# Article V 

# HearingTranscripts

### 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) 345-85564 

### 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 3rd

, 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) 345-85565 

### 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) 345-85566 

### 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) 345-85561 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) 345-85568

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) 345-8556In thematterof: DAPC Stationary Sources VOCRules Hearing, taken on October3, 2007 Page 1

A C 6:8 H 6:3 8:7 able4:22 called4:16 decision4:2 hand 8:11 new 3:13 products 5: 13 about5:16 caption 8:8 definitely 6:9 Health 6:4 next6:1 Projects 2:6 above-captioned Center2:7,12,12 Director4:1 6:5 hearing 1:2,72:2 Notary 1:13 8:4 properly5:20 1: 12 3:5 Division2:63:12 3:7,9,94:12,14 8:15 proposed 3: 11,24 accurate4:25 CERTIFICATE 3:20 4:237:15,19 5: 19,23 6:7,14 acknowledges 8:1 dot4:7,7,7,7 hearings4: 19,20 0 proposing 3:13

5:20 certify 8:5 duly 8:5 Heidi2: 11 3:5 obtain 3:10 Protection 1:1,15 ACMA5:11 circumstances during4:23 hereto 8:9 obtained 3: 19 2:5,11 ACMA's 5:18 4:11 hereunto 8: 10 October 1:17 3:1 provide4:21 action 8:9 citizens4:20 E Hills 6:18,19 4:57:198:6,11 public 1:2,13 addresses 6:9,11 clarifying4:24 emissions 3:14 8:20 2:12 3:5,6,18 adjourned7:16 close4:57: 13 employed 8:8 I off6:24 7:2 4:198:4

8:8 Code3:13 ensure4:25 included4:3 office3:19 8:11 PUBLIC-STA.•. Administrative collected5:21 entitled 3:22 industry 5:22 official 3:25 4:3 8:15

3:13 Columbus 1:16 Environmental 6:11 4:12,21 purpose3:9 affu:ed 8: 11 2:8,13 3:18 1:1,15 2:5,5,11 Interest2: 12 3:5 Ohio 1:1,14,14 put6:9 afford4:20 8:11 6:5 interested3:10 1:162:5,8,11 P.E2:5 aforesaid 8:5 come7:1 EPA3:6,94:1,4,7 3:228:9 2:13 3:6,9,11 p.m 1:17 3:2 6:25 after4:10 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 equipment6: 11 job 6:7 Okay6:15,18 qualified 8:5 Agency 1:1,15 commissioned Exemption2:6 Johnston 6: 16,17 opportunity4:21 questions4:22,24

2:5,11 3:17 8:5 Expires 8:20 Joint 3:16 7:1 ago 6:10 Committee3: 17 E-mail2:9 JURIS 2:5 oral3:23,25 4:9 R agree 6:8 companies5: 12 e-mailed4:6 just5:4 4:13 6:17 receive4:8 Air2:6 3:12,20 5:14 order4:16 received3:254:4 already4:14 Company6:5 F L organic 3: 14 Recess 7:5 American 5: 10 complete4:25 F2:5 language3: 13 over3:6 record 3:25 4:3,8 and/or3:23 composite5:13 favor 5:20,22 6:6 late6:25 o'clock7:8 4:12,21,255:18

answer4:22 composites 5: 11 6:13 Lazarus 2:7,12 O-H4:7 6:247:3,8 anyone6:20,25 5:226:10 fiberglass 5: 13 like6:2 reduced 8:6

7:9 compound5:15 6:5 line6:13 P regarding 3:11 APPEARANC

... 5:166:11 filed 3:164:6 Lipiro 5:3,4,5,8,8 panel4:23 registered4: 17

2:3 computer8:6 final 4:2 L-I-P 5:8 part3:254: 12 6:1,16 Association 5:11 concerning3:24 financially 8:9 party 8:9 registration4: 15 attend 3:8,22 concluded7:19 first 5:2 M people5:14 related 8:8 attending7: 14 consideration4:9 foregoing 8:7 machines 5: 15,17 permit4:11 remind7:12 attorney 8:9 considered4: 1 FRANKLIN8:3 made4:2 Perry6:1,3,3 Reporter 1: 13 available3: 18 4:11 from3:10,15 make5:12 person 3:104:24 5:7 consultant5:10 Front2:7 Manufacturing 5:26:1,16 representatives B contacting3: 19 further 6:237:11 5:11 persons 3:224:15 4:19 back7:8 control2:6 3:12 materials 3:15 Peter5:9 represented3:23 before 1:1,12 3:9 3:14,20 G Matt6:16,17 place8:8 represents 5: 12

4:1 Copies 3:17 give 6:25 matter 1:5,12 2:1 please4: 15 requests 6:23 being 6:10 correct8:7 given4:9 max 6:10 Pollard 1:13 8:4 7:11 Bennett6: 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.juris@epa.•.• cross-examinat

... Government2:7 members4:23 3:12,20 review 3: 17,18

2:9 4:18 2:12 Mold 6:5 portions5: 15 re-enforced 5: 13 bottom6:13 currently5: 19 Griesmer2: 11 molding 5:14,16 position5: 18 right7:7 briefly5:5 3:4,55:6,25 6:11 possible 5: 1 Room 1:16 Brown 3:194:7 D 6:15,18,20,23 must4:4 present3:234:13 rule3: 14,16,17 business4:57: 13 DAPC 1:62:1 7:7,11 presiding 3:6 3:17,245:16,19 B-E-N-N-E-T-T data5:21 group 5:12 N proceeding 8:5,7 5:19,236:6,14

6:4 David5:3,4,5,8 guess 6:13 name3:45:5,7 proceedings 1:10 rules 1:7 2:2 3:11

Fraley, Cooper&Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556Inthe matterof: DAPC Stationary Sources VOC Rules Hearing, takenon October3, 2007

running 6:25 third 6:16 8:6 three7:7 3rd4:58:11 S through7:13 3:006:25 Safety 6:4 time3:84:11,15 3:017:15,18 same4:9 6:21,247:2,9 3745-21-073:14 seal 8:11 7:158:7 Seeing6:23 7:11 today 3:104:5,6 4 Session3:1 4:9,10,147:13 432152:8,13 set8:10 today's 3:6 sheet4:155:14 Todd 3:194:7 5

5:166:11 Town 1:152:13 501:152:13 signed4:14 trade5:12 some5:14 transcribed 8:6 6 something5:5 transcript 1: 10 6142:8,143:21 sources 1:62:1 8:7 644-21602:14

3:15 true 8:7 644-35932:8 South2:7 644-48393:21 speakers4: 18 U Special2:6 until 6:24 7 specific5:15 U-S4:7 7001:162:13 specified 8:8 U.S5:21 spell5:6 SS8:2 V standards 6: 10 very5:5 state 1:14,144:7 VOC 1:72:2

5:4 8:2,5 statements4:10 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 strongly5:20,22 WILLIAM2:5 submitted4:8,10 wish4:13

7:13 wishes 5:26:21 Suite 1:162:13 7:9 Supervisor2:5 WITNESS 8: 10 work6:9 T working5:10 taken 1:12 7:5 written 3:23,24

8:7 4:4,8,107:12 taking 3:8 talks 5:16 y Tax2:6 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 testifying4:24 2:301:173:2 testimony4:9,13 2:367:2

5:25 6: 17,24 20071:173:14:5 7:12 7:198:6,11,20 Thank3:8 5:24 218:20

5:256:157:13 thanks 6:19 3 think6:7,8 31:173:1 7:19

Fraley, Cooper&Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 Page 2

# Article VI 

# Responseto Comments

# CJiIJEa\ Division ofAir Pollution Control Response to Comments Received priorto, 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 Contactforthis 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) ofthe proposed rule can potentially be interpreted in a manner inconsistentwith that described in the White Paper. Response 1: The language in paragraph (A)(3) of the proposed rule has been modified to eliminatepossible misunderstandings. Exemptemissionslanguage has changed from "except for VOG emissions that," to "but shallnotapplyto VOG emissions from anysuch source oroperation that"are regulatedbyrule

... Comment2: 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 priorto the April, 2008, deadline.Response2: Ohio EPA hasremovedthe emissions unitslistedin Table (M)(1) oftheproposed 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 beingmet. Comment3: 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 addedemissions 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 equipmentmaking up the "wet end"is definedin the PTls and/orTitle Vpermitforthese emissions units. Comment4: 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 suggestedchange in orderto maintain consistency with the definition 

### ofPTEcontainedin Chapter

### 31 ofthe OhioAdministrative Code. CommentS: Emissions unit POBO at PPG Industries, Barberton Plant, should not be included in Table (M)(1). Control ofthe 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

2nothave been included in Table (M)(1) ofthe proposed rule, andhas moved it insteadtoparagraph (M)(3)(d)(ix) andcitedspecificPTIrequirements. Comment6: Emissions unitT001 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 subjectto regulation. Response 6: Ohio EPA agrees that emissions unit T001 at this facilityis de minimis, andhas removeditfrom Table (K)(1) oftheproposedrule.

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) ofthe proposed rule. In orderto 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/transportationplasticparts coatinglines. Comment8: 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 correctedthe facilityname and 10 containedinparagraph (M)(3)(d)(vii) thathadinadvertentlybeen changedduring the lastroundofrule changes.

3

# Qiam\ Division ofAir 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 Contactforthis 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)

- Consistentwith 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 ofthe Clean AirAct. Response 1: Ohio EPA does notbelieve that the newrule can be considered

### a relaxation of theprovisions ofthe GeneralSavings Clause in Section 

### 193 ofthe CleanAirAct because emissions from sources that do not currently exist are not currently beingaccountedfor; therefore, 

### a "relaxation"can'tbe determined. Itis not Ohio EPA's intentto applythis rule to newsources instal/edafterthe effective date of this amendedrule, but, instead, to account forsuch "new"emissions in the new source review("NSR', permittingprocess. Comment2: (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 ifthere is an add-on control device. Such arequirement 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 uncontrolledsources, andparagraph (A)(6)(c) to require approvalbyUSEPA. 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 afterthe effective date ofthis 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 afterthe effective date ofthe rule." Response 3: Ohio EPA wouldlike to discontinue the use of the term "photochemicallyreactive materia/': or "PRM", since determinations as to whether

### a materialis

### a PRMare difficult and confusing. The suggested documentation would not only maintain the use of this term, butit is an unnecessaryrequirement because Table (K)(1) includes allthe tanks in the State thatare subject to the provisions ofparagraph (K)(2). Additionally, the suggestedrecordkeeping wouldbe burdensome to sources that are not subject to this paragraph, and the recordkeeping itself could be consideredto be more stringentthan the currentrule. 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 orstored at the facility. The facility is required to keep these records for

### a periodofbetween three andfiveyears, depending upon the type ofpermitobtained. Comment4: 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

2the effective date of this rule) documenting that no photochemically reactive material has been stored forthe 12 month period priorto the effective date ofthis 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 afterthe effective date ofthe 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 orothercontrivance emitted overforty pounds of organic material into the atmosphere in anyone day, nor more than eight pounds in anyone hourfor the 12 months priorto the effective date ofthis rule butthat ifsuch emissions did occur, only nonphotochemically reactive materials were employed or applied. Failure to have such documentation would cause any such article, machine, equipment orothercontrivance to be subjectto 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 ofsuch 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 itwas notsubjectto 3745-21-07(G) in orderto delete itfrom Table (M)(1).



### 3Response 6: Emissions unitP067at USA LLG is subject to 40 GFR 63, SubpartJJJ, which is more stringent that the proposed rule. Inclusion of this emissions unit in Table (M)(1) is notnecessary. 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 attachedcopies of the PTls forthese emissions units to showthat 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 ofwhy 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 ofwhere the overall 64% reduction requirement discussed in Response 93 is contained. Response 8: Emissions unitK003 consists of2 colorbooths, 3 deco booths, oven, parts mask washers, and drying oven. PTI 08-04088, issued 3/9/2006, specifies that the colorbooths be equipped with 

### a permanent total enclosure with 100% capture efficiency and be vented to 

### a thermal oxidizer operating at 

### a destruction efficiencyofatleast95%. 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 efficiencyofatleast80% andshallbe ventedto thatsame thermaloxidizer. The mask washers use an aqueous wash material. Forthe two colorbooths, the PTI limits exceed the 85% overallcontrolefficiencyrequirementofparagraph (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 meetthe 85% overallcontrol efficiencyrequirementofparagraph (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

4http://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 processedas a SIPrevision, depending upon the subsequentrequirements. 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 subjectto 3745-21-07 (M)(4). Response 9: Ohio EPA has attachedcopies ofthe PTls forthese emissions units to showthat 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 subjectto OAG rule 3745-21-07(G)(1) because the coatings are not "heatcured" within the ovens. The coatings sprayed on the plastic parts already have 

### a catalystin 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) wouldnotapplyto the currentcoatings. Comment 10: No basis has been provided fordeleting Hollinee Glass Fibers from Table M1. Response 10: The controlequipmentserving emissions unitP001 atHol/inee Glass Fibers was installed to control particulate emissions, not organic compound emissions. Emissions unitP001 atHol/inee Glass Fibers is stillsubject to paragraph (M)(4) ofthe newrule. 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) orsubstance containing such PRM based upon the Ohio Supreme Court Case ofAshland 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 stationarytanks ortank cars into smaller, portable containers in accordance with customer specifications. To accomplish this task,

5three 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"endorsedbyUS EPA. Rather, it's Ohio EPA position that the Court limitedapplication ofthe term "employing" to operations thatputa chemicalinto action or service. The mixing that occurs at bulk molding compound mixing operations does notcause a chemicalreaction orresultin the formation ofa new product, andtherefore fails to satisfythe criteria establishedinAshlandChemical v. Jones. Furthermore, the fact thatincidentalevaporation occurs during the bulk molding process does not subject these operations to paragraphs (M)(2) or M(3)(g) oftheproposedrule. Comment 12: (M)(4)

- As stated earlier, this paragraph should apply to new sources installed afterthe effective date ofthis 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. Ifthe 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 thatthere are no VOC emissions.

6Response 13: This exemption is based upon the exemption specifiedin paragraph (G)(9)(f) of the former OAG rule 3745-21-07. The suggested change would aI/ow the exemption ofthe VOG portion ofemissions ifboth VOG and non-VOG emitting materials were present. Itis Ohio EPA's intent to continue to regulate the VOG portion ofthe emissions, even when VOG and non-VOG emitting materials are bothpresent. No changesare needed. Gomment 14: (M)(5)(f)

- This exemption should applyto sources and notemissions. Response 14: This exemption was designed to apply to liquid organic material emissions that are regulated by otherrules. Forexample, if

### a coating line was coating 

### a part that contained both metal and plastic and this exemption applied to 

### a source (e.g., 

### a coatingline), the liquidorganicmaterialemissions thatcouldbe attributed to coating the metalportion ofthepart wouldbe regulatedby 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 forthe regulation ofliquidorganicmaterialemissions thatare attributedto the coating oftheplasticportion ofthe part. In this case, if the language were changed to regulate the source, there wouldbe the potential for large amounts ofliquid organic material emissions to go unregulated. No changes areneeded. 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 otherthan 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 forthe 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 ofoperation that may not be applicable for many such Ohio sources. The commenters also stated that EPA did not considerthe one SMC machine that has add-on controls (Core Materials) to be a similar source. That statement is not correct. EPA did consider itto be a similarsource, but itwas notthe best-controlled similarsource because there were other sources (that happen to be located in Ohio) that had

7higher levels of control than Core Materials. We did consider Core Materials to be representative ofthe industry. Furthermore, EPAwas 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 ofexisting 3745-21-07. Response 15a: USEPA's MACTrule documentation indicates that it is not reasonable orcosteffective to controlorganic HAPemissions from this type ofmachine unless itis

### a part of

### a verylarge newsource (i.e., newfacility), capable ofemitting more that 100 tons oforganic HAP-peryear. Ohio EPA is in the process ofdeveloping

### a RACTrule to address the regulation ofSMC machines andothersources within the composites manufacturingsector. 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 commentappears to be an inadvertentrepeating of

### a commentfor

### a former version of the proposed rule. Paragraph (J) has remained for waste gas disposal.

The following commentwas submitted by Honda ofAmerica 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 forthe sources that are subject to this rule. MMP hasjust recently received afinal 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 longerthen remain aconcern for Honda.



### 8Response 16: Ohio EPA has removedHonda's MMPandELP from the rule because the latest permits to install for these facilities do not contain control requirements for organiccompounds. Copies ofthesepermitsare 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 ofan updatedemission factorfrom USEPA forSMC manufacturing is being clarifiedin this response. The USEPA hadremovedsection 

### 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 appearedto under-predictstyrene emissions. On February 16, 2007, USEPA returned section 

### 4.4 to its AP-42 website with the original emissions factors forpolymer casting (marble casting), pultrusion, continuous lamination, filament winding, andclosedmolding. Although USEPA hasnotprovidedrevised emission factors for open molding operations in section 

### 4.4, USEPA has recommendedin section 

### 4.4 thatthe emission factors in Table 

### 1 of

### 40 CFR Part 63 subpart WWWWbe used. Table 

### 1 of

### 40 CFR Part

### 63 subpart WWWWdoes not contain an emission factor for SMC manufacturing. However, USEPA had reliedupon 

### a single actualemissions testfrom an SMC manufacturing operation when USEPA developed the MACT standards in 

### 40 CFR Part 

### 63 subpart which includedstandards forSMCmanufacturing. Atthis time, there is no officiallyupdatedemission factorfrom USEPA forSMCmanufacturing.

The following commentwas 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 emissionstesting data." Is this statement accurate, ifso where has USEPA updated the emission factor?



### 9Response 18: See Response 17.

The following comment was submitted by Honda ofAmerica 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 appearto have been made in this draft ofthe 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) norshould it require an exemption in (M)(3) due to the recent PTI change allowing the removal ofourcontrol device. Response 19: See Response 16.

The following comments were submitted by PIANKO, Inc., on 10-2-07 Comment20: Because the rule is written to address only emission units constructed priorto the date of promulgation of revised OAC rule 3745-21-07, clarification ofapplicability 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 addressedon

### aparagraph-by-paragraph basisbelow.) Comment20a: A(3) The requirements ofthis rule shall apply to any source or operation 

### fOr which installation commencedprior to the effective date of this rule specified in paragraphs (K) to (N) ofthis rule, exceptforVOC emissionsthatareregulatedby 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 ofanysubject source or operation specified in paragraphs (K) to (N) ofthis rule shall comply with the facility-specific and general control requirements ofthis rule as ofthe effectivedate ofthisrule. Response 20a:

10Ohio EPA hasmade the suggestedchanges. Comment 20b: A(5) The requirements ofthis rule shall not apply to any source. including any new source as defined in rule 3745-15-01 oftheAdministrative Code. which is installedaftertheeffectivedate ofthisrule. Response 20b: Ohio EPA hasmade the suggestedchange. Comment20c: A(6) For any subject source or operation specified in paragraphs (K) to (N) of this rule thatis subjectto amass emissionrate, control efficiency, overall control efficiency, or emission reduction, the owner or operator shall determine compliancebymeans ofthe following: Response 20c: Ohio EPA hasmade the suggestedchange. Comment 20d: M(2) Each article, machine, equipment or other contrivance identified in paragraph(M)(l) ofthis rule, ormeetingthe specifications ofparagraph(M)(3)(a) ofthis 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 ofat least eighty-five percent, by weight. For a control systemthathas an 

### mememtor oxidizer, the control efficiency ofthe 

### memeFator oxidizer shallbe at least ninety per cent, by weight, based upon the mass emissions oforganic compounds as carbon. Response 20d: An oxidizeris an incineratorin the contextofthis rule. The suggestedchange is not necessary, and may cause confusion in existing permits where the term "incinerator" is usedas a required control device. These changes are notbeing made. Comment 20e:

11M(3)(a)(i) Is an existing source locatedwithin a "PriorityI" county, as identified inrule 3745-21-06 oftheAdministrative Code, oranew source, as definedinrule 3745-15-01 oftheAdministrative Code, regardless oflocation,:,.:. M(3)(a)(ii) Commencedinstallationpriortothe effectivedateofthis rule:.:. M(3)(a)(iii) Uses a liquid organic material or a substance containing a liquid organicmaterial,:,,:, M(3)(a)(iv) Is equippedwithacontroldevice fororganic compoundemissionS':'.:. M(3)(a)(v) Theemissions arenotsubjecttocontrolrequirements specifiedinrule 3745-21-09, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, or 3745-21-18 oftheAdministrativeCode:.:. M(3)(a)(vi) Is not specifiedinparagraph (K)(I), (K)(3), (L)(I), (M)(I) or (N)(I) ofthisrule:.:. M(3)(a)(vii) Does not meet any of the conditions specified under paragraph (M)(3)(c) ofthisrule:.:. M(3)(a)(viii) Is notspecifiedin(M)(3)(d) ofthisrule:: and Response 20e: The suggested changes are notnecessarybecause 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 suggestedchanges are notnecessary. Comment 20f: M(3)(c)(i) The article, machine. equipment or other contrivance was installed afterthe effectivedate ofthis rule: Response 2Of: Ohio EPA has added the suggested clarification with 

### a minormodification. The new paragraph states: liThe article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance commencedinstallation afterthe effective date ofthis rule. " Comment 20g: M(3)(c)fij(ii) Theuncontrolledpotential to emitfororganic compoundemissions 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,

12equipmentorothercontrivanceto emitorganic compounds underitsphysical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitationon the capability ofan 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 controlequipment, shallbetreatedas partofits physical andoperationaldesignif the limitation or the effect it would have on organic compound emissions is federally enforceable:.:. M(3)(c)fHj(iii) The article, machine, equipmentorothercontrivanceis subjectto 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 eightyfivepercent,byweight:.:. M(3)(c)fffij(iv) The article, machine, equipmentorothercontrivanceis subjectto and complying with a federal regulation that specifies an overall control efficiency for organic compound or VOC emissions that is greater than eightyfive percent,..:.**M(3)(c~v)** The article, machine, equipmentorothercontrivance is subject to andcomplyingwithparagraph(M)(3)(g) or(M)(4) ofthisrule:.:. M(3)(c)fYj(vi) The article, machine, equipmentor othercontrivance is a heatset web offset printing line that is subject to and complying with a best available technology requirement, pursuantto 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 ofless than twenty parts per million, by volume, dry basis for organic compound or VOC emissions (aheatsetweb offsetprinting line is anoffsetlithographicprinting line inwhichthe substrateis continuously fed from aroll and aheatedovenis usedto drytheprinting**inks~;** or M(3)(c)(-¥B(vii) The article, machine, equipmentorothercontrivance is regulated byandcomplyingwithChapter3745-76oftheAdministrativeCode. Response 20g: Ohio EPA has changed the paragraph numbering to account for the new (M)(3)(c)(i) paragraph. Suggestedpunctuation changes are notnecessary, and have notbeen made. Comment20h: M(3)(d)(ii) Emissions unit ROOl at the "Dee Sign Company" (facility ill 1409000675), providedthatthe organic compound emissions from the emissions

13unit are controlled by means ofa thermal memeFatsr oxidizerthat maintains an overall control efficiency ofat 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), providedthatthe organic compound emissions from each ofthe emissions units are controlledby means ofa 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- monthperiod, respectively, inaccordancewithpermit-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 controlledby means ofa thermal iaemeratsroxidizerthat limits the emissions to one hundred and eighty-eight tons per rolling twelve-month period (excluding VOC emissions from the combustion ofnatural gas), in accordance with permitto-install05-10278. Response 20h: See Response 20d. Comment20i: M(3)(g) Except as provided in paragraphs (A)(5), (M)(3)(h) and (M)(5) ofthis rule, this paragraph applies to all existing sources located within a "Priority I" county, as identified in rule 3745-21-06 ofthe Administrative Code, and to all new sources, as defmedinrule 3745-15-01 oftheAdministrativeCode, regardless oflocation. for which installation commencedprior to the effective date ofthis rule. The owner or operator, or any subsequent owner or operator ofeach sheet molding compound manufacturing operation shall not discharge from such operationmore than forty pounds oforganic materials into the atmosphere in any one day, nor more than eightpounds 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 ofa molding compound, that contains a resin, into sheet form. In this manufacturing operation, the molding compound is sandwichedbetween top and bottomfilms. Response 20i: Ohio EPA hasmade the suggestedchange. 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

14identified inrule 3745-21-06 ofthe Administrative Code, and to all new sources, as defmed inrule 3745-15-01 ofthe Administrative Code, regardless oflocation.. for which installation commencedprior to the effective date ofthis rule. The owner or operator, or any subsequent owner or operator ofeach subject article, machine, equipment orother 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 ofoxygen, and is not specified in paragraph (M)(1) ofthis rule, shall not discharge from such source morethanfifteenpounds oforganic materials into the atmosphere inanyone day, nor more than three pounds in anyone hour, unless said discharge has been reducedby atleast eighty-five percent, by weight. Ifthereductions are achieved by iBeiBemtieB oxidation, ninety per cent or more ofthe carbon in the organic materialbeingiBeiBeratedcontrolledshallbeoxidizedtocarbondioxide. M(5)(e) The provisions ofparagraphs (M)(2), (M)(3)(d), (M)(3)(e), (M)(3)(f), (M)(3)(g), (M)(3)(h) and (M)(4) ofthis rule shall not apply ifall the following conditions aremet: Response20: 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 suggestedchanges from uincineration"and "incinerated". Comment21: 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 notbelieve 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 definedin OACrule 3745-21-01. Comment22: 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

15recovery facility) requirements, a clear distinction should be made. Use of oxidizerfor airpollution control systems is preferred. Response 22: See Response 20d. Comment23: 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 willcontinue to provide guidance as to what constitutes "baked, heatcured orheatpolymerized, II but does notintend to add

### a definition to OAe rule 3745-21-01.

The following comments were submitted by Premix, Inc., on 10-2-07 Comment24: 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 ofadd-on air emission control equipment has been well documented as being economically

16infeasible. 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 perton ofemissions 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 notjustify the utilization of add-on controls or a requirement that each such line go through the expensive and time-consuming process of demonstrating economic infeasibilityofsuch 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 perhour/40 Ibs perdayemission 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 EPAwebsite 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 barrierfilm. 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 Premixsupports 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 ofa BestAvailable Technology (BAT) demonstration forthe TMC process line at North Kingsville. Our cost-benefit evaluation demonstrated that the annualized cost ofcontrol technologyforthe TMC machine is approximately $17,000 perton of VOC reduced. This is a conservative estimate using Ohio EPA analytical methods. Such a cost far exceeds any reasonable cost-benefit thresholds for

17VOC 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 ofothercriteria pollutants. The use ofadd-on controls on the TMC machine at Premix cannot bejustified 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 regardingpreviouslysubmitted comments.

The following comments were submitted by OCAPP, Inc., on 10-2-07 Comment25: 3745-21-07(A)(4) and clarification ofvoid permit limits With some exceptions, this paragraph nullifies all permit emission limitations, operational restrictions, and recordkeeping associated with photochemically reactive**materi~ls** (PRM) thatwere 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 peryear 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 discoverthis critical fact until page 16 ofthe 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 arevoid, and which remain in effect:

18[Comment: Only the requirements listed below, ifcontained in 

### a permit issued prior to the effective date of this rule, shall be void upon the effective date ofthis rule: (a) any requirement that prohibits the use of photochemically reactive materials, orvolatilephotochemicallyreactive materials; (b) any requirement that limits organic compound emissions from an operation to eightpounds perhourand fortypounds perday, exceptas specifiedinparagraphs (M)(3)(d) and(M)(3)(g) ofthisrule; (c) any requirement to determine or document materials as being photochemicallyreactive; (d) anyrecordkeeping andreporting requirements related to requirements andemission limits referredto in (a), (b) or(c) above. All otherpermit conditions, including annual emission ormaterial usage limitations (tons peryear, gallons per day/month/year, VOC pergallon, etc.) and all recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with thosepermitconditionsremain in effect.] Response 25: Ohio EPA does notbelieve thatclarifying language is necessaryforthe opening sentence. The remaining suggested language, with slight modifications, has been incorporatedinto the rule. Comment26: 3745-21-07(A)(4) and effects on synthetic minor permits The accompanying White Paperand Response to Comments documents explain some ofthe issues related to the revised rule's impact on existing synthetic minor permits. The chiefconcern is the elimination ofthe 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

19limited 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 of9.5 TPY ofstyrene (a PRM and HAP in this case). Ifthe 8/40 limits forthe 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 SubpartWWWW 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 companywould then be subject to the NESHAP and burdensome Title V permitting simply because the 21-07 revisions eliminated the short-term limits oftheir 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 minorpermit. Rather, the SIP-approved 21-07 rule provided forthe PTE limit of 7.3 TPY for styrene and voluntary emission limits were unnecessary. Similarto the example above, the OIAI policy denies the facility an opportunity to obtain a synthetic minor permit upon elimination ofthe 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. Response26: Ohio EPA, DAPG, agrees thatif

### a syntheticminorPTI orFESOPpermitrelies on existing OAG rule 3745-21-07 to maintain non-Title V status, the basis ofthat status couldbe eliminateduponpromulgation ofproposed OAG rule 3745-21-07. In cases where the elimination of the existing rule eliminates the federal enforceabilityof

### a restriction to keep

### a facilityoutofTitle 

### V, 

### a permitmodification will be required, and new federally enforceable restrictions will have to be developedandincorporatedinto thepermiton

### a case-by-case basis. Comment27: Paragraphs (M)(3)(g) and (M)(4) applicabilityto existing and newsources 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 afterthe effective date ofthis rule".



### 20Does this wording implythe separation ofemission 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 "newsource" in 3745-15-01 refers to sources installed on or after February 15, 1972. Promulgating the proposed revision seems to establish a cutoffdate where a "new source" is no longer "new" and instead becomes a source "installed afterthe effective date ofthis 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 ifthe 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) ofthis rule, this paragraph applies to all existing sources locatedwithina "PriorityI" county, as identified in rule 3745-21-06 ofthe Administrative Code, and to allsources installedon orafter February 15,1972 andbefore the effective date of this rule regardless of location. The owneroroperator, orany subsequentowneroroperatorofeachsheetmoldingcompound manufacturing operation shall not discharge from such operationmore than forty pounds oforganic materials into the atmosphere in anyone day, nor more than eightpounds in anyone hour, unless said discharge has beenreducedby atleast eighty-fivepercent, by weight. A sheet molding compound manufacturing operation is defmed as a process which involves the production ofa molding compound, that contains a resin, into sheet form. Inthis manufacturing operation, themolding compoundis sandwichedbetweentop andbottomfilms. The above says the same thing, but is much clearerand does not incorporate the confusing term "newsource" with its dual meanings. Response27: Clarification language has been added to paragraph (M)(3)(g). See Response 20i. Comment28: 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

21DAPC 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) ofamended OAC rule 3745-21-07. Response28: Ohio EPA, DAPC, is notaware ofanysources thatfallinto 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 withoutfirstobtainingthe necessarypermit(s) to install. Ifthe facility were Title

# v: in orderto be federally enforceable, the permit would incorporate the current VaG SIP, which may contain language similar to the existingrule. 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 Paperwillnotbe revisedto include these examples.

Comment29: 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 forsources 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 permitwould be void: "(b) record keeping and reporting associated with the above emission limits and operational restriction."



### 22This implies the recordkeeping requirements forthe 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 hasbeen revised. Forsynthetic minorPTls andFESOPpermits, federal enforceabilityneeds to be maintained. Forcases where the basis of the synthetic minorPTls andFESOP is compliance with the existing OAC rule 3745-21-07 requirements orlimits, 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, ifany, will have to be made in order to maintain the synthetic minor status Ohio EPA, DAPC, wouldlike to point out thatproposedparagraph (A)(4), which explains the proposedrecordkeeping requirements, refers onlyto recordkeeping in relation tophotochemicallyreactive materials, nototherorganicmaterials. Comment 30: Paragraph 3745-21-07(M)(5)(d)(i) OCAPP suggests adding "byvolume" as follows to clarifythe exemption criteria: (i) The volatile content ofthe regulated material consists only ofwater and liquid organic material, and the liquid organic material comprises not more than twenty percent byvolume ofsaid volatile content; or Response 30: Ohio EPA hasmade the suggestedchange.

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.

23Response 

### 31: Ohio EPA has removedthis facilityfrom 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 hasmade the facilityname change. Comment 33: 3745-21-07 (M)(1), pg. 8 - Onyx Environmental Services 0857751346 should be Veolia Environmental Services, LLC Response 33: Ohio EPA hasmade the facilityname 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 ofthe referenced limits in the current version of OAC 3745-21-07 already appear as requirements In Honda'sfederally enforceable permits. On page 13 

### (E. Resolution of Problems) ofyourWhite Paperforthis 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 ofcontrol equipment oroperational restrictions. This would ensure continued operation of such control equipment or operational restrictions

24that 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 otherwords, 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/hrand 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 EPAwould 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 orthe 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 resultwould violate the Clean AirAct. " 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):

25Our proposed language is similarto 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 controlefficiency fororganic compoundor VOC emissionsthatisgreaterthaneighty-fivepercent, 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) acontrolrequirementfororganic compoundorVOC 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 bythe current language proposed for 3745-21-07. As we stated in earliercommunications, the permit revisions forthese 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 forthis 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 regardto syntheticminorPTls andFESOPissues, see Response 29.



### 26Ohio EPA hasremovedboth the Marysville Motorcycle Plantandthe EastLiberty Plantfrom the rule, basedon language in the mostrecentPTls forthe emissions unitsatthese 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 applicationofthe currentrule's 85% controlefficiency. 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 anddryingofcoatingsin the emissions unit. Ohio EPA has not added paragraph (M){3){c){vii) as suggested because the wording does notaddressall(M)(3){d) sources; thus, itdoes notsimplifythe rule ormake itless 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 ofthe three listed processes has emissions at the "wet end" ofthe 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 bythe 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 ofthe rule in the proposed amendment. This should be corrected to avoid unintended results.

27Response 35: Underparagraph (M)(2), a flare can be a control device. The "wet end"of the process described uses PRMs, andis 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,"andthus hasnotincorporatedthe term into the rule. Kraton's emissions units are currentlysubjectto 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 thathave controlrequirements. The ''finish end"emissions remain unregulatedbythis 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 ofthe amended rule beyond the current rule. Response 36: Ohio EPA maydefine an "emissions unit"inpermits to include more than

### a single "article, machine, equipment or other contrivance," and the combination of articles, machines, equipment or othercontrivances 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, equipmentorothercontrivances thatare subjectto 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, ora performance requirement? Does itapply 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



### 28normal 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 efficiencyrequirement is in effectatall times, butsince 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) maybe applicable for equipment that is not able to meet the 85% efficiency requirement. The requested change is not necessary. Comment37a: 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 offugitive 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 retainedlanguage from the current rule, andits currentmeaning that this is an overallcontrol efficiencyrequirement. The 85% controlefficiency requirementmeans thatthe combination ofcapture andcontrolmustreduce total emissions by

### a minimum of85%. Compliance with this requirementis basedon 

### a compliance demonstration in accordance with paragraph (A)(6) ofthis rule. No furtherclarification 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 ofits emission reduction. Undercurrent 21-07(G)(2), there is no mention of "capture and control equipment", but rather only the requirement that



### 29the source "reduce" emissions. The broad term "reduce" includes recapture. The amended 21-07(M)(2) should allowthe source to apply such recapture to its emission reduction obligation. Response 37b: As statedin Response 37a, Ohio EPA is regulating the overallcontrolefficiency. 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 ofrecaptured materials being usedin the determination ofthe overall control efficiency on 

### a case-by-case basis, but is not aware of any existingemissions units thatare affectedbythe recapture scenario thathasbeen posed. Comment38: 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, oractual performance efficiency? Underwhat 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 properoperation and maintenance requirement, ratherthan creating a potential for misinterpretation and inference of a requirement to achieve a specified efficiency at all times and underall conditions. Onlythen 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 over35 years ago. Response 38: This part of the rule refers to control (destruction) efficiency. This is 

### a performance-basedrequirement, andmustbe demonstratedin accordance with paragraph (A)(6) ofthis rule. Fugitive emissionsare notincludedin 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

30some situations when determining emissions unit operating conditions for compliance demonstration testing. Comment39: 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), butsurely 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. Comment40: 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 higherthan 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 ifany compounds. Response 40: Ohio EPA has retained this exemption from the existing rule. 

### By removing this exemption from the newrule, the newrule wouldbecome more stringentthan the existingrule. Itis not Ohio EPA's intentto make the newrule more stringentthan the existingrule. Comment41: 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.



### 31Response

### 41: MACTstandards onlyregulate the HAPportion ofthe total VOC emissions. Ohio EPA's intentis to regulate all VOC emissions, which mayinclude both HAPand non-HAP VOCs. The exemption for SMC manufacturers that has been incorporated into the rule is valid because all VOC emissions from SMC operationsare HAPs. With regard to 

### a source being subject to multiple VOC regulations at the same time, see Comment 

### 14 andResponse 14.

The following comments were submitted by PPG Industries, Inc. on 10-3-07 Comment42: 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 ofa 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 onlyto applyto existing sources that were subjectto the prior rule (see White Paperat 13), the Circleville Plant should be deleted from 21-07(M)(1). Response 42: Ohio EPA has addedno newcontrolrequirements with this rule, onlymaintained requirements of the existing rule. Ifthe results of the ERAC appeal dictate the removal of these emissions units from paragraph (M)(1), Ohio EPA will remove them. Comment43: OAC 3745-21-07(M)(2) imposes two requirements. For a source with a "control system" that is not an incinerator, the system mustconsist of "capture and control equipmenF "that reduces the organic compound emissions

. . . by an overall

32control 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. Comment43a: 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 thatthe rule should clearly address. Response 43a: See Response 37a. Comment43b: 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

33and 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 over35 years ago. Response 43b: See Response 38. Comment44: 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. Comment45: 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.

34The following comments were submitted by Mr. David Lipiro at the public Hearing on 10·3-07 Comment46: 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 ofthe rule as proposed. Response 46: Ohio EPA appreciates this commentbyMr. DavidLipiro.

The following comments were submitted by Mr. Perry Bennett at the public Hearing on 10·3-07 Comment47:

...1am also in favor ofthe 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 commentbyMr. PerryBennett.

The following comments were submitted byAyerQuality on 10-4-07 Comment48: In the draft of 21-07(M), if you have 'equipment leaks' (Le., valves, pumps, connectors) from components in liquid organic material service, but notsubjectto 21-09, can 21-07(M) apply? I don'tthinkthat's the intent. But itwas notclearto me in afirst-pass read through the draft rule one

35way orthe otheras to whether a permittee would consider component leaks. Response 48: OACrule 3745-21-07does notapplyto equipmentleaks. Comment49: 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 requirementmustbe demonstratedasnotedinparagraph (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 hasmade the facilityname changes.

36