# Article V Hearing Transcripts

### STATE OF OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2045 Morse Road E

Assembly Center

Columbus, Ohio
Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:30 P.M.

In the matter of: Public Hearing to obtain comments from any interested persons on Ohio EPA's proposed revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-31-03.
Appearances: Susan Willeke, Public Involvement Manager

### Thursday Evening Session April 21, 2005 1 2 

### 3 4 

### MS. WILLEKE: Thank you for taking the 5 time to attend tonight's hearing before the Ohio 6 Environmental Protection Agency. My 

### name is Susan 7 Willeke. I am the Public Involvement Manager for 8 the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Public 9 Interest Center. I will be presiding over today's 10 public hearing. 11 The purpose of the hearing today is to 2

12 obtain comments from any interested persons on Ohio 13 EPA's proposed revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-31-03. 14 The amendments are being proposed to incorporate 15 six new permit-by-rule provisions and to modify 16 several permanent exemptions. These amendments 17 would exempt owners or operators of various types 18 of low-emitting air pollution sources from the need 19 to obtain a permit-to-install. 20 Permit-by-rule allows Ohio EPA to 21 regulate facilities through rules rather than 22 permits. The rules are industry-sector specific 23 and include qualifying criteria and all 24 requirements that would normally be detailed in a 25 site-specific permit. If a company qualifies for a

### 3



### 1 particular permit-by-rule, it must comply with all 2 the requirements in the rule to eliminate the need 3 for an individual permit. 4 Permit-by-rule provisions already exist 5 in Ohio's rules for five types of operations: 6 emergency electric generators, plastic molding 7 facilities, crushing operations, soil vapor 8 remediation, and soil liquid remediation 9 activities. 10 Ohio EPA wants to add six new categories 11 including: auto body refinishing, two categories 12 of gasoline dispensing facilities, natural gas13 fired boiler/heaters, small size printing and mid14 size printing facilities. 15 Four notable changes to the proposed 16 rules were made as a result of public comments in 17 the initial review period. These include: 18 separating the permit-by-rule package from the 19 threshold exemption rules, which may be proposed at 20 a later time; requiring a facility to notify Ohio 21 EPA when claiming any permit-by-rule exemption; 22 replacing a requirement for mandatory annual 23 reporting with a requirement to report deviations 24 or exceedances of t he permit-by-rule conditions at 25 the time they occur; and including language4



### 1 specifying that a facility is still subject to all 2 additional regulations to ensure national air 3 quality standards in a metropolitan area are met. 4 The proposed rules also specify that 5 existing facilities operating under existing 6 permit-by-rule exemptions will be allowed one year 7 to submit a notice to Ohio EPA, which will maintain 8 a list of these facilities on its Web site for 9 public review. 10 These rules have been filed with the 11 joint committee on agency rule review. Copies of 12 the rules are available for public review at Ohio 13 EPA's Columbus office and may be obtained by 14 contacting Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution 15 Control at (614) 644-2270. 16 All interested parties are entitled to 17 attend or be represented and to present oral and/or 18 written comments concerning the proposed rule 19 revisions. All written and oral comments received 20 as part of the official record will be considered 21 by the Director of Ohio EPA prior to any further 22 action taken on this issue. When rules are 23 adopted, Ohio EPA issues another public notice. 24 To be included in the official record, 25 written comments must be received by Ohio EPA by

### 5

1 April 22, 2005. These comments may be filed with 2 me today or mailed to Rick Carleski at Ohio EPA, 3 P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio, 43216-1049. All 4 written comments submitted for the record receive 5 the same consideration as oral testimony given 6 today. 7 Written statements submitted after April 8 22nd may be considered as time and circumstances 9 permit, but will not be a part of the official 10 record of this hearing. 11 If you wish to present oral testimony at 12 this hearing today and have not already signed the 13 registration sheet, please do so at this time. I 14 will call people to testify in the order in which 15 they have registered. 16 There is no cross-examination of 17 speakers or representatives of Ohio EPA in public 18 hearings such as this. Ohio EPA hearings such as 19 this afford citizens the opportunity to provide 20 comments on the official record. Therefore, we 21 will not be able to answer questions during the 22 hearing. 23 However, comments raised during the 24 public hearing and during the comment period will 25 be responded to in writing.

### 1 

### The only person who has registered at 2 this time is Robert Chaffee. Would you like to 3 testify tonight, sir? 4 

### 5 

### MR. CHAFFEE: No. MS. WILLEKE: Thank you. He did not 6



### 6 wish to testify tonight. Is there anyone else here 7 tonight who would like to testify on these proposed 8 rules? 9 Seeing no request to testify at this 10 time, we will go off the record until 7 P.M. to 11 allow anyone else the opportunity to arrive and to 12 testify. 13 At 7 P.M., if no one else has arrived to 14 testify, we will go back on the record and conclude 15 this hearing. Off the record. 16 17 

### (Off the record) MS. WILLEKE: We will go back on the 18 record now. Is there anyone who has arrived who 19 would like to testify at tonight's hearing 20 regarding these proposed rules? 21 Seeing no request to testify, we will 22 adjourn this hearing at 7 P.M. on April 21, 2005, 23 with the reminder that written comments can be 24 submit ted through the close of business tomorrow, 25 April 22nd
. Thank you and good night.

### 7

1 

### 2 

### CERTIFICATE 

### 3 4 I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, 5 correct, and complete transcript of the proceedings 6 in this matter on April 21, 2005, taken by me and 7 transcribed from my stenographic notes. 8 

### 9 10 11 

### 12 

### 13 14 15 

### 16 17 18 

### 19 20 21 22 

### 23 24 25 Celeste C. Dawley, RPR Assistant Official Court Reporter

# Article VI

- 

# Response to Comments

### OAC 3745-3 1-03 PublicCommentParty Responsiveness Summary 

### Pag e 1of22


## Division ofAir Pollution Control Responsive SummaryTo Public Comments Received For 

## ProposedAmendments to Add Additional Permit·by-Rule Provisions

## to OAC Rule**3745~31-03** 

### List ofCommentors
A Kaushal Gupta, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Chicaqo B Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 

# c Hamilton Coun!yDepartment of Environmental Services D Robert Chaffee, Environmental Permit Specialists, LLC E The Ohio Environmental Council Environmental Community Organization Buckeye Environmental Network Ohio CitizenAction Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter Marie Kocoshis, citizen F Ohio Chamberof Commerce G The Ohio Petroleum Marketers 

### & Convenience Store Association H The GraphicArts Coalition



## BACKGROUND On March 16, 

## 2005, the Ohio EPA Division ofAir Pollution Control released for public comment proposed draft language to amend Ohio Administrative Code 37

## 45·31·03 to modify several permanent exemptions and to add six additional permit-by-rule provisions. The thirty-day public comment period ended on April 22, 2005

. Pursuantto Section 119.03 ofthe Ohio Revised·Code, a public hearing on these rule Amendments was conducted on April 

## 21, 2005 at 6:30p.m. , in Building E ,Assembly

·Center, 1stFloor, ofthe Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2045 Morse Road , Columbus, Ohio. No parties presented written or oral comments atthe hearing. However, eight parties submitted written comments to the Ohio EPA. The Ohio EPAthoroughly reviewed all written comments. Thefollowing Responsiveness Summary includes the text ofthe comments and the corresponding Ohio EPA response. It is divided into the following sections:OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 2 of22 

### Section 1: General comments about the permit-by-rule concept. Section 2: Comments to the proposed General Provisions section ofthe permit-by-rule provisions. Section 3: Comments to the six proposed permit-by-rule provisions. These detailed comments are separated according to the specific permit-by-rule and are focused on the rule language. Section 4: Comments to the current and proposed rule language changes for the existing permanent exemptions. 

# SECTION 1 General Comments About the Permit-By-Rule Concept

Commentor B: Overall, we support the Permit by Rule (PBR) exemption concept. However, we believe there are some problems that result from implementation that don't exist with a program built upon permit requirements. Specifically, a major shortcoming exists with the local agencies and the district offices having knowledge ofthe facilities opting to exercise the PBR exemption and therefore, having knowledge ofthe facilities required to record-keep and submit deviation reports to us. Additionally, we are concerned that if smaller industries, such as gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF), do not have a permit issued to them and they do not have easy access to the Internet to viewthe regulations, they will not be aware ofthe specific requirements they are to meet and subsequently this could lead to compliance issues. Ohio EPA Response: Ohio EPA shares the concern that the locations ofPBR qualifying sources should be known andit was never Ohio EPA's intent to not share information about PBR facilities with the district offices and local airagencies. It was felt having one point ofcontact forsending the PBR notifications, as specified in General Provisions section, would simplify the notification procedure. It

### is DAPC's intent to provide these notifications to the appropriate district office orlocal airagencyand to 

### assist in the PBR tracking

### process. In addition, the district office/local airagencyinput will be needed to properly evaluate requests from existing permit holders to switch to 

### a PBR.
Commentor E: We believe that Ohio EPA should not remove these six categories from the permit system. Permits by rule have historically been used for truly small sources that subsequently receive no further attention by the agency. These six categories have complex rules governing their operations, will require ongoing regulatory oversight to ensure compliance, have rather high emissions limits for local sources - 25 tons per year ofVOCs- , and frequently have a significant impact on local air quality, particularly with respect to nuisance. The guidance that has been cited in the background to this rule, USEPA Potential To Emit Guidance of April1998, states :"This guidance is NOT intended to affect minor new source review (NSR) programs. Those programs are necessary for attainment and maintenance ofthe national ambient air quality standards, and for generally managing and protecting air quality in a given location

...ln making any change to a minor NSR program, the State of local agency needs to address air quality impact

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 3 of22 considerations in addition to those discussed here." (pg 5 of guidance document: 1998-04-18 U.S. EPA PTE Guidance Memo.) We believe that the state agency has provided insufficientjustification for removing the six categories from the permitting system, beyond statements that it consulted with industry or referred comments back to industryfor their consideration (see attached page). That being said, should Ohio EPA choose to move forward with this proposed rule, we are raising the following objections, concerns, and questions

. [Please note that any paragraph and page references are based upon the draft made available on OEPA's website as ofApril 18; we do not know ifthe page and paragraph numbering modifications referred to on OEPA's website are all incorporated into that draft.] Ohio EPA Resoonse: We believe the intent ofU.S. EPA "Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source**Categories~** 

### Apri/14, 1998 is to provide practical, real-world backgroundinformation to states for limiting potential emissions from certain source categories to ensure theyare notmajorsources subject to Title Vrequirements. We a/so believe the intent ofU.S. EPA's statement, as quoted in the comment, is to notforce 

### a state to modifyits existing minorNSR program to accommodate the PTEguidance, but allow the state flexibility in adopting all , some, ornone ofthe guidance as appropriate to state permit streamlining efforts orprovisions ofits minorsource NSR program. The permit-by-rule (PBR) provisions establish 

### a standardset ofenforceable terms andconditions for regulating 

### a particularsource type, justlike 

### a traditionalpermit would contain. Source qualifying for

### a PBR will still be regulatedandsubjected to emission limits. For this reason, the Ohio EPA believes the new PBRs will have no negative affects on airquality. Commentor E: We reiterate certain comments submitted during the IP process, which we believe have neither received adequate response by the agency nor have been reflected in subsequent modifications to the draft rule. As per Bruce Buckheit,former director

... : "Key features of successful permits by rule include: (1) a clear statement ofthe applicability ofthe rule; (2) simple and clear substantive requirements; (3) 

### a public submission bv the source demonstrating that the source understands the requirements applicable to it; 

## ffi sufficient information provided to the permitting authority to enable it (and the public! to ascertain whether the source qualifies for the ' permit bvrule': (5) 

### sufficient monitor/no to enable the source to document continuous compliance and (6) 

### recordkeepinq andreporting sufficient to enable the permitting authorfty andthe public to ascertain the compliance status ofthe source." 1. The PBR draft rule should require (a) certification by a responsible official in any applications and submitted reports and (b) "a public submission by the source demonstrating that the source understands the requirements applicable to it." 2. The PBR rule should provide for public access to recordkeeping sufficient to enable the public to ascertain the compliance status ofthe source. Records should be available to the public either by direct access or through petition to the Director. Ohio EPA Response: In response to comments submitted during the Interested Partyphase ofthis rulemaking, the Ohio EPA made significant changes to the notification and reporting requirements forall PBR categories

. The Ohio EPA believes the proposed rule contains allprovisions acceptable to the U.S. EPA. Records from PBR-qualifying facilities can be made available to the public through petition to the directororb y contacting the applicable district office orlocal airagency.
Commentor ;::::OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness SUilliilal)' 

### Page 4 of22 Underthe proposed rules, if a source exceeds the PBR emissions limits, the worst case response is that the Director may at his discretion, ask the source to apply for a permit

. This is not adequate. The agency should mandate a permit for sources that violate the terms ofthe PBR, including exceeding emissions limitations. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA developed and utilizes an enforcementpolicyto guide staff concerning enforcement

. Based on this policy, ourenforcement response to violations can range anywhere from 

### a simple notice ofviolation letterto 

### a full enforcementaction wffh significant fines and penalties. Underthe PBR process, 

### the Agencyretains the authority to inspect, monffor, request emissions information, permitapplications, etc. from anyfacility to ensure compliance with applicable airpollution laws andregulations. Facilities which claim permit-by-rule exemptions, butare subsequentlyfound to be violating the permit-by-rule condffions, are subject to the same 

### enforcementprovisions as facilffies holding tradffionalpermits

. Commentor E: The nuisance rule, 3745-15-07, does not appear to be applicable to facilities exempted from the permit system. We feel that the language should be included to affirm that sources operating under Permit By Rule are prohibited from creating nuisance. This is the language used in current permitting, and should be used in the permit by rule

.The current language only states that the Director maytake some discretionary action 

### if nuisance is caused; this is not enforceable by the public. Because OEPA only enforces the nuisance law under extraordinary circumstance, and because the exemption from the permit system will reduce even further any incentive tor local air agencies to recognize nuisance from PBR sources, the importance ofcitizen enforcement takes an even greater role than usual. This ability for citizens to enforce the SIP must be preserved particularly in the case of nuisance. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The nuisance rule does apply to sources qualifying forPBRs. The Ohio EPA retains the discretion to notallow

### a particularfacility to operate underthe PBRprovisions 

### ifthe facility is found to be causing 

### a nuisance, orhas 

### a historyofon-going compliance problems.
CommentorE: BAT should establish a minimum control device efficiency, which when multiplied by the capacity of the facility seeking to be permitted establishes a facility specific hourly emission rate
. For example, auto body shops are required to use HVLP or electrostatic spray equipment Presumably the efficiency ofthese devices will vary depending upon whetherthey are maintained and operated according to manufacturers' specifications. An efficiency should be determined based upon proper operating procedures, and the facility should be held to this efficiency in its subsequent operations. Additionally, we believe that BAT must include specifications for VOC content of coatings. The OEPA justifies its lack of such specification on the fact that VOC content has been regulated nationally; this may be true for the auto industry but is not equally true tor the printing industry. Bruce Buckheit's comments as follows regarding BAT for PBR have not been addressed in response to comments by OEPA: "The levels of performance set out in the OEPA proposal contain insufficient information to establish that they are BAT, or indeed , how OEPA came to those proposals

. Simply incorporating existing SIP requirements is notthe same as establishing BAT

. The OEPA proposal seems to fall short of any reasoned approach to BAT in many instances. For example, OEPA proposes that Stage I nozzles be established as BATfor new gasoline stations in Stage I counties without any discussion ofthe relative benefits of the Stage II nozzles that are in common use in many parts of Ohio and the rest of the country. Nor does the proposal consider advanced systems that are available to capture volatile organic

### OAC 3745

-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### PageS of22 compounds that would otherwise be released when the station's tanks are filled. Similarly, while the lack of discussion in the OEPA documents precludes a final evaluation, the emission levels proposed for heaters and boilers and the control requirements for paint booths and printers do not appear to be based on application ofthe best currently available technologies

. Most ofthe BAT proposals in the 'permit by rule' provisions do not appear to be based on the application ofany technology since they provide a single emissions limit without regard to the size ofthe facility

. BAT should establish a minimum control device efficiency, which when multiplied by the capacity of the facility seeking to be permitted establishes a facility specific hourly emission rate." We also incorporate by reference page 2 of David Altman's comments, submitted on October 13, 2004, regarding BAT. These comments were not addressed in OEPA's response to comments, in particular that OEPA has not demonstrated that the proposed modification does not violate the anti-backsliding provision ofthe Clean Air Act. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The sixproposedpermit-by-rule provisions contain combinations ofqualification criteria to define the size offacility, operating conditions, workpractices, emission limitations, etc. that col/ectivelv constitute BATfor thatparticulartype andsize 

### ofsource. It shouldbe noted that Ohio EPA basedsome ofthe permit-by-rule criteria on its review of permits-to-instal/issued forsimilarsources 

### over the previous three 

### years. In manycases, the permit-by-rule conditions go beyondbasic Ohio SIP requirements and what is normallydefined as BATin permits to install. Consequently, Ohio EPA considers the PBR sources to be regulated on 

### a level comparable to that of permitted sources. ·Therefore, this is not in conflict with anyanti-backslidingprovisions ofthe Clean AirAct. When considering potential PBR categories, the Ohio EPA onlyconsidered source types that have 

### a wellestablishedBATdetermination which is unlikely to change significantlyin the future

. Ohio EPA specifically excluded from the PBR sources which require complexadd-on emission control equipment of the type mentioned byMr. Buckheit. These types ofsources are left to be regulated through traditional permits orgeneralpermits. With the exception ofgasoline dispensing facilities, add-on emissions controls are characteristicallynot cost effective forsmall emitting sources, such 

### as those coveredbythe PBR provisions

. Forgasoline dispensing facilities, minimum control equipment efficiency

### is specifiedby OAC 3745-21-09(R) or (DOD) andis included in the PBR conditions

.

.As 

### requiredbyR. C. 

### 119.032, the Agencymustreview each rule once eve!}'five years. This normal fiveyearreview cycle, which includes the opportunity forpublic comment , will afford the Agency

### a chance to review and revise, ifnecessal}', 

### the permit-by-rule conditions to reflect anynew developments in BAT.
Commentor F: These comments are in regard to Ohio EPA's proposed amendment of OAC 3745-31-03 (Permit to Install exemptions) to incorporate new permit-by-rule (PBR) provisions in the Agency's air permitting program. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce supports the effort to remove small air pollution sources from the individual permitting system , and appreciates Ohio EPA's effort to finalize six new PBRs

. 

### Ohio EPA Response: No response necessary . Commentor D: I have not seen comment as to how these provisions may affect facilities subject to title V permits. In particular, a facility may have boilers that are listed in a title V permit and that are consequently subject to quarterly reporting

. A similar situation may exist for a maintenance , prototype, or touch-up paint booth that may 

### be included in a title V permit, and may also fit the definitions in the proposed permit-by-rule for small paint shops

.

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 6 of22 Will a boiler or paint booth that is relieved of reporting requirements pursuant to the permit-by-rule also be relieved ofthose requirements within a title V permit? · Ifthere are historic permits-to-install for subject boilers or booths, will there be an advantage for a title 

### V facility to have those permits rescinded and have the equipment registered under the permit-by-rule? Are there any other provisions ofthe permit-by-rule that may effect emission units that are presently included in a title 

### V permit? Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA does notanticipate much use ofthe PBRprovisions by Title V facilities. However, Title V facilities may opt to claim any ofthe PBR exemptions orpermanent exemptions specifiedby OAC rule 3745-31-03. It shouldbe noted that emissions from allsources. exempt ornot, must be counted when determining the applicability ofTftle 

### V, PSD, ornon-attainment New Source Reviewpermitting actions

. This 

### is specifiedin the introductorylanguage to the PBRprovisions. 

### A Tftle 

### Vfacility claiming a PBR exemption will need to modifyits Title 

### Vpermit to include the PBR provisions

. Ifa conflict in monitoring orreporling frequency between the Title V and PBR conditions becomes evident, the more stringent requirement shall apply. A Title V facility shouldperform its own evaluation ofwhetherclaiming PBR exemptions is in its best interests. The auto bodyfinishing PBR is for thatspecific industry only, and can not be used forothersmall industrialpainting operations.



### SECTION 2 Comments Pertaining to the General Provisions Section 

### 2
. 1 Record Keeping Requirements Note: Commentor G's comments pertaining to record keeping requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities are included under Section 3 for specific PBR provisions. 

### 2.2 Notification Requirements for New Installations Commentor B: (A)(4)(a)(ii}-The written notification prior to installation should be sent to both Ohio EPA and the appropriate district office or local air agency. Additionally, it should be specified that the written notification is to be submitted at least 60 days priorto installation. Commentor C: Does Ohio EPA have a system in place to notify the District Offices and Local AirAgencies ofall facilities which submit permit-by-rule notifications to Ohio EPA-PMU? Ohio EPA Resoonse: The Ohio EPA intends to share all PBR notifications with the districtoffices and localairagencies in 

### a timelymannerand willprovide proceduralguidance. Also see response to CommentorB, Section 1

. Commentor E : The rule as proposed allows companies simply to notify the Director of their intention to take the exemption from PTI and use Permit 

### By Rule instead. Under current law, the Director can deny or condition permits based on social or economic impacts of the air contaminants

...or other adverse environmental

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Smnmary 

### Page 7 of22 impact that may result from approval ofthe source. 3745-31-05(8). Under the proposed regulations, such impacts could not be considered. We believe that new sources should APPLYfor exemption and must make an initial demonstration of compliance through actual calculations of emissions or direct testing. The director should retain his ability to deny or condition exemptions, based upon such considerations as: (1) prior record of a company; (2) environmental justice impacts; (3) air quality attainment status. Public notice should also be made for each application for exemption. In its application, the source should be required to give sufficient detailed information useful to regulators and to neighborhoods: ua listing of all pollutants emitted by the facility (in amounts greater than de minimis), and a list of all control technology devices. For each such device, the source should be required to list the pollutant controlled, the design control efficiency and the operating capture and control efficiencies (the percentage of exhaust gases captured by the system, and the percentage of pollutants removed bythe system, respectively.) 

### Ohio EPA Response: The PBR notification procedures contained in the General Provisions section are intended to provide the

. Agency with the ability to request sufficient information to ascertain whether the source qualifies fora specific PBR

. Because the PBR qualifying criteria and operating requirements serve to define the emission source, the Ohio EPA disagrees that sources shouldhave to list allemissions, 

### control devices, capture efficiencies, etc. in a PBR application. Requiring such information would also be burdensome to the smallbusiness community. The Ohio EPA will continue to request this type ofin-depth technicalinformation forsources needing traditionalpermits. Ohio EPA district offices andlocal airagencies will retain the discretion to not allow

### a facility to claim 

### a PBR exemption based on past operating andcompliance history, observed violations, andanylocal concerns.
2

.3 Notification Requirements for Existing Permitted Sources Commentor B: (A)(4)(a)(iii)-The transition from an existing permit to a permit by rule needs to be addressed in the rule, such that additional work is not created for the permittee orthe permitting authority. 

### Ohio EPA Response: As 

### explainedabove, input from the district offices/localairagencies will be needed for facilities applying to switch from 

### a currentpermit to 

### a PBR. DAPC envisions this process as 

### similarto the field office sending 

### a permit recommendation to Central Office to change the permitstatus. Because this process 

### is mostlyadministrative in nature, onlythe basic requirements were outlinedin the rule.
Commentor E: Similarly, sources already operating under permits must not be allowed simply to opt in to the exemption, but rather the Director must consider such issues as (1) prior BAT determinations; (2) prior conditions placed upon operations to comply with the terms offindings and orders issued by OEPA ; (3) evidence of nuisance; (4) air quality attainment status. These considerations are examples only and do not include all the possible conditions which may exist. We also feel that the application for revocation of a permit should be put into public notice and maintained as a public record

. Ordinarily, issuance of a permit, replete with control requirements , reporting and record keeping and applicable emissions limits,would be published in the weekly review so that parties
"adversely affected" would be afforded notice in the event they wished to lodge an appeal with ERAC. As written, the draft rule makes opting in to the permit by rule exemptions secret and not public

. Some type of publication in the weekly review should be made for all exemption requests and all PTI revocationOAC 3745

-31 ·03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 8 of22 requests. 

### Ohio EPA Resoonse: As explainedabove, the district offices!Jocalairagencies will initially have the opportunity to determine whether

### a permittedsource may convert to 

### a PBR considering past compliance history, priorpermit conditions, nuisance complaints, etc. Notices of permit revocation constitute 

### a final action by the Directorandare appealable to the Environmental ReviewAppeals Commission.

2.4 Notification Requirements forExisting Permit-by-Rule Sources Commentor 8: (A)(4)(a)(iv)-Does Ohio EPA have a plan in place to notify the existing PBR sources ofthis requirement? The written notification for the existing PBR sources should be sent to both Ohio EPA and the appropriate district office 

### or local air agency. 

### Ohio EPA Response: OAC 3745-31-03 nevercontained anynotification requirements for the five existing permit-by-rule categories, so 

### no comprehensive list ofthese sources exists

. However, The Ohio EPA will investigate 

### as many outreach avenues as practical to inform the regulated communffyabout the notification requirements for existing PBR categories

. Anynotifications receivedat Central Office 

### will be forwarded to the district offices andlocal airagencies.


### 2.5 Reporting Requirements Commentor 

### 8 : (A)(4)(a)(vi)(b)-The last sentence should read 

### A.
..andanycorrective actions 

### eforpreventive measures that have

... Ohio EPA Response: The need for this correction has been noted

. 2

.

### 6 Scheduled Maintenance/Malfunction Reporting Note: Commentor G's comments pertaining to the maintenance/malfunction reporting requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities are included under Section 3 for specific PBR provisions.

SECTION 

### 3 Comments Pertaining to the Six New Permit-by-Rule Exemotions Soecified by OAC Rule 3745-31- 03(A)(4)(g\ 

### throuah (I)



### 3.1 Comments Specific to Auto Body Refinishing Permit-by-Rule Commentor A:

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 9 of22
Auto Body Refinishing Facility: Under Testing Requirements, the rule should specify test methods, instead of relying only on assumed emission factors. Commentor C: This Agency still believes a test method for determining VOC contents should be fisted in the testing requirements section forthe auto body refinishing and printing facility permit-by-rules. This Agency agrees that Method 24 is not necessarily needed but the Agency should list the available methods for determining the VOC content. Requiring this in the testing requirements section is consistent with permits presently being issued by Ohio EPA. Also determining the proper VOC content is important forthe printing facilities since it is used in determining the emissions from these operations. The following wording could be used in the testing section: A Formulation data, material safety data sheets or USEPA Method 24 or 24A shall be used to determine the VOC content ofthe coatings. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA did considerreferencing Method24 in the auto bodyrefinishing and printing PBRs. However, we felt that stating 

### a specific testmethodmight confuse facilities into thinking thatlab analyses ofall coatings was 

### required. This wouldbe cost 

### prohibitive formanysmall facilities. We agree that Method24 can be usedin anyspecial case 

### where the VOC content ofa 

### coating orcoatings is 

### ofsuch importance that it affects the applicabilityofthe PBR. In addition, we believe the conservative assumptions ofmaterial maximum VOC content in the PBRs allow

### a comfortable margin oferror.
Commentor E: We believe the draft rule needs greater clarification so as to follow the EPA guidance for ensuring that PBR will not be applied to major sources. EPA guidance upon which this rule was based states that "The EPA recommends a more conservative approach forthese repainting facilities

.... For example, Earl Scheib facilities contain one spray booth, and are designed for a capacity of40-50 cars per week. This EPA guidance recommends limiting such facilities to "only 1 paint booth". (Technical Support Document for Potential to Emit Guidance Memo. Documentation of Emission Calculations. Tim Smith, USEPAfOAQPS. April1998) Additionally, we add the following comments: p 16: para g(i)(c) coatings should include both "cleanup solvents" and "dilution solvents" should both appear, in conformity with EPA guidance.

. p17: para f 

### (iii) and 

### (iv) the stack height should be at minimum 1 and**~** times the height ofthe building, and the setback of 60 feet should 

### be increased to at least 100 feet. OEPA states that these limits are the minimum required to conform to the Ohio AirToxics Policyfor 23 chemicals, and we do not feel this is adequate. In addition, the high potential for nuisance emissions from these facilities, coupled with the fact that many auto body facilities are located in close proximity to residential areas, should lead to an increased requirement for dispersion of emissions. p17: para ii(a) sets an hourly VOC emissions limit of 9 lbs!hr which is based upon EPA guidance for a single spray booth. The rule as written allows fortwo spray booths; this will allow exceedances ofthe hourly emissions limit. p17: para iii(a) is not enforceable as written. In order to make BAT meaningful, the vague phrase "in order to minimize air contaminant emissions" should be deleted and the wording " shall keep spray equipment operating at the specified control and transfer efficiency, by maintaining it in accordance with

..." should be added. p18: para (iv) some method should be included for determining the portion ofVOC content contributed byOAC 3745-31-03 Public CommentParty Responsiveness Summary Page 10 of22 oxygenated or chlorinated solvents. We believe that Method 24 should be required to accurately determine this

. p19: para (v) (b) is erroneous in stating that the hourly emissions compliance is determined by the 9 lbsVOC/hr emission factor. As stated earlier, this is a factor for onejob in one spray booth, and will too low by half if both spray booths are operating simultaneously

. Ohio EPA Resoonse: The permit-by-rule strategyis notmeant to covermajorsources and the qualifying criteria ensure that

### a PBR source, byitself, 

### is not

### a majorsource. U.S

. EPA ' s PTE Guidance document, as referenced in the comments, does recommend using criteria of two spraybooths for

### a collision repair facility, and one spraybooth for

### a "paint-only"facility such 

### as Earl Scheib facilities which do not also repair vehicle bodies. It also contains recommendations fornumber of jobs per week. Afterexplaining that the two types offacilities do not differmuch in emissions on 

### a per job basis, the guidance document conservativelyrecommends no more than 50jobs perweek from either 1YJ2fE. offacility. This is the criteria Ohio EPA chose to simplify the PBR so it would coverboth types of facilities, and

### is in fact, the most stringentrecommendation (no more than 50jobs/week) in the PTE guidance document. U.S. t=PA guidance recommended a conservative emission factor of91bs VOC per job, notperbooth. The guidance didnot recommend orspecifyhourly emission rates from spraybooths. It is Ohio EPA ' s assumption to use onejob perhour

### as the maximum production rate ofthe whole facility, based on actual industrystudies as referenced in the PTEguidance document, in orderto estimate hourly emissions

. This 

### was done to agree with normalstate permit writing protocol for establishing hourly emission limits. The PBR criteria specifies use ofnot more than 3000 gallons ofall VOC-containing materials which encompasses 

### a largeruniverse ofmaterials than the ucoatings, dilution solvent andcleaning solvent" mentioned U

.S. EPA's guidance. The Ohio EPA performed an analysis which showed that the proposed hourlyemissions rates, coupled with the stack design specifications, comformed with the Air Taxies Policy and Engineering Guide 69 for approximately21 common airtoxic substances. This follows currentprotocols used when processing permit-to-install applications for these types ofsources.



### 3.2 Comments Specific to Gasoline Dispensing Facility Permit-by-Rules Commentor A: Gasoline Dispensing Facility with Stage I Controls AND with Stage I and Stage II Controls :
a. Periodic leak checks should be required b

. Under Testing Requirements, the rule should specify test methods instead of relying only on assumed emission factors c. Under Testing Requirements, it is unnecessary and possibly anti-credible evidence to state, "The OC emissions from all diesel , kerosene, and used oil tank filling and dispensing operations, if present atthe facility, are assumed to be negligible" Ohio EPA Resoonse: The PBR requires leak checks in a mannerconsistent with OAC rule 3745-21-09(R) and currentpermits forgasoline dispensing facilities

. Testing 

### is not required for Stage I control systems in Ohio. The test methods to be used by faci/fties with Stage II controls are specified by OAC rule 3745-21- 10 and the applicable GARB certification andare stated in the PBR. The statement about emissions fromOAC 3745

-31-03 Public CommentParty Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 11 of22 diesel, kerosene, and used oil tank filling/dispensing was included for clarification andis meant to reflect that these emissions, although notzero, are typically verysmall anddo notaddsignificantlyto the emissions generated from gasoline operations

. This statementis often includedin current pennits for gasoline dispensing facilities.
Commentor E: Ohio EPA cites 1998 EPA guidance as its basis forthe threshold established in this rule; however the throughput amount recommended by EPA to comply with a 25 ton per year OC limit is halfthe throughput allowed by OEPA in this rule

. EPA states in its guidance that it has built in a 50% margin to account for error in emissions factors. This rule allows double the amount ofthroughput recommended by EPA for both Stage 

### I and Stage 

### II facilities. OEPA has apparently eliminated any error margin in its throughput allowances

. Please explain why OEPA is notfollowing EPA guidance

. 

### Ohio EPA Response: Ohio EPA is following U.S. 

### EPA's guidance. U.S. 

### EPA's 1998 PTEguidance can be somewhat confusing as 

### theirrecommended gasoline throughput levels equate to 50percent, orhalf, of Title Vmajorsource thresholds

. States have different Title Vmajorsource thresholds, depending on the severity ofnonattainment. For example, the PTEguidance states that ifa state has 

### a Title Vthreshold of 25 tons peryear , EPA recommends a monthlythroughput of 160 ,000 gallons permonth. This throughput equates to 12.5 tons/year ofactual emissions, or50% ofa 25 tons peryearmajorsource threshold. However, Ohio' s Title Vthreshold is 100 tons peryearofVOC, 

### not25 tons peryear. We could have based the PBR on U.S. 

### EPA ' s recommendations for

### a 100 tonslyr Title V threshold, which wouldhave allowed twice the throughput and 50 tonslyrofactual emissions. The PBR is 

### more stringent in this case 

### and

### is consistent with EPA's recommended throughput values fora 50 tons peryearmajorsource threshold classification. This explains why the PBR throughputs equate to 50% ofa 50 tons peryear threshold, or25 tons peryear ofactual emissions. Commentor E: Two out offive local air agencies commented in 2003 that the PBR is not an appropriate regulatory choice for GDF, and instead suggested the use of General Permits for this type offacility. The Ohio EPA responded that the PPEC which wrote the rule "did not consider compliance rates ortracking difficulties in its recommendations." (Summary and Response to Comments, September 23, 2003) We agree with the local agencies that it is inappropriate to remove GDFs from the permit system, as local air agencies are still under contract to perform recurring inspections on 100% of facilities. We feel that use ofthe general permit is more appropriate in this case, as the permit system provides a greater certainty that the agency can ensure compliance. Furthermore, allowing GDFs to be exemptfrom the permitting system will eliminate permit fees which the local air agencies rely upon to provide such services as inspection ofthese facilities

. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA anticipateda drop in pennitfees due to the new PBR provisions and increasedpennit-to-install fees in 2004 and will be increasing emission fees forsynthetic minorand nonTitle Vfacilities to offset the difference. Districtoffices 

### andlocal airagencies will continue to perform annual inspections ofgasoline dispensing facilities, as 

### required byperformance contracts with Ohio EPA and SIP commitments made to U.S. 

### EPA. We feel gasoline dispensing facilities are best suitedfor

### a pennU-by-rule, ratherthan generalpermits, because ofthe vast numberoffacilities and similarityof operetion and emissions.
Commentor G: The OPMCA has concerns with the proposed record keeping and record retention requirements in Section · 3745-31-03 ofthe Ohio Administrative Code

. Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) Record Keeping Requirements states:

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 12 of22 The owner or operator shall collect and maintain the records described for each air contaminant source exempted underthis rule and these records shall be retained in the owner or operator's files for a period of not less than five years, unless otherwise specified in each exemption. These records shall be made available to the director or any authorized representative of the directorfor review during normal business hours

. The general "record keeping requirements" in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) mandate that an owner or operator electing to take advantage ofthe permit-by-rule exemption to collect and maintain records for the exempted source for five years unless the specific permit exemption states otherwise. However, a separate records-related section in the General Provisions for a permit-by-rule exemption seems to suggest a distinction between the records described in the aforementioned paragraph and records associated with monitoring ortesting data. Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(v) Records Retention Requirements states: Each record of any monitoring data, testing data, and support information required pursuant to this permit-by-rule shall be retained for a period offive years from the date the record was created. Support information shall include, but not be limited to, all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip-chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, and copies for all reports required by this permit. Such records may be maintained in computerized form. The "records retention requirement" in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(v) does not allow the specific permit exemption to dictate how long an owner or operator should retain records containing monitoring and testing data for a particular exempted source. For an owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing facility with Stage I and Stage II controls these general records-related provisions cause substantial confusion

. On the one hand the general "recordkeeping" requirements in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) require record be maintained forfive years, but deferto the specific permit exemption. The specific permit exemption for gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage I and Stage II controls requires records to be maintained in accordance with Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) ofthe Ohio Administrative Code

. Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) specifically states:: (a) Any owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing facility which is subject to the requirements of paragraph (ODD)( 1) of this rule shall maintain the following records: (i) The quantity of gasoline delivered to the facility during each calendar month

. (ii) The results 

### of any

### tests performedpursuant to paragraph 

### (000)(2) of this rule 

### (Emphasis added). (iii) A log ofthe date and description of all repair and maintenance work performed (including, but not limited to, work performed to meet manufacturer's specifications or CARS certification requirements), or any other modifications made to the vapor control system
. (iv) A copy ofthe most recent permit to operate application (including emissions activity category form or appendix form.) submitted to the Ohio EPA. (v) A copy ofthe most recent permit to operate issued by the Ohio EPA. (vi) Proof of attendance and completion ofthe training required by the Ohio EPA for the operator or local manager ofthe gasoline dispensing facility. (vii) Copies of all completed post test Inspection forms. (b) All records shall be retained by the owner or operator for

### a period

### of not

### less than three 

### years and shall be made available to the director or any authorized representative ofthe director for review during norma[ business hours (Emphasis added).OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 13 of22 Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) ofthe Ohio Administrative Code requires all records, including results of any tests, to be maintained for three years. The confusion arises because the "record retention" requirement in the General Provisions section that addresses monitoring and testing data does not allowforthe specific permit exemption to supersede the requirement to retain monitoring and testing data "for a period offive years from the date the record was created." Therefore, while the current Ohio Administrative Code requires gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage I and Stage II controls to retain results from testing for three years, the proposed amendment to 3745-31-03 extends the length oftime monitoring and testing data for these facilities must be retained to five years.
The OPMCA questions the need to treat "records described for each air contaminant source exempted" and "each record ofany monitoring data, testing data, and support information required pursuant to this permit-by-rule differently. The OPMCA recommends that the general "record retention" requirements in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(v) ofthe proposed amendment be eliminated and incorporated into the general "record keeping" requirements under Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) ofthe proposal. This recommended change not only eliminates the need to more clearly distinguish between "record retention" and "record keeping• requirements in the current proposal, but also allows for the specificpermit exemption languageto clearly state precisely what recordkeeping requirements should apply to a particular exempted source. The OPMCAfurther recommends that the "recordkeeping requirements" for gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage I and Stage II controls remain consistent with current law and all records associated with the exempted source be retained for onlythree years. The OPMCA is also concerned with the requirement in the proposed amendment that a gasoline dispensing facility must retain post inspection information on site. Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(i)(vi)(a) states in pertinent part "[a)fter competition of anytests, the facility shall complete and retain on site a copy of the post test inspection form contained in Appendix C of rule 3745-21-10 of the Administrative Code." The record keeping requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage II controls pursuantto Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) mandate an owner or operator to keep the results of any tests and those results are required to be made available to the to the director or any representative ofthe director for review during normal business hours. The OPMCA supports the current language of Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3). The OPMCA recognizes the potential for these types of important documents to get misplaced or even discarded in a high-volume gasoline dispensing facility. The risk associated with the loss ofthese documents increases greatly due to the fact the facility is by its very nature a fast-paced, high traffic location. The OPMCA contends that the most appropriate location for documents associated with an air pollution controls system at a gasoline dispensing facility to be housed is the owner or operator's main office whereby the documents can be easily located and made readily available to the director or any representative ofthe directorfor review during normal business hours. The Agency obviously recognizes that the most appropriate manner in which to examine specific facility documentation is to require that certain documentation "be made available to the director or any representative ofthe director for review during normal business hours• since this exact language appears in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) ofthe current proposal. Therefore, the OPMCA recommends that the relevant provision of Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(i)(vi)(a) be revised to state: After competition of any tests, the facility shall complete a copy ofthe post test inspection form contained in Appendix C of rule 3745-21-10 ofthe Administrative Code. A copy ofthe post inspection form shall be retained by the owner or operator ofthe facility and shall be made available to the director or any representative ofthe directorfor review during normal business hours. 

### Ohio EPA Resoonse: The 5-yearrecord retention language contained in the PBR General Provisions 

### is nota new requirement and

### is identical to the standard record retention language containedin the Part/- General Terms and Conditions section ofallpermits-to-instal! issuedby Ohio EPA. The Ohio EPA will considerdeveloping guidance to clarify the record retention requirements forgasoline dispensing facilities and to allow forpost test inspection forms 

### to be kept in a centralized location.OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary Page 14 of22 Commentor G: Lastly, the OPMCA is concerned about the inclusion of a Scheduled Maintenance/Malfunction Reporting section in the General Provisions for the new permit-by-rule exemptions

. Section 3745-31- 03(A)(4)(a){vii) states: Any scheduled maintenance of air pollution control equipment shall be performed in accordance with paragraph (A) of rule 3745-15-06 ofthe Administrative Code. The malfunction ofany emissions units or associated air pollution control system(s) shall be reported to the appropriate Ohio EPA district office or local air agency in accordance with paragraph (B) of the rule 3745-15- 06 of the Administrative Code. Except as provided in that rule, any scheduled maintenance or malfunction necessitating the shutdown or bypassing ofany air pollution control system(s) shall be accompanied by the shutdown ofthe emissions ·units that is (are) served by such control system(s).
The reference to Section 3745-15-06 ofthe Ohio Administrative Code in the afrementioned paragraph contemplates that regularly scheduled maintenance takes place on all air pollution control systems. While this may be the case with respect to large-scale industrial air pollution control systems, this is clearly not the case for air pollution control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities. In fact, the air pollution control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities with State I controls and with both Stage I and Stage II controls are specifically designed so that routine, scheduled maintenance is unnecessary. In the event of a malfunction associated with a Stage I or Stage II air pollution control system, the equipment is specifically designed so that replacements parts are easily available on service equipment vehicles and can be installed in a short period of time with minimal disruption to the gasoline dispensing facility

. Underthe current air permitting system a permit-to-install issued for a gasoline dispensing facility does not make reference to Section 3745-15-06 ofthe Ohio Administrative Code

. The OPMCA is concerned that the specific reference to 3745-15-06 in the General Provisions forthe permit-by-rule exemptions creates additional requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities under the proposed "streamlined" permit process that do not exist underthe current air permitting system. Creating additional requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities by virtue ofthe reference to 3745-15-06 in the General Provisions for a permit-by-rule exemption greatly reduces the incentive for gasoline dispensing facilities to participate in this process, which was purposely designed to reduce the Agency's wori<load. In addition, gasoline dispensing facilities

, are already subject to distinct reporting requirements pursuant to Sections 3745-31-03 (A)(4)(h) and (i) of

the Ohio Administrative Code in the event the air pollution control system should malfunction. Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(h)(v)(a) and Section 3745-31-03(A)(4){i)(v)(b) both require that: Any leak from the vapor balance system or vapor control system that is not repaired within fifteen days after identification shall be reported to the appropriate Ohio EPA district office or local air agency within thirty days after the repair is completed

. The OPMCA recommends the Agency consider eliminating the reference to Ohio Administrative Code Section 3745-15-06 in the General Provisions section ofthe permit-to-install exemptions or consider amending Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(vii) as currently drafted to indicate that the provisions of 3745-15- 06 as incorporated by reference do not apply to gasoline dispensing facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. The OPMCA acknowledges the hard wori< and dedication exhibited bythe Agency as well as by industry over the past four years. The OPMCA looks forward to continuing our dialogue as the expanded, streamlined permit-by-rule process comes to fruition

. Ohio EPA Resoonse: The Scheduled Maintenance/Malfunction Reporting requirements language containedin the PBR General Provisions 

### is not

### a new requirement and

### is identical to the standard maintenance and malfunction language containedin the Part I -General Terms and Conditions section of allpermits-to-instal! issued by Ohio EPA. The Ohio EPA will consider working with OPMCA to develop

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary Page 15 of22 guidance to clarifyhow gasoline dispensing facilities should define andreport scheduledmaintenance andmalfunctions.


### 3.3 Comments Specific to Boiler/Heater Permit-by-Rule Commentor A: Boiler and Heater a. As monitoring for visible emissions, the rule must require periodic Method 9 testing. b. In (v)(a), the rule should specifytest methods for the individual pollutants instead of only relying on emission factors. c. The language in (v)(b) is unnecessary and possibly anti-credible evidence. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA believes that mandatingperiodic Method 9 testing for visible emissions is unnecessaryandburdensome fornaturalgas fired boilers. However, the PBR does specify that the Ohio EPA can require Method 9 evaluations forcause. Method 9 readings can a/so 

### be performed by Ohio EPA staffduring routine inspections. The Ohio EPA does not wish to mandate emission testing for these types ofsources. We felt that specifying each test method for each pollutant wouldmake the PBR language confusing to the readerandinsteadincluded the simplifiedphrase, "Ifrequired bythe Ohio EPA, the owneroroperatorshall demonstrate compliance with

........the hourly emission limitations

......in accordance with the appropriate testmethods specifiedin Appendix

### A. 40 CFR Part 60. n 

### The referenced AppendixA includes all ofthe appropriate test methods. The language in paragraph lj)(v)(b) 

### is intended to clarify the annual tons peryearemission limitations reflect the potential-to-emit ofthe unit, as calculatedat 8, 760 hours peryear. This mirrors language in permits issued forsimilarsources. Commentor E: We believe that this rule can and will be used by petrochemical plants and petroleum refineries to avoid major modification determinations. We believe that the rule allows these facilities to disaggregate boilers from processes which would otherwise trigger PSD determinations. Therefore the wording ofthis rule be modified to prevent the avoidance of major modification determination; for example the rule should indicate that if a boiler could potentially be a part of any process or project which would later be eligible for PSD review, then that boiler should not be eligible for this PBR. 

### Ohio EPA Response: 

### As previouslystatedin the response to CommentorD, Section I, facilities must total emissions from allairpollution sources, exempt ornot, when determining the applicabilityofTitle 

### V, PSD, ornon-attainmentNewSource Reviewpermitting actions. This 

### is clarified in the introductorylanguage to both the permanent exemption and the PBR sections ofOAC 3745-31-03. Commentor E: pg27: para (i) comments are not rules; this comment should be rewritten in rule language p28: para (b) and (c) the rule should explicitly state that boilers which are used as emissions control devices are not eligible for exemption underthis rule p28: para (d) for purposes of BAT:all boilers claiming exemption under this rule should have low NOx burners There should be an initial NOx and CO compliance demonstration (actual emissions). All units under this rule should at the minimum demonstrate through actual emissions calculations or testing that they meet the qualification requirements ofthis rule.

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 16 of22 Records should be kept to enable updated calculations of PSD increment. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The commentwas 

### added to clarify the PBR does notinclude "process heaters"as defined in the federal NSPS 

### standards. Ohio EPA has 

### employedsuch clarifying comments before in rules. Boilers usedas 

### emissions controldevices are not eleigible for the PBR, since these units would not meet the qualifying criteria which specifies the units must onlyfire naturalgas 

### and that the emissions consist entirely ofthe products offuel combustion. We believe the qualifying criteria, emission limitations, andlow-NOx burnerrequirements constitute adequate BATfor these types ofsources. In developing the emission limitations ofthe PBR, the Ohio EPA calculatedactualandpotentialemissions from these types ofsources. We do notagree that industry shouldbe required to repeat these calculations for

### a compliance demonstration. Emission testing of naturalgas fired boilers is notnormallyrequired by the Ohio EPA unless itis a component ofa more comprehensive and complex facility-wide permitting situation, such as a LAER demonstration, netting calculation, etc.
3.4 Comments Specific to Small/Midsize Printing Facility Permit-by-Rule Commentor A: Small Printing Facility AND Mid-size printing facility: UnderTesting Requirements, the rule should specify test methods, instead of relying only on assumed emission factors. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA does notintend to require emission testing for these types of sources. The conservative assumptions used forcalculating emissions based on material usage are taken from U.S. 

### EPA's own guidance. Theyreflect a pure materialbalance approach as 

### opposed to a 

### true emission factormethod. Also see the response to Commentor

### C, Section 3. 1.
Commentor C: In response to this Agency's comments on the small and mid-size printing facilities permit-by-rule, Ohio EPA stated that these rules will be submitted as a SIP revision so they are federally enforceable. Ifthis is the case, then would 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KK need to be listed as an applicable rule ifthe potential HAP emissions are greater than 10/25 TPY? It is our understanding that ifyour actuals are less than 50 

### % ofthe major source threshold, this does not necessarily exempt you from the MACT requirements unlike Title V. 

### Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA agrees that the smallandmidsize printing facilities would be considered area sources underthe MACTstandard ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KK) and wouldneed to maintain material usage records as specifiedin the MACT. However, because the rest ofthe MACT regulation does not apply, we felt that listing the MACTin the PBR as 

### an applicable regulation would confuse both the printing facilfties andregulatorystaffandlead to manyadditional questions about MACT applicability andpotential to emit. The Ohio EPA can issue supplementalguidance on this issue as this relates only to the printing PBRs. Commentor I=: OEPA has not demonstrated any application ofthe air toxics policy for printing facilities to establish conditions for adequate dispersion oftoxic emissions. No offset or minimum stack height has been specified for the printing facilities categories. At a minimum, a stack height of 1 and 

### Yz times the building height should be required, and a setback from property boundary of at least 100 feet. p32: table the applicable rule cited for the emissions limit on VOC and HAPs, 3745-31-05, A3, appears to be incorrectOAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 17 of22 p33: para iii (a) (iv) test methods must be used that allow the source to quantify and report the contribution from oxygenates (e.g

. glycol ethers, alcohols) to total VOCs and HAPs Ohio EPA Response: Forthe printing PBRs, the Ohio EPA evaluatedpotentialair toxics impacts by reviewing the toxic modeling results (which were done in conformance with the airtoxics policy) contained in 100permits-to-install issued to printing facilities over

### a three yearperiod. Itshouldbe noted that this approach was used forseveral reasons: 1) printingpresses ofthe type describedin the PBR rarely have stacks and emissions are almostalways entirelyfugitive in nature; 2) differentprintingprocesses often emit different HAPs, · 3) estimating 

### a reasonable maximum hourlyemission scenario from allpresses at the facility

### is difficult, due to the intermittent nature ofpress operation and emissions; and4) a standard building size, exhaustscenario, location, etc
. does not exist forprinting facilities. The PTI reviewyielded modeling results for manysources which hadmuch larger emissions than those allowed bythe PBRs. These findings led Ohio EPA to conclude that emissions from the types ofsmallerprinting operations definedbythe PBR criteria would likelybe in conformance with the airtoxics policy. The emissions limits in the 

### PBRs were establishedas BATper OAC 3745-31-05(A)(3). The Ohio EPA did considerreferencing Method24 as a testmethod in the printing PBRs. However, we felt that including a specific test method might confuse facilities into thinking that lab analyses ofallmaterials was required. This would be costprohibitive formanysmall facilities. We agree that Method24 can be usedin any special case where the exact VOC content ofa material ormaterials is ofsuch importance that itaffects the applicability ofthe PBR. In addition, we believe the conservative assumptions formaximum material VOC contentlisted in the PBRs allow a comfortable margin oferror. Commentor E: OEPA states that it has relied upon EPA guidance for establishing limits on use ofprinting coatings: inks, dilution solvents, cleanup solvents, etc
. Yet in all ofthe categories of printing operation this draft rule doubles those allowances

. The EPA document indicates that its guidance was developed by reference to AP 42, and because of uncertainties with those emissions factors, the guidance left a large margin. The OEPA has in this rule done exact calculations using the EPA data which seems to have eliminated any margin of error built in by EPA. We question whether eliminating any uncertainty factor will ensure compliance with the emissions limits established by this rulE!. In all ofthe printing categories, the draft rule allows for 1,333 gallons of all HAP-containing materials; the EPA guidance sets this as a cutoff for remaining belowthe 10tpy single HAP/25 tpy total HAP, yet the state rule is using this threshold for a 5 tpy/1Otpy HAP threshold p31: para c(iii) EPA guidance suggests 10,000 lbs of ink, cleaning solvent, and fountain solution additives to remain below a 1Otpy VOC and 1Otpy/25tpy HAP threshold. p31: para c(iv) EPA guidance suggests a screening limit of 1425 gallons p31 : para c(v) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 1425 gallons p31-32: para c(vi) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 1425 gallons pg32: para c(vii) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 40,000 lbs p32: para c(viii) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 10,000 lbs Ohio EPA Resoonse: Ohio EPA 

### is following 

### U.S

. EPA ' s guidance. This response is simiiar to that provided earlierforgasoline dispensing facilities. U.S. EPA's 1998 PTEguidance can be somewhat confusing as theirrecommended material usage limits equate to 50 percent, orhalf, of Title 

### \1 major source thresholds. States have different Trtle Vmajorsource thresholds, depending on the severity of nonattainment

. For example, the PTEguidance states that 

### ifa state has a Title V threshold of 10 tons per yearfor \IOC, EPA recommends that total material usage not exceed 10,000pounds peryear (for heatset

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 18 of22 lithography)

. This usage rate conservatively equates to 5 tons/yearofactual emissions, or50% ofa 10 tons peryearmajorsource threshold. However, Ohio's Title Vthresholdis 100 tons peryearofVOC, not 10 tons peryear . We could have based the PBR on U.S. EPA ' s recommendations fora 100 tonslyr Title Vthreshold , which would have allowedmuch greatermaterialusages and 50 tonslyr ofactual emissions

. The PBRs are more stringent andare consistent with EPA ' s recommended material usage cutoffs fora 50 tons peryearmajorsource threshold (formidsize printing PBR) anda 25 tons peryearmajorsource threshold (forsmallprinting PBR). This explains whythe material usage limits equate to 25 tons peryear (50% ofa 50 tons peryearthreshold formidsize PBR) and 10 tons peryear (actuallyless than 50% ofa 25 tons peryear threshold forsmall PBR) ofactualemissions.
Commentor E: p32: para c(ix) This paragraph is meaningless in terms of imposing limits on use of materials. It states that if a mix of printing types is in use at afacility, then the most stringent limit will apply

. Since the limits for the various printing methods are listed in different units (gals and lbs), and vary by almost two orders of magnitude, it makes no sense to apply one most stringent limit to all types of printing. The facility should quantify the proportion of operations from each type of printing process, and the rule should proportionately apply coatings usage limits for each type of process. Ohio EPA Response: This condition was proposedby the printing industryandactuallyis much more restrictive and allows Jess actual emissions than the strategyproposedin the comment. To avoid confusion about which material usage limitapplies ata facility using differentprinting methods, the facility has the option to calculate emissions instead

. Commentor H: The GAC continues to support this rulemaking effort, and agrees with the changes proposed by the OH EPA (referred to as the Agency)

. Specifically, GAC agrees with the Agency's decision to streamline the rule by creating a section of "General Provisions." In reviewing the March 2005 proposal and interested party comment response document, there remain a few conditions that need to be addressed

. The issues discussed below pertain to 3745-31-03(A)(4)(k), Small Printing Facility permit-by-rule, and 3745-31- 03(A)(4)(1), Mid
-size printing facility**permit~by-rule.** 

### 1. The Qualifications section in both the small and mid-size printer still contains a threshold for combined HAP emissions of 10 TPY. In our original comments submitted on April18, 2004, GAC recommended a revision to 12.5 TPY. An emission threshold of 12

.5 TPY**rep~esents** 

### 50% ofthe major source threshold for the combined HAP limit and is consistent with U.S. EPA guidance

. This comment was not addressed by the Agency in its comment response document, so it remains unclear as to the rationale for the 10 TPY proposed limit for combined HAP emissions

. GAC maintains that by not establishing the combined HAP threshold at less than 50% ofthe major source threshold , there will be confusion and misinterpretation within the printing community. Maintaining the applicability threshold for emissions of both individual HAPs or combined HAPs at 50% ofthe major source threshold will provide for uniformity and consistency within the rule and with U

.S

. EPA guidance, which will allow for a more complete understanding of the rule. Therefore, Conditions 3745-31-03(A)(4)(k) (i)(b) and (i)(c) and 3745-31-03(A)(4)(1) (i){b) and (i)(c) should be revised from 10 to 12

.5 tons of combined HAPs in any calendar year and the threshold for combined HAPs be changed from 2,667 gallons to 3,333 gallons, respectively

. Ohio EPA Resoonse: The smallprinting PBR limfts combined HAP emissions to 10 tonslyr to avoid conflict and confusion with the concurrent limit of 10 tons!y r for VOC, since almost all HAPs from printing are also VOCs

. 

### The midsize printing PBR does limit combined HAP emissions to 12. 5 tonsl yrand limits the use ofHAP-containing mater i als to 3 ,333 galions peryear.

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public CommentParty Responsiveness Smnmary 

### Page 19 of22
Commentor H: 2. GAC appreciates the need to develop daily emission estimates to demonstrate compliance with the requirements forthe use of photochemically reactive materials contained in OAC 3745-21-07 and understands that this rule may be significantly revised at some point in the future. However, the development of a daily emission tracking system imposes a tremendous economic and administrative burden onprinters, especially the small printers covered by this rule. Daily recordkeeping provides no meaningful environmental benefit. An alternative approach based on a monthly collection of materials used will provide sufficient assurance that the daily limit contained in OAC 3745-21-07 is not being exceeded. From a regulatory perspective, OAC 3745-21-07 does not contain a provision that requires daily recordkeeping. In addition, U.S. EPA's latest guidance for the printing industry regarding this issue also supports monthly recordkeeping. The guidance document "Technical Support Document (TSD) forTitle V Permitting of Printing Facilities" can be viewed at htto://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarog/t5/memoranda/tsd.odf. Accurate daily recordkeeping in the printing industry is dependent on numerous factors including material consumption and the number ofjobs produced. Each print run may last from 30 minutes to over several days. Manyjobs started on one shift may end on the next shift or next day. Consequently, in orderto make an accurate determination of process emissions, extremely detailed records will have to be developed and maintained. The variety, combinations and consumption rate of inks alone would make this a costly and burdensome task. For example, a typical facility can easily use 20 different inks during a day. However, a particular container of ink opened maytake several days, weeks, or months to be completely consumed. Also, separate records for material consumption will have to be developed for each material used on each press. In the situations where a production run may involve two days, the press would have to be stopped.at the end of the first day and consumption of all input materials, such as but not limited to ink, fountain solution, cleaning solution, and coating consumption, would need to be measured. This is not uncommon and is the type of situation that presents itself when attempting to make accurate daily measurements. When considering the measurement parameters such as ink usage over a small period oftime, the printer is faced with an increase in potential measurement errors (i.e., measurement of remaining ink) and measurement of small increments ofwaste ink. As an example, in measuring the flow rate of a pump, a more accurate gauge ofthe flow is measuring the volume over a minute rather than measuring over a two-second interval. Further, the cost of developing a daily recordkeeping system to meet the requests of this proposed requirement is financially impracticable for printing operations. Daily recordkeeping requirements could increase the monitoring cost to the printing facility by ten-fold when compared to monthly recordkeeping. Below are some ofthe estimated average costs to a small to mid-size printing operation associated with daily recordkeeping: 

### Average of 1 hour of lost production time per day for each press: Press 001 - $150.00/hour Press 002- $150.00/hour Press 003- $200.00/hour 

### Total 

### $500.00 

### I hour Press Operator time to log information onto sheets: Press 001- $18,00/hour Press 002- $18.00/hour Press 003- $21.00/hour 

### Total $57.00 

### I hour

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 20 of22

$557 

### X20 $11,140.00 

### (Total Per Day Lost Production and Press OperatorCosts) (Average Work Days Per Month) (Average Total Monthly CostAssociated with Daily Recordkeeping) A monthly recordkeeping and emission determination for use of photochemically reactive materials would provide consistency and operational flexibility. Monthly records are also in sync with other records and business reports kept by individual printing facilities. A commenter suggested that the use of purchase records or usage records be allowed and GAC concurs with that comment. Records of sales, inventory, production, and waste are maintained on a monthly basis. This is an established recordkeeping system that can produce accurate information regarding emission rates and compliance without additional cost to the printer. The use of monthly recordkeeping is considered acceptable to U.S. EPA for those sources taking federally enforceable limits on their Potential Emissions. According to guidance issued by U.S. EPA on January

### 25, 1995 by Kathie 

### A. Stein, DirectorAir Enforcement Division entitled "Guidance On Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to EmitThrough SIP and Section 

### 112 Rules and General Permits"; monthly recordkeeping is deemed acceptable. Section E ofthe memo states in part "The averaging time for all limits must be practicably enforceable. In addition, monthly recordkeeping has also been recommended by U.S. EPA in its newTechnical Support Document (TSD) for Title 

### V Permitting of Printing Facilities (htto://www.epa.gov/ttn/oaroq/t5/memoranda/tsd.pdf). On Page 43, in Table 4-1, U.S. EPA states under Data Collection Frequency: 

### Atleast monthlyaccounting ofmaterialusage. On Page 44, in Table 4-1, U.S. EPA states under Recordkeeping: 

### Allmonthlyemissions determinations and 12-month.rofling summations forcompliance with anyNSR emissions limit on PTE. On page 

### 82, under the discussion ofAveraging Periods in Section 

### 6.3.2, U.S. EPA states: 

### The second type ofshort-term trackingproblem involves limits thatbytheirdesign neither constrain PTE norassure compliance with an applicable requirement with 

### a defined averaging time (e.g., MACTstandard, certain SIP limits). Ratherthese limits implement technologyrequirements withoutpreestablishedaveraging times (e.g., BACT) or safeguardambientlevels from exceedance. In manyinstances, the averaging times forsuch limits have been setin existing permits on 

### a dailyorshorterbasis. However, in some 

### cases, such as forsources with highly variable operations, it maynotbe reasonable oraccurate 

### to trackemissions this frequently. Forexample, manyprinting, othercoating, andbatch chemical processes often conduct jobs orbatches that extendacross multiple days, making daily tracking a problem. OurJune 1989guidance for PTElimits aUthorizes the period forsuch tracking materials usage to extend up to 

### a month in length. We believe, therefore. where 

### a VOC 

### source can demonstrate to you that

### it

### is impractical to conduct short-term tracking, you mayconsidermodifying an existingpermit, orissuing

### a permit, that allows the source to determine emissions overa longerperiod that is more conducive to emissions tracking (up to 1 month), provided thatyou can and first opt to modifyany underlyingpermit condition. Even though the inclusion of daily recordkeeping for photochemically reactive materials is common with individual permits, this new approach to permitting allows an alternative approachOAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 21 of22 that will accomplish the same goal. Therefore, the following revision (in bold) to Conditions 3745- 31-03(A)(4)(k) (iii) and 3745-31-03(A}(4)(1}(iii) needs to be made: (iii) Monitoring and/or Record Keeping Requirements. 

### (a) 

### If photochemically reactive materials are employed in non-flexographic presses at the facility, the owner or operator ofthe printing facility shall maintain the annual records described in paragraph (A)(4}(k}(iii)(c) for nonphotochemically reactive materials as well as daily records for each photochemically reactive material based on the monthly records required in paragraph (iii)( c) and assignment of usage production records {e.g., hours ofoperation, impressions, etc) which list the following information for each graphic arts material (ink, fountain solution additives, clean-up solvents, etc.) employed in each printing line: In conclusion, GAC believes that with these two changes, the regulatory package meets two very important criteria. First, it provides streamlined permitting requirements that will provide guidance and environmental benefit. Second, the requirements afford operational flexibility to the printing industry. 

### Ohio EPA Resoonse: The Ohio EPA appreciates the analysis providedbythe printing industry. We agree thata 

### monthlyrecord keeping schedule, as 

### explainedby 

### U.S. EPA, is adequate to enforce monthlyshort tenn and 12-month rolling average emission limitations needed to establish federally enforceable conditions. The permit-by-rule conditions concerning OAC rule 3745-21-07(G)(2) emission limitations and dailyrecord keeping requirements were includedin orderto enforce the daily emission limitin the rule, as itpresenty exists. The Ohio EPA recognizes this portion ofthe permit-by-rule couldneed revision based on future revisions ofOAC 3745-21-07. Two distinct record keeping requirements were includedand will be retained since the use ofphotochemicallyreactive materials (PRM) necessitates dailyrecord keeping. This 

### is consistent with currentpermits issued by Ohio EPA.

Commentor F: We would like to comment on a specific concern regarding the proposed PBR for Mid-Size Printing Facilities. As drafted, existing facilities with flexographic printing operations that have actual emissions of less than 25 tons per year ofVOCs, 5 TPY of an individual HAP and 12.5TPY ofaggregated HAPs would be eligible to fall underthe PBR, thereby substantially reducing and simplifying their record keeping provisions. It is also our understanding that a facility underthe PBR rule would be not be subject to additional air taxies review. These outcomes are extremely important for eligible Ohio businesses because they ease a company's administrative burden and provide increased flexibility in the manufacturing process. Unfortunately, there appears to be one provision in the rule that would disqualify certain Ohio facilities from the Mid-Size Printing PBR. The provision is found in OAC 3745-31-03(A)(4)(1)(ii)(a), on page 38 of the proposed rule. It essentially precludes printing facilities that use more than 148 tons per year (296,000 pounds) of coatings and inks from eligibility for the PBR. The usage limit is 148 tons, 

### regardless of whether the flexographic inks are solventbased or waterbased. Inks used in the corrugating shipping container industry today are almost all water based (containing very low VOCs). As we discussed, one case in point is an Ohio facility that uses only water based inks, adhesives and coatings

. Total VOC emissions during CY 2004 were less than 

### 8.5 tons (well below the 

### 25 TPY limit set forth in the rule). This was based upon the use of 526,000 pounds of inks, adhesives and coatings combined

. Therefore , due to the usage restriction above , the company would be ineligible iorthe PBR. The Ohio Chamber is concerned that the proposed 148 TPY usage limit would preclude many ofthe corrugated box plants located in Ohio from the potential benefits ofthe PBR. We ask that you consider

### OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

### Page 22 of22 either removing the usage restriction outright, or modifying it to allow a much larger usage threshold for facilities that essentially employ water based inks, adhesives and coatings on an annual basis. 

### Ohio EPA Resoonse: 

### The Ohio EPA recognizes that some 

### printing facilties with low actual emissions may not qualifyfor the PBR as the commentordescribes. The PBR was developed bya workgroup which included representatives ofmajorprinting industry trade groups, including the flexographic printing sector. The facility describedin the comment willnotbe able to utilize the PBRprovisions, and the following explanation is beingprovided. The 148 tons peryearmaterialusage level refers to specific Ohio RACTregulation exemption criteria specified by OAC rule 3745-21-09(Y)(2)(b). This criteria exempts flexographic printing operations from VOC content restrictions on inks and coatings oradd-on emission control equipmentiftotal usage ofinks and coatings atthe facilfty is 148 tons 

### peryear orless. 

### The Ohio EPA specifically wrote the PBR to avoid triggering these RACTrequirements forflexographic printing operations. This 

### is why the material usage limits for flexographic printing are well below 148 tons peryear. Triggering the RACTrequirements also necessitates monthlyrecord keeping and quarlerly usage reporling per OAC rule 3745-21-09(8). Thus, the Ohio EPA would need to rewrite substantialportions ofthe PBR requirements to account for this one scenario. The Ohio EPA believes this would undulylengthen the PBR and cause considerable confusion among non-flexographicprinting facilities in understanding the PBR requirements.

SECTION4 Comments Pertaining to the Proposed Changes ofthe Existing Permanent Exemptions Specified by OAC Rule 3745-31-03(A)(1) Commentor B: (A)(1}-Should be changed to read 

### A.
..subject to the National Emissions Standards forHazardousAir Pollutants (NESHAPs) with the exception of40 CFR Parl61, subparl M, asbestos 

### removal activfties, or emissions units #laf sub;ect to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards

... Ohio EPA Resoonse: The need for this correction has 

### been noted

.

End of Responsiveness Summary