### MAR 2 0 **2015**
**STATE OF MICHIGAN**  

# DE€1 **DEPARTMENT OF**  **ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY** 

**RICK SNYDER**  **GOVERNOR**

**Mr. George**  **Czerniak, Director**  **Air and Radiation**  **Division LANSING** 

**March 13, 2015** 

**United States**  **Environmental Protection**  **Agency Region**  **5 77**  **West Jackson**  **Boulevard (A-18J)**  **Chicago, Illinois**  **60604-3507**
**Dear Mr.**  **Czerniak: DAN**  **WYANT DIRECTOR** 

**SUBJECT: Supplement**  **to the**  **Michigan State**  **Implementation Plan**  **(SIP) Submittal**  **of**

**Revisions to**  **Part 3**  **Rules**
**The Michigan**  **Department of**  **Environmental Quality**  **(MDEQ) is**  **providing the**  **enclosed technical**  **support information**  **to supplement**  **a SIP**  **revision submittal**  **dated December**  **13, 2013.**  **The SIP**  **revision request**  **included the**  **addition of**  **revised Rule** **336.1310 of**  **the Michigan**  **Air Pollution**  **Control Rules,**  **and the**  **removal of**  **Rules 336.1330 and 336.1349**  **from Michigan's**  **SIP.**
**We intend**  **for this**  **additional analysis** **to further**  **demonstrate that**  **the requested**  **SIP revisions**  **will not interfere**  **with the**  **maintenance of**  **the NAAQS**  **as required under**  **Section 11** **0(1) of**  **the Clean**  **Air Act.** 
**If you**  **have any questions**  **on the**  **MDEQ's supplement**  **to the**  **2013 SIP**  **submittal, they**  **may be**  **directed to**  **Mr. Tracey**  **McDonald, Air** **Quality Division,**  **at 517-284-6756**  **or mcdonaldt@mi** **chigan.gov; or**  **MDEQ, P.O.**  **Box 30260,**  **Lansing, Michigan**  **48909-7760; or**  **you may**  **contact me.** 

**Enclosure Sincerely,**  

# err;

# or **&-**

# LJ�J;_
**Lynn Fiedler,**  **Acting Chief**  **Air Quality**  **Division 517-284-677** **4**

**cc/enc: Ms.**  **Carolyn Persoon,**  **Region 5,**  **USEPA**

**Ms. Mary**  **Maupin, MDEQ**  **Mr. Tracey**  **McDonald, MDEQ** 

**CONSTITUTION HALL**  **• 525 WEST** **ALLEGAN STREET**  **• P.O.**  **BOX 30473**  **• LANSING,**  **MICHIGAN 48909-7973** 
**www .michigan.gov/deq**  **• (800)**  **662-9278 MICHIGAN**  **DEPARTMENT OF**  **ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY**  **ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL**  **SUPPORT AND**  **ANALYSIS REGARDING** 

**SIP SUBMITTAL**  **OF DECEMBER**  **13, 2013** 

**March 13,** **2015**

**Additional analysis**  **of Rule**  **336.1310 (Rule**  **310) For**  **the reasons**  **stated below,**  **it is**  **our position**  **that maintenance**  **of the**  **particulate National**  **Ambient Air**  **Quality Standards**  **(NAAQS) will**  **not be**  **impacted by**  **the modifications**  **of Rule**  **310.**

**• Rule**  **31 O(a).**  **Promulgated changes**  **to the**  **rule include**  **more restrictive**  **constraints on**  **open burning**  **from 1**  **or 2** **family dwellings**  **for purposes**  **of waste**  **disposal. Plastic,**  **rubber, foam,**  **chemically treated wood,**  **etc. are**  **now prohibited** **from being**  **burned. The**  **change in**  **this portion**  **of the**  **rule will**  **decrease particulate**  **emissions to**  **the environment.** 

**• Rule**  **31 O(f).**  **Changes made**  **to R**  **310 allow**  **the burning**  **of untreated**  **wooden fruit**  **or vegetable**  **storage crates**  **for disease**  **and/or pest**  **control. These materials cannot be**  **burned in**  **or near**  **a city**  **or village nor**  **in a**  **priority I**  **or II**  **area. After**  **researching several**  **potential users**  **of wooden**  **bins in** **the Michigan**  **agriculture sector,** **we determined**  **only apple**  **growers use**  **wooden crates**  **extensively. Many**  **growers (potato)**  **have created** **ways to**  **avoid the**  **use of** **containers altogether** **for their**  **material handling.**  **Some growers**  **(cucumbers) have**  **converted to**  **plastic. Others**  **(melons, pumpkins,**  **squash, etc.)**  **use cardboard.**  **There are**  **a few**  **exceptions; for**  **example, small**  **quantity users**  **(asparagus), but**  **to our**  **knowledge apple**  **growers use**  **the most**  **wooden crates**  **by far,**  **and are**  **therefore expected**  **to be**  **the only**  **significant agricultural**  **segment to**  **use this**  **exemption. According** **to a**  **contact at**  **the Michigan**  **Agricultural Cooperative**  **Marketing Association,**  **Michigan Processing Apple**  **Growers Division,**  **annual apple**  **sales in**  **Michigan are**  **about 25,000,000**  **bushels. Most**  **bins hold**  **approximately 18**  **bushels, thus**  **1.39 million**  **bins are**  **used in**  **a year.**  **Expectations are** **that no**  **more than**  **5% will**  **become unrepairable**  **and infested/infected**  **in any**  **given year.**  **Less than**  **70,000 wooden**  **bins may**  **be eligible**  **annually for**  **burning under**  **the exemption.**  **Each bin**  **weighs approximately**  **100 lbs.,**  **so total**  **maximum untreated**  **wood burned**  **annually is**  **7,000,000 lbs.**  **A wide**  **variety of** **emission factors**  **exist, but**  **Chapter 2.5**  **(Solid Waste**  **Disposal) in**  **AP-42 indicates** **forest residues**  **emit 17**  **lbs/ton of**  **particulate emissions.** **This indicates**  **a maximum**  **of approximately**  **30 tons**  **of total**  **particulate would**  **be emitted**  **statewide from**  **these sources**  **annually. Although**  **most monitors**  **in Michigan**  **are located**  **in urban**  **areas, monitored**  **24-hour PM** **2.5 in**  **the west**  **and middle**  **Lower Peninsula**  **of Michigan,** **the agricultural**  **area in**  **the state,**  **ranges from**  **concentrations of**  **16.8 to**  **23.5 ug/m** **3 (98** **1h percentile,**  **2011-2013). This**  **is well**  **below the**  **35 ug/m** **3 in**  **the NAAQS.**  **Away from**  **urban areas**  **where this**  **burning may**  **occur, actual**  **background values**  **are most**  **likely lower still.**  **Also, particulate**  **matter (PM)**  **from open**  **burning is**  **mostly direct PM**  **with very**  **localized impacts.** **We conclude**  **that there**  **is an**  **extremely low**  **risk of**  **exceeding the**  **daily PM2.5**  **in the NAAQS**  **due to**  **the rare burning**  **of fruit and**  **vegetable crates,**  **and maintenance**  **of the**  **PM2.5 in** **the NAAQS will**  **not be**  **an issue**  **with this**  **change in**  **Rule 31** **O(f).**
**Additional analysis**  **of Rule**  **336.1330 (Rule**  **330) The**  **state is**  **seeking removal**  **of Rule**  **330 from**  **its State**  **Implementation Plan**  **(SIP). The**  **following discussion**  **points summarize** **the issue**  **and explain**  **Michigan's position** **that there** **will be**  **no reduction**  **in protection**  **of the**  **NAAQS for**  **PM resulting**  **from removal**  **of Rule**  **330.**

**1 •**  **Every source**  **that was**  **previously regulated**  **by Rule**  **330 is**  **currently covered**  **by a**  **Title V** 

**permit. a**  **Source Wide**  **Permit To**  **Install (PTI)**  **and Rules**  **301 and** **331. Requirements**  **in these**  **permits and**  **rules, specifically**  **particulate and** **opacity limitations, make**  **proper operation**  **of the**  **electrostatic precipitator**  **(ESP) a**  **necessity. ESP**  **contractors and**  **operators have**  **stated that**  **automatic control systems are**  **necessary to**  **make compliance**  **with many**  **limits achievable. Rescinding**  **Rule 330**  **has no**  **impact on**  **emissions because**  **facilities must**  **use the**  **automatic control** **systems to**  **achieve SIP-approved particulate**  **and opacity**  **rule limits**  **or more** **stringent NSR**  **permitted limits.**  **The Source** **Wide PTI,**  **Rule 301 and**  **Rule 331**  **are federally**  **enforceable.**

**• Rule**  **330 was**  **applicable to**  **few sources.**  **Through emissions data**  **reported in**  **2013 and**  **staff surveys,**  **we have** **determined that** **23 facilities** **were subject to**  **Rule 330**  **(see attached**  **table). That**  **number is**  **expected to**  **continue to**  **decrease over**  **time due**  **to more**  **shutdowns and**  **modifications to**  **processes. Several**  **facilities have**  **announced plans**  **to replace**  **ESPs with**  **baghouses, or**  **have added**  **or plan**  **to add**  **baghouses in**  **series with** **the ESPs,**  **have converted**  **units to** **eliminate the**  **use of**  **coal as**  **a fuel,**  **or plan**  **to decommission**  **emission units**  **connected to**  **ESPs in**  **the next** **few years.**  **According to**  **our survey,**  **two facilities**  **use a**  **basic oxygen** **furnace. At**  **most, three** **facilities use**  **a Kraft**  **recovery boiler.**  **The remaining**  **18 have**  **the ability**  **to burn**  **coal in**  **their boilers,**  **and 16**  **of those**  **18 are**  **electrical-gener ating**  **facilities.**

**• Rule**  **330 was**  **an antiquated**  **rule, and**  **as worded,**  **could result**  **in additional** **emissions. This**  **rule was**  **promulgated 34**  **years ago.**  **Advances in**  **our understanding**  **of ESPs**  **and the**  **technology used**  **in them**  **have occurred.**  **As our**  **knowledge of**  **ESPs has**  **grown, we**  **determined that**  **maximizing current**  **in an**  **ESP can**  **result in**  **re-entrainment of**  **particulate. The**  **rule requires**  **the automatic**  **controller "be**  **set to**  **provide maximum**  **power." By**  **removing this**  **rule and**  **allowing facilities** **to focus**  **on control**  **efficiency, in**  **some cases,**  **they could**  **reduce emissions**  **below those**  **allowed by**  **"maximum power."**  **Maximizing power**  **when it**  **does not**  **improve control**  **efficiency is**  **also a** **waste of**  **energy. This**  **energy is** **often produced**  **through coal**  **combustion to**  **create electricity.** 

**• Most**  **emission units**  **contained on**  **this list**  **are subject**  **to additional**  **federal regulations.**  **These federal regulations,**  **such as**  **the Boiler**  **MACT, Utility**  **MACT, Iron**  **and Steel**  **MACT, etc.,**  **contain limits**  **that use**  **particulate as**  **a surrogate**  **for contaminants**  **they are**  **regulating. To**  **achieve the**  **level of**  **control necessary** **to meet**  **the limits**  **of these**  **regulations, ESPs** **will have**  **to be**  **operated efficiently.**  **ESP contractors**  **and operators**  **have stated** **that units**  **without automatic**  **control systems**  **would not**  **be able**  **to meet**  **limits required**  **in several**  **federal regulations. Therefore**  **often federal**  **regulations necessitate**  **automatic control**  **systems without**  **the requirement**  **in Rule**  **330.**

**• Equipping**  **transformer-rectifier sets**  **with automatic**  **control systems**  **may reduce**  **costs for**  **the facilities.**  **Some facilities**  **have found**  **it in**  **their best**  **interest to**  **have automatic**  **control systems**  **as it**  **reduces power**  **consumption. Overpowering**  **the ESP**  **to achieve**  **a control**  **efficiency that**  **can be**  **achieved by**  **using less**  **power more**  **effectively is**  **an energy**  **expense. Again,**  **rescinding Rule**  **330 did**  **not cause** **these facilities**  **to change** **their ESP**  **control systems.**  **Per permit**  **and/or by**  **rule, they**  **are required**  **to run**  **their ESP,**  **so reducing**  **power consumption**  **by using**  **an automatic control**  **system is**  **cost-effective. Reducing power**  **consumption likely**  **reduces particulate**  **emissions at**  **the source**  **of electrical**  **generation.**

**2 •**  **Rule 330**  **contained ambiguous** **wording. Automatic controllers**  **are required**  **to be**  **set to** 

**provide "optimal**  **power" rather than**  **maximum power** **when in**  **spark mode. It**  **is not**  **clear if**  **the intention**  **is to**  **optimize control**  **efficiency, opacity,**  **power consumption,**  **equipment wear,**  **etc., or**  **some combination.**  **This ambiguity**  **causes this**  **portion of** **the rule**  **to be**  **less ef** **fective at**  **ensuring satisfactory**  **operation.**

**• Spark-limiting**  **mode is**  **standard programming**  **in automatic**  **control systems.**  **Sparking causes**  **a significant**  **decrease in**  **control efficiency.**  **An automatic**  **control system**  **is very**  **effe ctive**  **at controlling**  **sparking, which**  **is a**  **necessity when**  **trying to**  **meet current**  **standards and**  **limits. Rule**  **330(2) required**  **that the**  **control systems**  **were capable**  **of running**  **in spark-limited**  **mode. Today's**  **automatic control systems are**  **programmed to**  **do this.** 

**• Meters**  **and displays required**  **in Rule**  **330 did** **little to** **ensure proper operation.** **The regulated entities**  **indicated that** **the facilities'**  **computers log**  **the data**  **most relevant to**  **the operation**  **of the**  **ESP, and**  **displaying this**  **data is**  **not useful**  **for individual**  **operators. With**  **the advent of**  **microprocessors, metering beyond**  **that required**  **by Rule**  **330 is**  **standard for**  **ESPs.**

**• Rule** **330(3) allowed**  **for requirements**  **in Rule**  **330(2) to**  **be waived.**  **These requirements**  **were in**  **place for**  **purposes of** **giving the**  **regulated community**  **flexibility, and**  **are neutral**  **in meeting**  **NAAQS standards.** 

**• Rule**  **910 is** **preferable to**  **Rule 330.**  **Finally, Michigan**  **has Rule**  **910, a** **SIP-approved rule, which**  **requires any**  **air cleaning**  **devices to**  **be installed,**  **maintained, and**  **operated in**  **accordance with**  **the rules**  **and law.**  **It is**  **not as**  **prescriptive as**  **Rule 330,**  **but is**  **broader in what**  **it requires**  **("installed, maintained,**  **and operated"**  **as compared**  **to "equipped"**  **and "s** **et"), and**  **allows AQD**  **staff more**  **flexibility to**  **react to**  **changing circumstances,**  **technology, etc.**  **It is**  **easier for**  **regulatory staff** **and the**  **regulated community**  **to understand**  **and implement,**  **making it**  **more effective.**  **It is**  **our position**  **that Rule**  **910 is**  **superior to**  **Rule 330.** 
**For these**  **reasons, Rule**  **330 was**  **no longer**  **a necessary**  **regulation. Rule**  **331 and**  **NSR det** **erminations continue** **to require**  **the same** **federally-enforceable particulate**  **emission limits.**  **Rule 910 allows**  **for more effective**  **regulator y**  **oversight, and**  **no increase**  **in emissions**  **will occur**  **if Rule**  **330 is**  **removed from**  **the SIP.**  **Given the**  **use of**  **Rule 910,** **the trend**  **away from**  **ESPs and**  **coal-fired power**  **plants, other**  **federal regulations,**  **existing permit**  **conditions, and** **the ubiquitous**  **use of**  **automatic control**  **systems to**  **meet existing**  **limits and**  **minimize energy**  **consumption, there will**  **be no**  **effect on**  **NAAQS standards**  **by the**  **removal of** **this rule** **from the**  **SIP.**
**Below is** **a table**  **containing what**  **we believe**  **to be**  **all facilities/emission**  **units utilizing**  **an ESP**  **in Michigan**  **and those units subject**  **to Rule**  **330 prior to**  **rule rescission.** **The table**  **also contains**  **a variety**  **of notes** **we believe**  **are useful** **for this**  **analysis.**

**3 #of** **sources with**  **ESP's 40**  **Emission units**  **subject to**  **R330 #of** **sources with**  **R330 ESP's** 

**4 23**