided revised

emission factors for open molding operations in section 4.4, USEPA has

recommended in section 4.4 that the emission factors in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part

63 subpart WWWW be used. Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 63 subpart WWWW does

not contain an emission factor for SMC manufacturing. However, USEPA had

relied upon a single actual emissions test from an SMC manufacturing operation

when USEPA developed the MACT standards in 40 CFR Part 63 subpart

which included standards for SMC manufacturing. At this time, there is

no officially updated emission factor from USEPA for SMC manufacturing.

The following comment was submitted by RMT, Inc., on 10·1-07

Comment 18:

I had a question on the statement contained in Response to Comments on 3745-

21-07, Response 115. that states "USEPA has updated the SMC emissions

factor based on actual emissions testing data."

Is this statement accurate, if so where has USEPA updated the emission factor?

9
Response 18:

See Response 17.

The following comment was submitted by Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

East Liberty Plant, on 10-1-07

Comment 19:

...all of the changes that are identified for Honda in the Response to Comments

do not appear to have been made in this draft of the rule. In response 24 it says

that MMP would be identified in table (M)(1), but it is not. This is ok with us

because as I stated earlier, we do not believe that MMP should require any listing

in table (M)(1) nor should it require an exemption in (M)(3) due to the recent PTI

change allowing the removal of our control device.

Response 19:

See Response 16.

The following comments were submitted by PIANKO, Inc., on 10-2-07

Comment 20:

Because the rule is written to address only emission units constructed prior to the

date of promulgation of revised OAC rule 3745-21-07, clarification of applicability

is essential, especially with the use of the term "new source" as it appears

throughout the rule. Revisions are indicated in the attached document in an

attempt to more precisely define the sources subject to this rule. (Suggested

changes are addressed on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis below.)

Comment 20a:

A(3) The requirements of this rule shall apply to any source or operation fOr

which installation commenced prior to the effective date ofthis rule specified in

paragraphs (K) to (N) ofthis rule, except for VOC emissions that are regulated by

rule 3745-21-09, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16,

or 3745-21-18 ofthe Administrative Code. Any owner or operator of any subject

source or operation specified in paragraphs (K) to (N) of this rule shall comply

with the facility-specific and general control requirements of this rule as of the

effective date ofthis rule.

Response 20a:

10
Ohio EPA has made the suggested changes.

Comment 20b:

A(5) The requirements of this rule shall not apply to any source. including any

new source as defined in rule 3745-15-01 of the Administrative Code. which is

installed after the effective date ofthis rule.

Response 20b:

Ohio EPA has made the suggested change.

Comment 20c:

A(6) For any subject source or operation specified in paragraphs (K) to (N) of

this rule that is subject to a mass emission rate, control efficiency, overall control

efficiency, or emission reduction, the owner or operator shall determine

compliance by means ofthe following:

Response 20c:

Ohio EPA has made the suggested change.

Comment 20d:

M(2) Each article, machine, equipment or other contrivance identified in

paragraph (M)(l) ofthis rule, or meeting the specifications of paragraph (M)(3)(a)

of this rule, shall be equipped with a control system (i.e., capture and control

equipment) that reduces the organic compound emissions from the article,

machine, equipment or other contrivance by an overall control efficiency of at

least eighty-five per cent, by weight. For a control system that has an mememtor

oxidizer, the control efficiency of the memeFator oxidizer shall be at least ninety

per cent, by weight, based upon the mass emissions of organic compounds as

carbon.

Response 20d:

An oxidizer is an incinerator in the context of this rule. The suggested change is

not necessary, and may cause confusion in existing permits where the term

"incinerator" is used as a required control device. These changes are not being

made.

Comment 20e:

11
M(3)(a)(i) Is an existing source located within a "Priority I" county, as identified

in rule 3745-21-06 ofthe Administrative Code, or a new source, as defined in rule

3745-15-01 ofthe Administrative Code, regardless oflocation,:,.:.

M(3)(a)(ii) Commenced installation prior to the effective date ofthis rule:.:.

M(3)(a)(iii) Uses a liquid organic material or a substance containing a liquid

organic material,:,,:,

M(3)(a)(iv) Is equipped with a control device for organic compound emissionS':'.:.

M(3)(a)(v) The emissions are not subject to control requirements specified in rule

3745-21-09, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, or

3745-21-18 ofthe Administrative Code:.:.

M(3)(a)(vi) Is not specified in paragraph (K)(I), (K)(3), (L)(I), (M)(I) or (N)(I)

ofthis rule:.:.

M(3)(a)(vii) Does not meet any of the conditions specified under paragraph

(M)(3)(c) ofthis rule:.:.

M(3)(a)(viii) Is not specified in (M)(3)(d) ofthis rule:: and

Response 20e:

The suggested changes are not necessary because paragraph (M)(3)(a), which

precedes these requirements, states that "Any article, machine, equipment or

other contrivance" must meet ALL of the requirements that follow. The

suggested changes are not necessary.

Comment 20f:

M(3)(c)(i) The article, machine. equipment or other contrivance was installed

after the effective date ofthis rule:

Response 2Of:

Ohio EPA has added the suggested clarification with a minor modification. The

new paragraph states: liThe article, machine, equipment, or other

contrivance commenced installation after the effective date ofthis rule."

Comment 20g:

M(3)(c)fij(ii) The uncontrolled potential to emit for organic compound emissions

from the article, machine, equipment or other contrivance does not exceed forty

pounds per day where uncontrolled potential to emit for organic compound

emissions means the capability at maximum capacity of an article, machine,

12
equipment or other contrivance to emit organic compounds under its physical and

operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capability of an

article, machine, equipment or other contrivance to emit organic compounds,

including restrictions on the hours of operation or on the type or amount of

material processed, but not including restrictions pertaining to air pollution

control equipment, shall be treated as part ofits physical and operational design if

the limitation or the effect it would have on organic compound emissions is

federally enforceable:.:.

M(3)(c)fHj(iii) The article, machine, equipment or other contrivance is subject to

and complying with a best available technology requirement, pursuant to rule

3745-31-05 of the Administrative Code, that specifies an overall control

efficiency for organic compound or VOC emissions that is greater than eightyfive per cent, by weight:.:.

M(3)(c)fffij(iv) The article, machine, equipment or other contrivance is subject to

and complying with a federal regulation that specifies an overall control

efficiency for organic compound or VOC emissions that is greater than eightyfive per cent,..:.

M(3)(c~v) The article, machine, equipment or other contrivance is subject to

and complying with paragraph (M)(3)(g) or (M)(4) ofthis rule:.:.

M(3)(c)fYj(vi) The article, machine, equipment or other contrivance is a heatset

web offset printing line that is subject to and complying with a best available

technology requirement, pursuant to rule 3745-31-05 ofthe Administrative Code,

that specifies the dryer(s) to be equipped with a control device having either a

control efficiency for organic compound or VOC emissions that is equal to or

greater than ninety per cent, by weight, or an outlet concentration of less than

twenty parts per million, by volume, dry basis for organic compound or VOC

emissions (a heatset web offset printing line is an offset lithographic printing line

in which the substrate is continuously fed from a roll and a heated oven is used to

dry the printing inks~; or

M(3)(c)(-¥B(vii) The article, machine, equipment or other contrivance is regulated

by and complying with Chapter 3745-76 ofthe Administrative Code.

Response 20g:

Ohio EPA has changed the paragraph numbering to account for the new

(M)(3)(c)(i) paragraph. Suggested punctuation changes are not necessary, and

have not been made.

Comment 20h:

M(3)(d)(ii) Emissions unit ROOl at the "Dee Sign Company" (facility ill

1409000675), provided that the organic compound emissions from the emissions

13
unit are controlled by means of a thermal memeFatsr oxidizer that maintains an

overall control efficiency of at least 74.1 per cent, by weight, in accordance with

permit-to-install14-2185.

M(3)(d)(vi) Emissions units K401, K403 and K404 at "Honda Marysville

Motorcycle Plant" (facility ill 0180000130), provided that the organic compound

emissions from each of the emissions units are controlled by means of a thermal

memeratsr oxidizer that limits the emissions to 27.2 tons per rolling 12-month

period, 63.6 tons per rolling 12-month period, and 141.2 tons per rolling 12-

month period, respectively, in accordance with permit-to-install 01-08869.

M(3)(d)(viii) Emissions unit K015 at "Honda East Liberty Plant" (facility ID

0546000117), provided that the VOC emissions from the emissions unit are

controlled by means of a thermal iaemeratsr oxidizer that limits the emissions to

one hundred and eighty-eight tons per rolling twelve-month period (excluding

VOC emissions from the combustion of natural gas), in accordance with permitto-install 05-10278.

Response 20h:

See Response 20d.

Comment 20i:

M(3)(g) Except as provided in paragraphs (A)(5), (M)(3)(h) and (M)(5) of this

rule, this paragraph applies to all existing sources located within a "Priority I"

county, as identified in rule 3745-21-06 of the Administrative Code, and to all

new sources, as defmed in rule 3745-15-01 ofthe Administrative Code, regardless

of location. for which installation commenced prior to the effective date of this

rule. The owner or operator, or any subsequent owner or operator of each sheet

molding compound manufacturing operation shall not discharge from such

operation more than forty pounds of organic materials into the atmosphere in any

one day, nor more than eight pounds in anyone hour, unless said discharge has

been reduced by at least eighty-five per cent, by weight. A sheet molding

compound manufacturing operation is defined as a process which involves the

production of a molding compound, that contains a resin, into sheet form. In this

manufacturing operation, the molding compound is sandwiched between top and

bottom films.

Response 20i:

Ohio EPA has made the suggested change.

Comment 20j:

M(4) Except as provided in paragraphs (A)(5) and (M)(5) of this rule, this

paragraph applies to all existing sources located within a "Priority I" county, as

14
identified in rule 3745-21-06 ofthe Administrative Code, and to all new sources,

as defmed in rule 3745-15-01 of the Administrative Code, regardless oflocation..

for which installation commenced prior to the effective date of this rule. The

owner or operator, or any subsequent owner or operator of each subject article,

machine, equipment or other contrivance in which any liquid organic material or

substance containing liquid organic material comes into contact with flame or is

baked, heat-cured, or heat-polymerized, in the presence of oxygen, and is not

specified in paragraph (M)(1) of this rule, shall not discharge from such source

more than fifteen pounds of organic materials into the atmosphere in anyone day,

nor more than three pounds in anyone hour, unless said discharge has been

reduced by at least eighty-five per cent, by weight. Ifthe reductions are achieved

by iBeiBemtieB oxidation, ninety per cent or more of the carbon in the organic

material being iBeiBerated controlled shall be oxidized to carbon dioxide.

M(5)(e) The provisions of paragraphs (M)(2), (M)(3)(d), (M)(3)(e), (M)(3)(f),

(M)(3)(g), (M)(3)(h) and (M)(4) of this rule shall not apply if all the following

conditions are met:

Response 20:

Clarification language regarding the effective date of the rule has been added.

The addition of Usubject" prior to Uarticle, machine, equipment etc..." would be

redundant, so it has not been added. See Response 20d regarding the

suggested changes from uincineration" and "incinerated".

Comment 21:

The use of the terms "organic material", "organic compound", "liquid organic

material" and "VOC" is confusing. These terms seem to be used

interchangeably, yet appear to have slight differences in definition creating

confusion as to which compounds these regulations apply to. Can the rule be

revised to clarify?

Response 21:

Ohio EPA does not believe that the use of the terms in question is confusing, or

that the revisions are not necessary for clarification. Each term has a slightly

different meaning, which is necessary for proper regulation. The terms are

defined in OAC rule 3745-21-01.

Comment 22:

The term "oxidizer" has been used to replace the term "incinerator". Since

oxidizers used for air pollution control form vac sources are not subject to the

incinerator (i.e., solid or hazardous waste incinerator or solid waste energy

15
recovery facility) requirements, a clear distinction should be made. Use of

oxidizer for air pollution control systems is preferred.

Response 22:

See Response 20d.

Comment 23:

Although the White Paper for this proposed rule change highlights the lack of

definition of the terms "baked, heat-cures or heat polymerized" as one of the

problems with the existing rule, the proposed rule continues to include these

terms with no definition or clarification as to their meaning. Does the Ohio EPA

intend to define this term?

Response 23:

Ohio EPA will continue to provide guidance as to what constitutes "baked, heatcured or heat polymerized, II but does not intend to add a definition to OAe rule

3745-21-01.

The following comments were submitted by Premix, Inc., on 10-2-07

Comment 24:

Premix supports Ohio EPA's proposal to exempt sheet molding compound (SMC)

process lines from OAC Rule 3745-21-07. To qualify for the exemption, such

operations must be in compliance with the federal Maximum Available Control

Technology (MACT) standard for reinforced plastic composites (RPC)

manufacturing (40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart WWWW). Under the current rule,

SMC lines which are not able to meet VOC emission limits of 8 Ibs/hr and 40

Ibs/day are required to either utilize add-on air emission control equipment with

85% efficiency or obtain an exemption from the 85% control requirement under

OAC 3745-21-07 (G)(9)(g).

The federal RPC MACT regulations require existing SMC process lines to comply

with certain work practice standards. These requirements include enclosures

over the resin delivery system to the doctor box and the use of a styreneimpermeable nylon-containing barrier film to enclose the molding compound

material. The federal MACT work practice requirements effectively limit styrene

and VOC emissions from existing SMC lines to the point where the use of add-on

air emission control equipment has been well documented as being economically

16
infeasible. In developing the federal MACT standard, U.S. EPA determined that

the cost-effectiveness of using add-on controls for existing SMC manufacturing

operations would be over $18,000 per ton of emissions controlled or reduced.

The results of recent Method 204 Total Temporary Enclosure (TIE) emission

testing conducted on a number of SMC lines have not changed this conclusion.

Even when VOC emissions from SMC lines are estimated based on the results

of the Method 204 testing, the level of emissions from SMC lines does not justify

the utilization of add-on controls or a requirement that each such line go through

the expensive and time-consuming process of demonstrating economic

infeasibility of such controls on a case-by-case basis.

U.S. EPA has provided erroneous information to Ohio EPA on the SMC units of

Premix in U.S. EPA's comments in 2006 on proposed revisions to OAC Rule

3745-21-07. In Comment 48, US EPA stated: "However, testing has revealed

that the following emissions units at Premix, Inc., North Kingsville, Ohio [P029-

TMC machine, P030-Chair SMC Machine, P031-Premi SMC Machine, P032-Pilot

SMC Machine] exceed the 81bs per hour/40 Ibs per day emission limits in 3745-21-

07 (G) and should be subject to the 85% control requirement. Based on this

testing it is likely that other sheet molding operations exceed the 8/40 limits in

3745-21-07 (G)." See Ohio EPA Response to Comments document (posted on

Ohio EPA website on August 27,2007) at pages 18 and 19.

Premix wants to clarify the record regarding U.S. EPA's above assertion. The

machine tested at Premix was not an SMC machine. Rather, it was a thick

molding compound (TMC) machine. TMC is a unique proprietary process. The

only commonality between TMC and SMC is that both processes produce a

product encapsulated in nylon-containing film. The TMC machine utilizes a

vertical calendar/milling process to produce the product. In contrast, SMC

machines utilize a horizontal process to place the molding compound paste and

chopped fiberglass onto the nylon-containing film. There are significant

differences between TMC and SMC in terms of air flows and the application of

molding compound paste onto the barrier film. These process variations produce

very different VOC emission profiles. Based on stack testing performed in the

RPC industry in 2006, VOC emissions from SMC lines are up to 10 times lower

than VOC emissions from the TMC process, depending on the configuration of

the SMC machines. U.S. EPA's claim that the testing done on the TMC machine

at Premix supports a conclusion that SMC machines in general should be subject

to an 85% control requirement is simply wrong.

On June 11, 2007, Premix filed with Ohio EPA a request under OAC Rule 3745-

21-07 (G)(9)(g) for an exemption from the 85% control requirement and approval

of a Best Available Technology (BAT) demonstration for the TMC process line at

North Kingsville. Our cost-benefit evaluation demonstrated that the annualized

cost of control technology for the TMC machine is approximately $17,000 per ton

of VOC reduced. This is a conservative estimate using Ohio EPA analytical

methods. Such a cost far exceeds any reasonable cost-benefit thresholds for

17
VOC RACT regulations. In addition, our report showed that the installation and

operation of add-on control equipment on the TMC machine would not make

environmental sense. For every ton of VOC reduced, the operation of thermal

oxidation control equipment would result in the emission of over 44 tons of

greenhouse gases and neany 1 ton of other criteria pollutants.

The use of add-on controls on the TMC machine at Premix cannot be justified from

either an economic or an environmental standpoint under Ohio's current VOC

rules. Given this situation, there is no question that add-on controls are not

justified for SMC lines which have VOC emissions which are substantially lower

than VOC emissions from the TMC process. Ohio EPA's proposal to exclude

existing, MACT-compliant SMC lines from OAC Rule 3745-21-07 is well

grounded and should be finalized.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments to Ohio EPA in this

matter.

Response 24:

Ohio EPA appreciates the Company's clarification regarding previously submitted

comments.

The following comments were submitted by OCAPP, Inc., on 10-2-07

Comment 25:

3745-21-07(A)(4) and clarification of void permit limits

With some exceptions, this paragraph nullifies all permit emission limitations,

operational restrictions, and recordkeeping associated with photochemically

reactive materi~ls (PRM) that were based on the previous rule.

The clarifying comment following this paragraph is helpful, but it does not cleany

state that other permit conditions such as annual emission limits, gallons per year

restrictions, etc. (Le., limits not specified by the former 21-07 rule), remain in

effect. The accompanying White Paper does explain that the annual emission

limits such as tons/yr and gallons/yr remain in effect, but the reader doesn't

discover this critical fact until page 16 of the document.

If not clarified up front, OCAPP believes this will be a major point of

misunderstanding with implementing the revised rule. We suggest DAPC

consider rewording the text of the clarifying comment as follows to emphasize

which permit conditions are void, and which remain in effect:

18
[Comment: Only the requirements listed below, if contained in a permit

issued prior to the effective date of this rule, shall be void upon the

effective date of this rule:

(a) any requirement that prohibits the use of photochemically reactive

materials, or volatile photochemically reactive materials;

(b) any requirement that limits organic compound emissions from an

operation to eight pounds per hour and forty pounds per day, except as

specified in paragraphs (M)(3)(d) and (M)(3)(g) of this rule;

(c) any requirement to determine or document materials as being

photochemically reactive;

(d) any recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to requirements

and emission limits referred to in (a), (b) or (c) above.

All other permit conditions, including annual emission or material usage

limitations (tons per year, gallons per day/month/year, VOC per gallon,

etc.) and all recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with

those permit conditions remain in effect.]

Response 25:

Ohio EPA does not believe that clarifying language is necessary for the opening

sentence. The remaining suggested language, with slight modifications, has

been incorporated into the rule.

Comment 26:

3745-21-07(A)(4) and effects on synthetic minor permits

The accompanying White Paper and Response to Comments documents explain

some of the issues related to the revised rule's impact on existing synthetic minor

permits. The chief concern is the elimination of the 8 Ibslhr, 40 Ibs/day limits that

serve as the required short-term limit component of a federally enforceable

synthetic minor permit.

If the short-term limit for a source is now eliminated, is the entire facility's

synthetic minor permit void? The guidance provided speaks to the retention of

annual limits and mentions the need for companies to modify their permits if

necessary. However, the guidance does not answer the question if the current

synthetic minor permit remains federally enforceable.

This is particularly important to the following case study. A small, reinforced

plastics composites business has a synthetic minor permit to avoid NESHAP

Subpart WWWW. The company operates two sources: 1) a gel coat booth

19
limited to 8 Ibslhr, 40 Ibs/day and 7.3 TPY, and 2) a resin pouring operation

limited to 12 Ibs/day and 2.2 TPY. The permit limits the facility to annual

emissions of 9.5 TPY of styrene (a PRM and HAP in this case).

If the 8/40 limits for the gel coat booth are void and this makes facility's synthetic

minor permit unenforceable, the company needs a new synthetic minor permit.

Because the final compliance date under NESHAP Subpart WWWW has passed,

the window of opportunity to obtain a synthetic minor permit under U.S. EPA's

"Once In, Always In" (OIAI) policy is closed. The company would then be subject

to the NESHAP and burdensome Title V permitting simply because the 21-07

revisions eliminated the short-term limits of their permit.

Another related scenario involves a plastic composite business having only one

styrene resin pouring (not an SMC) operation that has limits of 8 Ibs/hr, 40

Ibs/day and 7.3 TPY. In this example, the permit was issued final and not as a

synthetic minor permit. Rather, the SIP-approved 21-07 rule provided for the PTE

limit of 7.3 TPY for styrene and voluntary emission limits were unnecessary.

Similar to the example above, the OIAI policy denies the facility an opportunity to

obtain a synthetic minor permit upon elimination of the 40 Ibs/day SIP short-term

limit.

We suggest that DAPC add applicability examples in the accompanying White

Paper to explain the revised rule's impact on the synthetic minor examples

above.

Response 26:

Ohio EPA, DAPG, agrees that if a synthetic minor PTI or FESOP permit relies on

existing OAG rule 3745-21-07 to maintain non-Title V status, the basis of that

status could be eliminated upon promulgation ofproposed OAG rule 3745-21-07.

In cases where the elimination of the existing rule eliminates the federal

enforceability of a restriction to keep a facility out of Title V, a permit modification

will be required, and new federally enforceable restrictions will have to be

developed and incorporated into the permit on a case-by-case basis.

Comment 27:

Paragraphs (M)(3)(g) and (M)(4) applicability to existing and new sources

Both of these paragraphs specify the requirements apply to "all existing

sources and to all new sources ". Including the terms "existing source"

and "new source" is confusing, especially when the initial applicability paragraph

(A)(5) states the rule requirements do not apply to "any source which is installed

after the effective date of this rule".

20
Does this wording imply the separation of emission sources into three categories

based on their installation date? (Le., "existing" = prior to 2115172, "new" =

between 2115/72 and before date new rule becomes effective, and "after" = date

the new rule becomes effective).

This is problematic because the definition of "new source" in 3745-15-01 refers to

sources installed on or after February 15, 1972. Promulgating the proposed

revision seems to establish a cutoff date where a "new source" is no longer "new"

and instead becomes a source "installed after the effective date of this rule". In

addition, the term "new source" as used in 21-07 does not have the same

definition as the "new source" term used in OAC Chapter 31 - Permits to Install

New Sources. Although this confusing dual meaning of "new source" has existed

for decades, we encourage DAPC to use the 21-07 rule revisions to help resolve

this i.ssue.

Perhaps is would be more clear if the term "new source" was replaced with "any

source installed on or after February 15, 1972 and before the effective date of

this rule....."

Paragraph (M)(3)(g) could be reworded:

(g) Except as provided in paragraphs (A)(5), (M)(3)(h) and (M)(5) of this rule, this

paragraph applies to all existing sources located within a "Priority I" county, as identified

in rule 3745-21-06 of the Administrative Code, and to all sources installed on or after

February 15,1972 and before the effective date ofthis rule regardless oflocation. The

owner or operator, or any subsequent owner or operator ofeach sheet molding compound

manufacturing operation shall not discharge from such operation more than forty pounds

of organic materials into the atmosphere in anyone day, nor more than eight pounds in

anyone hour, unless said discharge has been reduced by at least eighty-five per cent, by

weight. A sheet molding compound manufacturing operation is defmed as a process

which involves the production of a molding compound, that contains a resin, into sheet

form. In this manufacturing operation, the molding compound is sandwiched between top

and bottom films.

The above says the same thing, but is much clearer and does not incorporate the

confusing term "new source" with its dual meanings.

Response 27:

Clarification language has been added to paragraph (M)(3)(g). See Response

20i.

Comment 28:

Although the examples in Appendix A of White Paper are very helpful in

understanding how the rule revisions will impact existing permits, no example

deals with rule applicability for previously unpermitted sources. We suggest that

21
DAPC add applicability examples to explain how the revised rule will or will not

apply in the following situations:

a. A plastic parts coating operation with actual emissions of 60 Ibs/day of

PRM, installed in 1995.

b. A foam fabrication operation with potential emissions of 30 Ibs/day of

PRM, installed in 2001.

c. A plastic parts molding operation where liquid resin is heat cured at 300

degrees F., installed in 1989 in Cuyahoga County.

For each situation above, the operation does not have a permit, does not have a

control device for OC emissions, does not have an applicable requirement under

OAC rule 3745-21-09, -12, -13, -14, -15, -16, or -18, and is not listed within

paragraph (M) of amended OAC rule 3745-21-07.

Response 28:

Ohio EPA, DAPC, is not aware ofany sources that fall into these categories, with

the possible exception of specific SMC manufacturers. Each of these facilities

would be in violation of OAC chapter 3745-31 for installing and operating a

source without first obtaining the necessary permit(s) to install.

If the facility were Title v: in order to be federally enforceable, the permit would

incorporate the current VaG SIP, which may contain language similar to the

existing rule.

Each source would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and this

comment does not give enough information to make specific case-by-case

determinations. The White Paper will not be revised to include these examples.

Comment 29:

Paragraph 3745-21-07(M)(4) and continued compliance with 3/15 limits

OCAPP understands that the rule revisions retain the 3 Ibs/hr and 15 Ibs/day

emission limits for heat-cured materials. Typically, permits for sources with these

emission limits contain some sort of associated recordkeeping requirement.

Example 4A in the White Paper details such a source with 3/15 emission limits,

but states that after the effective date of the amended rule the following

requirements in the permit would be void:

"(b) record keeping and reporting associated with the above emission

limits and operational restriction."

22
This implies the recordkeeping requirements for the 3/15 emission limits are void.

How will this source continue to demonstrate compliance with these emission

limits?

Response 29:

The recordkeeping requirements for the 31bslhr and 15 Ibs/day limits should

remain. In order to clarify this matter, the wording in the White Paper for

Example 4A has been revised.

For synthetic minor PTls and FESOP permits, federal enforceability needs to be

maintained. For cases where the basis of the synthetic minor PTls and FESOP

is compliance with the existing OAC rule 3745-21-07 requirements or limits,

permit modification may be necessary. Synthetic minor PTis and FESOP

permits will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine what

changes, if any, will have to be made in order to maintain the synthetic minor

status

Ohio EPA, DAPC, would like to point out that proposed paragraph (A)(4), which

explains the proposed recordkeeping requirements, refers only to recordkeeping

in relation to photochemically reactive materials, not other organic materials.

Comment 30:

Paragraph 3745-21-07(M)(5)(d)(i)

OCAPP suggests adding "by volume" as follows to clarify the exemption criteria:

(i) The volatile content of the regulated material consists only of water and liquid

organic material, and the liquid organic material comprises not more than twenty

percent by volume of said volatile content; or

Response 30:

Ohio EPA has made the suggested change.

The following comments were submitted by RAPCA on 10-3-07

Comment 31:

3745-21-07 (K)(3), pg. 3 - Kenwood Elementary 0812100143 Withdrawn 7/19/07

building destroyed 3/4/04.

23
Response 31:

Ohio EPA has removed this facility from Table (K)(3).

Comment 32:

3745-21-07 (K)(3), pg. 3 - Onyx Environmental Services 0857751346 should be

VeoUa Environmental Services, LLC

Response 32:

Ohio EPA has made the facility name change.

Comment 33:

3745-21-07 (M)(1), pg. 8 - Onyx Environmental Services 0857751346 should be

Veolia Environmental Services, LLC

Response 33:

Ohio EPA has made the facility name change.

The following comments were submitted by Honda of America

Manufacturing on 10-3-07

Comment 34:

Previously we have expressed concerns regarding the input of permit terms and

conditions into the proposed regulation because the ability of our operations to

make change would be inhibited. We would like to reiterate our concern

regarding the listing of specific terms and conditions in the rule which would

necessitate a rule revision or written approval from USEPA before we would be

able to expand these essential production operations. All of the referenced limits

in the current version of OAC 3745-21-07 already appear as requirements In

Honda's federally enforceable permits.

On page 13 (E. Resolution of Problems) of your White Paper for this rule revision

it is stated:

"In order to resolve the previously identified problems with Rule 3745-21-07,

Ohio EPA is proposing to replace this rule with facility-specific and general

control requirements for sources (emissions units) currently complying with Rule

3745-21-07 by means of control equipment or operational restrictions. This would

ensure continued operation of such control equipment or operational restrictions

24
that effectively reduce the emission of organic compounds, which are all

essentially VOC. These controlled or restricted sources are not subject to VOC

control requirements under Rule 3745-21-09 or Rules 3745-21-12 through -16;

so simply deleting Rule 3745-21-07 would not ensure continued, effective

operation of such controls and restrictions and would cause large increases in

VOC emissions. If Rule 3745-21-07 were eliminated in its entirety, sources that

currently have specific control requirements would no longer be subject to those

requirements. In other words, any controls would be "voluntary" if not specifically

required by Rule 3745-21-07."

Honda's plastic coating operations have never been subject to the control

requirements of the current 3745-21-07 rule because the parts in the ovens are

not "baked, heat-cured or heat-polymerized". Instead, Honda has met the 3745-

21-07 requirements by either using non-photochemically reactive materials or

meeting the 8 Ib/hr and 40 Ib/day emission limits, depending on the source. The

existing control requirements were added to operations for BAT purposes or to

reduce emissions to ensure a synthetic minor permit. The current 3745-21-07

rule did not drive our control requirements before and it should not drive our

control requirements in the future.

To which Ohio EPA would argue the following:

"However, if Rule 3745-21-07 is deleted from the Ohio Administrative Code, the

allowable for these sources could no longer be based on Rule 3745-21-07 rule

requirements. Instead, each allowable would be equal to the source's potential

to emit (PTE). If a source's allowable is equal to its PTE, then the reduction in

control efficiency or the removal of a specific control device or the removal of an

operational restriction would result in an increase in actual emissions, but that

increase would NOT result in a "modification" as defined in Chapter 3745-31

because there would not be an increase in the source's allowable emissions.

Therefore, without a continuation of the Rule 3745-21-07 control requirements,

these sources could increase emissions and would not be subject to regulation.

This result would violate the Clean Air Act. "

To which Honda would argue that the PTE for these sources was NOT

established for compliance with Rule 3745-21-07 but was instead a synthetic

minor allowable (since PSD was not triggered) and as such, is a federally

enforceable limit which WOULD require a permit modification in order to be

changed (for either an emission increase or a removal of control devices), both

now and after the proposed 3745-21-07 rule change. There would be no more

risk of these operations increasing emissions after the rule change than there is

in the current regulatory climate. (Via permit modification).

Therefore, Honda proposes an additional exemption to OAC 3745-21-07

(M)(3)(c):

25
Our proposed language is similar to the Ohio EPA proposed language for

(M)(3)(c)(ii), which states:

"(ii) The article, machine, equipment or other contrivance is subject to and complying

with a best available technology requirement, pursuant to rule 3745-31-05 of the

Administrative Code, that specifies an overall control efficiency for organic compound or

VOC emissions that is greater than eighty-five per cent, by weight."

Honda proposed language for an additional exemption (M)(3)(c)(vii):

"(vii) The article, machine, equipment or other contrivance is subject to and

complying with a federally enforceable permit that specifies the all of the

following:

(a) an annual or rolling 12-month limit for organic compound or VOC

emissions, and;

(b) a control requirement for organic compound or VOC emissions."

Our proposed language would exempt our operations from the requirements of

the proposed rule without generating unnecessary and duplicative requirements

that already exist in our existing federally enforceable synthetic minor and Title V

permits. We believe that adding this exemption would not allow any existing

sources to exceed emission levels without performing the normal permit

modification process.

To complicate matters a bit, Honda has requested to remove incinerators from

two of its plastics coating operations based on an attempt to reduce pollution,

conserve natural resources and ultimately reduce cost. The removal of these

incinerators would be hindered by the current language proposed for 3745-21-07.

As we stated in earlier communications, the permit revisions for these operations

are in progress and already have verbal approval from Ohio EPA. The Marysville

Motorcycle Plant has received a PTI already and is proceeding with modification

of its Title V permit. The East Liberty Plant is currently negotiating PTI Terms

and Conditions with the Southwest District Office.

In addition, our Anna Engine Plant has recently permitted another operation

P097 which would require exemption from the 85% control requirement. The

requirements for this operation are located in PTI 05-14422. Our Marysville Auto

Plant would like to clarify in (M)(3)(d)(vii) that the controls are only required for

organic compound emissions from the application and drying of coatings in the

emission unit.

Response 34:

With regard to synthetic minor PTls and FESOP issues, see Response 29.

26
Ohio EPA has removed both the Marysville Motorcycle Plant and the East Liberty

Plant from the rule, based on language in the most recent PTls for the emissions

units at these facilities.

Ohio EPA has incorporated the recently permitted emissions unit P097 into

paragraph (M){3){d){vii) for the Anna Engine Plant to avoid the potential

application ofthe current rule's 85% control efficiency.

Ohio EPA has added language to clarify that paragraph (M){3){d)(vi) (the

paragraph numbering has been changed from the referenced paragraph

(M){3){d){vii)) only applies to the emissions of organic compounds from the

application and drying of coatings in the emissions unit.

Ohio EPA has not added paragraph (M){3){c){vii) as suggested because the

wording does not address all (M)(3){d) sources; thus, it does not simplify the rule

or make it less complicated.

The following comments were submitted by Kraton Polymers U.S., LLC

("Kraton") on 10·3-07

Comment 35:

Applicability to Kraton's Plant in Belpre, Ohio - The table in OAC 3745-21-

07(M)(1) in the proposed amended rule lists three emissions units at Kraton's

Belpre Plant, Facility 10 068401011, as subject to the control efficiency

requirements in amended 21-07(M)(2). The emissions units should not be

included in the (M)(1) table. Each of the three listed processes has emissions at

the "wet end" of the process and at the "finishing end". "Wet end" emissions for

all three processes are controlled by a flare. Thus, those emissions should be

subject to 21-07(N), and the three units should be listed there for the emissions

controlled by a flare. The "finishing end" of all three processes emit compounds

that are not within the definition of "photochemically reactive materials" in the

current rule, and thus not covered by the current rule. Since the amended rule "is

not meant to cover emissions that were not covered by the current rule, the

"finishing end" emissions do not justify inclusion of the three sources in (M)(1).

Thus, none of the emissions from the three listed sources cause the sources to

be correctly listed in (M)(1).

This latter point is important to proper drafting of this amended rule. The

current rule is applicable only to the emission of photochemically reactive

materials, yet that phrase does not appear in paragraph (M)(2) of the amended

rule. Rather, the broader phrase "organic compounds" appears. Use of this

broader phrase is contrary to the stated intention not to expand the scope of the

rule in the proposed amendment. This should be corrected to avoid unintended

results.

27
Response 35:

Under paragraph (M)(2), a flare can be a control device. The "wet end" of the

process described uses PRMs, and is subject to the current OAG rule 3745-21-

07(G)(2) requirements. Since these requirements have been incorporated into

the new rule as paragraph (M)(2), the inclusion of the emissions unit in

paragraph (M)(1) is correct.

Ohio EPA intends to discontinue the use of the term "photochemically reactive

materials," and thus has not incorporated the term into the rule.

Kraton's emissions units are currently subject to OAG rule 3745-21-07(G)(2) and

are included in proposed paragraph (M)(1) consistent with the inclusion of all

other (G)(2) sources that have control requirements. The ''finish end" emissions

remain unregulated by this rule.

Comment 36:

OAC 3745-21-07(M)(2) Should be Clarified on Several Important Technical

Issues. - OAC 3745-21-07(M)(2) has several drafting problems. The paragraph

employs the phrase "article, machine, equipment or other contrivance".

However, the table in (M)(1) is labeled "emissions units", which is a broader

phrase. Use of the phrase "emissions units" should be avoided so as not to

broaden the scope of the amended rule beyond the current rule.

Response 36:

Ohio EPA may define an "emissions unit" in permits to include more than a single

"article, machine, equipment or other contrivance," and the combination of

articles, machines, equipment or other contrivances is what is being regulated.

Since the emissions from the permit-defined emissions unit are what is being

regulated, the current language is necessary to define the articles, machines,

equipment or other contrivances that are subject to the rule.

Comment 37:

OAC 3745-21-07(M)(2) imposes two requirements. For a source with a "control

system" that is not an incinerator, the system must consist of "capture and control

equipmenf' "that reduces the organic compound emissions . . . by an overall

control efficiency of at least eighty-five per cent, by weight." This requirement,

however, does not specify the circumstances in which that control efficiency

applies. Is it a design requirement, or a performance requirement? Does it apply

under all operating conditions, or only at steady-state, near capacity conditions

during which emissions testing is usually performed? This is a critical issue, for

sources with controls designed to achieve a specified control efficiency under

28
normal operating conditions may not achieve that efficiency during periods of

start-up, shut-down, low inlet loading, or malfunction. Kraton recommends that

this requirement be expressed as good operation and maintenance of control

equipment properly designed to achieve eighty-five per cent emissions reduction

during normal, steady-state operating conditions.

Response 37:

Ohio EPA has retained the wording from the existing rule, which refers to a

performance requirement for the control equipment. The efficiency requirement

is in effect at all times, but since emissions compliance demonstration testing is

only completed when an emissions unit is at steady-state operations, startup,

shutdown, and malfunction events are, in effect, exempt from the efficiency

requirement. Paragraph (M)(5)(e) may be applicable for equipment that is not

able to meet the 85% efficiency requirement. The requested change is not

necessary.

Comment 37a:

The reference to capture, in addition to control, is also problematic. What

percentage of capture is required? Must 100% of emissions be captured and

vented to a control device that has (or is designed to achieve) 85% control

efficiency? Is the rule intended to require capture of fugitive emission? Such a

capture requirement would be nearly impossible to achieve. Alternatively, does

the rule mean that less than 100% of emissions may be captured, so long as

emissions that are not captured when added to emissions from the control device

together represent no more than 15% of potential emissions generated by the

source? If that is the meaning, how is compliance with such a requirement

demonstrated? These are very important issues that the rule should clearly

address.

Response 37a:

Ohio EPA has retained language from the current rule, and its current meaning

that this is an overall control efficiency requirement. The 85% control efficiency

requirement means that the combination of capture and control must reduce total

emissions by a minimum of 85%. Compliance with this requirement is based on

a compliance demonstration in accordance with paragraph (A)(6) of this rule. No

further clarification in the rule is necessary.

Comment 37b:

...the phrase "capture and control equipment" may suggest that a process that

recovers material and reintroduces it into the process may not include that

recovery as part of its emission reduction. Under current 21-07(G)(2), there is no

mention of "capture and control equipment", but rather only the requirement that

29
the source "reduce" emissions. The broad term "reduce" includes recapture.

The amended 21-07(M)(2) should allow the source to apply such recapture to its

emission reduction obligation.

Response 37b:

As stated in Response 37a, Ohio EPA is regulating the overall control efficiency.

Rule language does not preclude the overall capture and control efficiency

determination from accounting for the recapture of material. Ohio EPA will

evaluate the use of recaptured materials being used in the determination of the

overall control efficiency on a case-by-case basis, but is not aware of any

existing emissions units that are affected by the recapture scenario that has been

posed.

Comment 38:

The last sentence of 21-07(M)(2) applies to incinerators. Here, the phrase "

capture and control equipment that reduces" in the previous sentence is not

used, but rather the phrase "control efficiency" is used. Is that difference in

language intended to impose a different reqUirement? Does "control efficiency"

mean design efficiency, or actual performance efficiency? Under what conditions

must that efficiency be achieved? How are fugitive emissions included in the

calculation of "control efficiency", if at all? Are start-up, shut-down, low inlet

loading, and malfunction conditions included? What about recapture and

reintroduction of material into the process?

Kraton recommends that both sentences of the rule clearly exclude conditions

when a control device cannot be expected to operate at peak efficiency, such as

start-up, etc. Also, both sentences should be expressed as a control device

design efficiency and proper operation and maintenance requirement, rather than

creating a potential for misinterpretation and inference of a requirement to

achieve a specified efficiency at all times and under all conditions. Only then will

the rule be clearly understandable and will compliance be achievable and

demonstrable, consistent with what was intended and expected when the rule

was first adopted over 35 years ago.

Response 38:

This part of the rule refers to control (destruction) efficiency. This is a

performance-based requirement, and must be demonstrated in accordance with

paragraph (A)(6) of this rule. Fugitive emissions are not included in the efficiency

calculations. Although compliance demonstration testing is completed when an

emissions unit is operating at a steady state, Ohio EPA does consider

operational conditions that test the control equipment under worst case, steady

state operations, which normally is while the emissions unit is operating at or

near maximum capacity. This said, low inlet loadings may be considered in

30
some situations when determining emissions unit operating conditions for

compliance demonstration testing.

Comment 39:

Sources Controlled by a Flare - As noted above, the emission of photochemically

reactive materials from the "wet end" of the three Kraton sources listed in 21-

07(M)(1) as subject to (M)(2) are controlled by a flare. A flare appears to fall

within the definition of "incinerator" at OAC 3745-21-01 (A)(3), but surely the 90%

control efficiency requirement in (M)(2) is not meant to apply to sources

controlled by flares. Rather, new paragraph 21-07(N), imposing the work

practice of employing a smokeless flare, is meant to be the only paragraph

applicable to flares. Thus, sources controlled by flares should be expressly

excluded from (M)(2).

Response 39:

See Response 35.

Comment 40:

The Exemption in OAC 3745-21-07(M)(5)(c) is so Narrow as to be Virtually

Meaningless - Very few organic compounds have a boiling point higher than 200

degrees F under the conditions described in (M)(5)(c), which is nearly a perfect

vacuum. This paragraph either contains a typographical error, or is virtually

meaningless as exempting few if any compounds.

Response 40:

Ohio EPA has retained this exemption from the existing rule. By removing this

exemption from the new rule, the new rule would become more stringent than the

existing rule. It is not Ohio EPA's intent to make the new rule more stringent than

the existing rule.

Comment 41:

Exemption of Emissions subject to MACT Standards - OAC 3745-21-07(M)(5)(f)

provides that emissions that are subject to other emission standards in OAC

Chapter 3745-21 are exempted from 21-07. Making clear that a source is

required to meet only one emission standard is a desirable provision that clarifies

and simplifies the source operator's compliance obligation. That exemption

should be expanded to include emissions that are subject to a MACT standard.

Compliance with technology-based MACT standards constitutes adequate

control, and making a source that is subject to MACT standards also subject to

21-07 is unnecessary duplication.

31
Response 41:

MACT standards only regulate the HAP portion of the total VOC emissions. Ohio

EPA's intent is to regulate all VOC emissions, which may include both HAP and

non-HAP VOCs. The exemption for SMC manufacturers that has been

incorporated into the rule is valid because all VOC emissions from SMC

operations are HAPs.

With regard to a source being subject to multiple VOC regulations at the same

time, see Comment 14 and Response 14.

The following comments were submitted by PPG Industries, Inc. on 10-3-07

Comment 42:

Applicability to PPG's Circleville Plant - OAC 3745-21-07(M)(1) in the proposed

amended rule lists PPG's Circleville Plant, Facility 10 0165000007, as subject to

the control efficiency requirements in amended 21-07(M)(2). PPG has

consistently contended that the Circleville Plant is exempt from the current rule,

and thus should not be made subject to the amended rule. The current rule

provides, at OAC 3745-21-07(A)(2)(c), that sources located at a facility in

Pickaway County that has the potential to emit not more than 100 tons per year

of organic compounds are exempt from the rule. The Circleville Plant is such a

facility. PPG has raised this issue in a pending appeal to ERAC of a PTI issued

for sources P019 and P020 at the Circleville Plant on June 19, 2001. Those

sources are expressly listed in the amended 21-07(M)(1) as subject to the new

rule. Because the amended rule is intended only to apply to existing sources that

were subject to the prior rule (see White Paper at 13), the Circleville Plant should

be deleted from 21-07(M)(1).

Response 42:

Ohio EPA has added no new control requirements with this rule, only maintained

requirements of the existing rule. If the results of the ERAC appeal dictate the

removal of these emissions units from paragraph (M)(1), Ohio EPA will remove

them.

Comment 43:

OAC 3745-21-07(M)(2) imposes two requirements. For a source with a "control

system" that is not an incinerator, the system must consist of "capture and control

equipmenF "that reduces the organic compound emissions . . . by an overall

32
control efficiency of at least eighty-five per cent, by weight." This requirement,

however, does not specify the circumstances in which that control efficiency

applies. Is it a design requirement, or a performance requirement? Does it apply

under all operating conditions, or only at steady-state, near capacity conditions

during which emissions testing is usually performed? This is a critical issue, for

sources with controls designed to achieve a specified control efficiency under

normal operating conditions may not achieve that efficiency during periods of

start-up, shut-down, low inlet loading, or malfunction. PPG recommends that this

requirement be expressed as good operation and maintenance of control

equipment properly designed to achieve eighty-five per cent emissions reduction

during normal, steady-state operating conditions.

Response 43:

See Response 38.

Comment 43a:

The reference to capture, in addition to control, is also problematic. What

percentage of capture is required? Must 100% of emissions be captured and

vented to a control device that has (or is designed to achieve) 85% control

efficiency? Such a capture requirement would be nearly impossible to achieve.

Alternatively, does the rule mean that less than 100% of emissions may be

captured, so long as emissions that are not captured when added to emissions

from the control device together represent no more than 15% of potential

emissions generated by the source? If that is the meaning, how is compliance

with such a requirement demonstrated? These are very important issues that the

rule should clearly address.

Response 43a:

See Response 37a.

Comment 43b:

The last sentence of 21-07(M)(2) applies to incinerators. Here, the phrase "that

reduces" in the previous sentence is not used, but rather the phrase "control

efficiency" is used. Is that difference in language intended to impose a different

requirement? Does "control efficiency" mean design efficiency, or actual

performance efficiency? Under what conditions must that efficiency be

achieved? Are start-up, shut-down, low inlet loading, and malfunction conditions

included?

PPG recommends that both sentences of the rule clearly exclude conditions

when a control device cannot be expected to operate at peak efficiency, such as

start-up, etc. Also, both sentences should be expressed as a design efficiency

33
and proper operation and maintenance requirement, rather than creating a

potential for misinterpretation and inference of a requirement to achieve a

specified efficiency at all times and under all conditions. Only then will the rule

be clearly understandable and will compliance be achievable and demonstrable,

consistent with what was intended and expected when the rule was first adopted

over 35 years ago.

Response 43b:

See Response 38.

Comment 44:

Sources controlled by a flare - PPG's Barberton Plant is listed in 21-07(M)(1) as

subject to (M)(2). One source at that facility, POBO, is controlled by a flare. A

flare appears to fall within the definition of "incinerator" at OAC 3745-21-01 (A)(3),

but surely the 90% control efficiency requirement in (M)(2) is not meant to apply

to sources controlled by flares. Rather, new paragraph 21-07(N), imposing the

work practice of employing a smokeless flare, is meant to be the only paragraph

applicable to flares. Thus, sources controlled by flares should be expressly

excluded from (M)(2).

Response 44:

See Response 35.

Comment 45:

Exemption of Emissions Subject to MACT Standards - OAC 3745-21-07(M)(5)(f)

provides that emissions that are subject to other emission standards in OAC

Chapter 3745-21 are exempted from 21-07. Making clear that a source is

required to meet only one emission standard is a desirable provision that clarifies

and simplifies the source operator's compliance obligation. That exemption

should be expanded to include emissions that are subject to MACT standards.

Compliance with technology-based MACT standards constitutes adequate

control, and making a source that is subject to MACT standards also subject to

21-07 is unnecessary duplication.

Response 45:

See Response 41.

34
The following comments were submitted by Mr. David Lipiro at the public

Hearing on 10·3-07

Comment 46:

ACMA's position is that this rule, as currently proposed, is a good rule. They're

strongly in favor of it. It properly acknowledges years of data that was collected

by U.S. EPA on the composites industry and we are strongly in favor of the rule

as proposed.

Response 46:

Ohio EPA appreciates this comment by Mr. David Lipiro.

The following comments were submitted by Mr. Perry Bennett at the public

Hearing on 10·3-07

Comment 47:

...1 am also in favor of the rule as proposed. I think it does a good job -- again,

as David (Lipiro) said, I think I agree with what he said that it definitely addresses

the work that the EPA's put in ten years ago, being the max standards of the

composites industry, addresses sheet molding compound equipment, as does

the - as it should be. So I guess the bottom line is I'm in favor of the rule as

proposed.

Response 47:

Ohio EPA appreciates this comment by Mr. Perry Bennett.

The following comments were submitted by Ayer Quality on 10-4-07

Comment 48:

In the draft of 21-07(M), if you have 'equipment leaks' (Le., valves, pumps,

connectors) from components in liquid organic material service, but not subject to

21-09, can 21-07(M) apply? I don't think that's the intent.

But it was not clear to me in a first-pass read through the draft rule one

35
way or the other as to whether a permittee would consider component leaks.

Response 48:

OAC rule 3745-21-07 does not apply to equipment leaks.

Comment 49:

I also don't know a clear means by which one would determine an 85%

reduction..

Response 49:

OAC rule 3745-21-07 does not apply to equipment leaks; therefore, an 85%

reduction does not need to be demonstrated. In general, the 85% reduction

requirement must be demonstrated as noted in paragraph (A)(6) ofthe rule.

The following comments were submitted by Ohio EPA's Northwest District

Office on 10·29-07

Comment 50:

The Budd Company Plastics in Carey and North Baltimore are now called

Continental Structural Plastics in the M-1 table.

Response 50:

Ohio EPA has made the facility name changes.

36