Public Notice 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for the 

Ohio Portion of the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH 502 Nonattainment Area 

Pierce Township in Clermont County 

Notice is hereby given that the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 

(Ohio EPA) is requesting that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA) revise the current air quality designation for the Ohio portion, Pierce Township in 

Clermont County, of the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area to attainment 

with respect to the 2010 1-hour S02 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Air 

quality monitoring data collected between 2012 and 2014 in the nonattainment area 

demonstrates attainment of the NAAQS and there is evidence that the improved air 

quality is due to permanent, enforceable emission reductions. In addition, existing 

requirements are sufficient to maintain the 2010 1-hour S02 standard in this area at 

least ten years into the future. 

The permanent shutdown of the Walter C. Beckjord power plant in this area has 

resulted in significant S02 emission reductions. Ohio EPA proposes to utilize existing 

emission inventory information and projections of future emissions as the 

demonstration of the ability to maintain the NAAQS in the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH 

area in the future. 

The State of Ohio proposes to: 

1. Request the U.S. EPA redesignate the Ohio portion, Pierce Township in 

Clermont County, of the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH area to attainment with 

respect to the 2010 1-hour S02 NAAQS and incorporate the maintenance plan. 

This request will document that existing enforceable control measures are 

responsible for the observed improvement in air quality; and 

2. Designate existing controls (permanent shutdown) as sufficient to maintain the 

NAAQS into the future. 

These actions must be noticed to allow public comment and to satisfy USEPA 

requirements for public involvement in SIP related activities. This notice addresses Ohio 

EPA's reliance on the emission projections as evidence of attainment and maintenance. 

Written comments will be received on or before April 16, 2015 at the following address: 

E-mail: Erica.Fetty@epa.state.oh.us 

Mailing address: Erica Fetty 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, DAPC 

Lazarus Government Center 
P.O. Box 1049 

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 

Pursuant to Section 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, a public hearing on this 

redesignation request will be conducted as follows April 16, 2015 at 3:00 PM, at the 

Pierce Twp. Administration Building, 950 Locust Corner Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45245. 

All interested persons are entitled to attend or be represented at the hearings and give 

written or oral comments on these changes. All oral comments presented at the 

hearing, and all written statements submitted at the hearing or to the above address by 

the close of business on April 16, 2015 will be considered by Ohio EPA prior to final 

action on this redesignation. Written statements submitted after April 16, 2015 may be 

considered as time and circumstances permit, but will not be part of the official record 

of the hearing. 

This redesignation and maintenance request is available on Ohio EPA DAPC's Web 

page for electronic downloading at: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/SIP/so2.aspx. 

Questions regarding accessing the web site should be directed to Paul Braun at 614-

644-3734; other questions or comments about this document should be directed to 

either Erica Fetty, (614)-644-2310, Erica.Fetty@epa.ohio.gov or Jennifer Van Vlerah at 

(614) 644-3696, Jennifer.vanvlerah@epa.ohio.gov or mailed to Erica Fetty or Jennifer 

Van Vlerah at the above address. 
Ohio EPA 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Response to Comments 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Campbell-Clermont 

KY-OH Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Nonattainment Area 

Agency Contacts for this Project 

Division Contact: (Jennifer Van Vlerah, Division of Air Pollution Control, 614-644-3696, 

jennifer. vanvlerah@epa.ohio.gov) 

Ohio EPA held a public hearing in Cincinnati, OH on April 16, 2015, regarding the 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH S02 

nonattainment area. This document summarizes the comments and questions received 

at the public hearing and during the associated comment period, which ended on April 

16, 2015. 

Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all comments received during the public comment 

period. By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to protection 

of the environment and public health. 

In an effort to help you review this document, the questions are grouped by topic and 

organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follows the comment in 

parentheses. 

Comment 1: The Utilities support Ohio EPA's request for redesignation of 

Pierce Township in Clermont County. Of note one the 

redesignation requests, the Walter C. Beckjord facility 

ceased operation on September 1, 2014 and Ohio EPA was 

notified of the permanent shutdown on October 14, 2014. 

There is no other significant source located in the area. 

Ohio EPA has determined that the violations at the monitor 

were likely cause by the Beckjord facility. Since there are no 

longer any significant sources impacting this monitor, the 

Utilities believe that it is appropriate to redesignate this area 

as attainment for the one-hour S02 NAAQS. (Cheri A. 

Budzynski, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP on behalf 

of the Ohio Utility Group) 
Response 1: 

Comment2: 

Thank you for your comment and support on Ohio's request. 

Ohio EPA agrees the area should be designated to 

"attainment" and will be requesting the "attainment" 

designation in lieu of an "unclassifiable" designation. 

Attaining the standard: 

The key test here is whether, on the basis of available 

evidence, we can conclude that the entirety of the 

nonattainment area is now attaining the standard. Please do 

not suggest that EPA Regions 4 and 5 agreed with a 

determination that an analysis of maximum concentration 

location was not warranted. To the extent that Zimmer is the 

most significant remaining source anywhere near the area, 

that would suggest that the maximum concentration location 

would be the portion of the area closest to Zimmer. Thus, to 

that extent, the question instead would be whether the 

monitor provides a sufficient representation of 

concentrations throughout the non attainment area to be able 

to conclude that the entire area, including portions of the 

area closer to Zimmer, are attaining the standard. Modeling 

of Beckjord of course is unnecessary, but Ohio needs to 

make more of a case that modeling of other sources is not 

necessary to determine that even concentrations even at the 

maximum concentration location in the nonattainment area 

are below the standard. 

The trajectory analysis is a key part of this evaluation, even 

though the work was done more to determine contribution at 

the monitor location rather than impacts throughout the 

nonattainment. An important point is that trajectories in 

which winds do not carry emissions from Zimmer to the 

monitor also represent trajectories that largely do not carry 

emissions from Zimmer to any of the rest of the 

nonattainment area, either. Another important point is that 

Zimmer is sufficient distance from the nonattainment area to 

conclude that impacts at the nearest edge of the 

nonattainment area are likely to be similar to impacts at the 

monitor. (For making this point. it would be useful to 

compare the distance from Zimmer to the nonattainment 

area versus the distance from Zimmer to the monitor.) This 

would support an argument that, with Beckjord emissions at 

zero, concentrations throughout the nonattainment area are 

relatively uniform, such that concentrations elsewhere in the 

nonattainment area would not likely be significantly higher. 

It would also be useful to examine air quality data in relation 

to emissions from Beckjord, for example to examine air 
quality for the portions of 2014 when emissions were low or 

even zero. You analyze average concentrations with and 

without the two units at Beckjord, but it would be useful to 

analyze more of a peak statistic for the period, e.g. the ggth 

percentile (if this statistic is adequately robust). Data 

collected so far in 2015 may be useful for this purpose. I 

recognize that these periods did not constitute an entire 

year, but these data would likely provide strong support for 

the hypothesis that a scenario in which Beckjord emissions 

are zero can be expected to have attaining air quality 

throughout the area, even in portions of the nonattainment 

that might have more impact from sources like Zimmer that 

are outside the nonattainment area. 

Figure 3 is intended to illustrate the relationship between 

emissions at Beckjord and Zimmer and air quality, but 

several aspects of this figure obscure the relationship. First, 

it is not clear which label applies to which of the three 

graphs. Second, it is not clear what an "18 per. Mov. Avg." 

is or why this statistic was used. I presume it is an average 

of 18 hours of data, but the use of this statistic would seem 

to obscure the level of the peak concentrations that are of 

most concern. Finally, this set of graphs is difficult to 

interpret. Given the importance of demonstrating that the 

shutdown of Beckjord has had and will have a dramatic 

impact on 802 concentrations in the area, it is worth the 

effort to improve the presentation of the information that can 

be obtained from the data used in preparing these graphs. 

Appendix D focuses on Zimmer. Ohio should also address 

whether any sources elsewhere, such as in Hamilton 

County, are prone to have significant impacts anywhere in 

the nonattainment area. The trajectories suggest not, but 

this is an important point to address. 

I am stressing this point because we have other areas 

around the country that are seeking clean data 

determinations. I am aware of another case where a 

relatively small nonattainment area has only one source, 

which has shut down, but several other nearby sources are 

continuing to operate, and we seem likely to reject the clean 

data determination in absence of evidence, presumably in 

the form of modeling, to demonstrate that the (clean) monitor 

adequately represents the maximum concentration location 

with respect to the remaining sources. Your submittal for the 

Campbell-Clermont area must address the issue of whether 

data from the monitor provides adequate evidence that the 
Response 2: 

Comment3: 

Response 3: 

entire area is attaining. (U.S. EPA Region V, submitted via 

email) 

Ohio EPA has incorporated several additional changes to 

our request to address evidence of attainment of the 

standard. Several clarifications and additional analyses are 

incorporated into the body of the redesignation document, 

additional revisions were incorporated into the background 

analysis (Appendix F), an additional monitor analysis 

(Appendix K) was performed, and an additional modeling 

analysis (Appendix J) was also performed. These revisions 

clearly shows that the shutdown of Beckjord will ensure 

attainment throughout the entire nonattainment area taking 

into consideration the potential impact of other sources 

within the vicinity but located outside the nonattainment 

area. 

Adequate SIP: 

More important than the infrastructure SIP is all your rules in 

OAC 3745-18, most notably 3745-18-19 and perhaps 3745-

18-37. 

I presume that the reason biogenic emissions are not 

included is because you believe these emissions to be 

negligible, not because you didn't want to take the effort to 

compute them or because you didn't want us to 

know. Although Kentucky emissions are low, it would be 

worth explaining why non-EGU emissions become zero by 

2020. I'm not sure what the "safety margin" column 

signifies. Perhaps this column would have meaning if you 

were compiling conformity budgets, but I understand you are 

finding that no conformity budget is needed. 

In light of the recent Sixth Circuit decision in relation to the 

redesignation of the Cincinnati area for PM2.5, Ohio may or 

may not be "obligated to submit RACM and RACT." This 

makes Ohio's second rationale, relating to the absence of 

major point sources, more important. A better way of 

arguing that Ohio has satisfied these requirements is to state 

that in absence of major point sources, no point source 

emission controls are possible. Ohio should also address 

minor source measures, presumably to conclude that no 

further measures constitute RACM on the minor sources that 

remain. (U.S. EPA Region V, submitted via email) 

Ohio EPA has incorporated additional information in Chapter 

5, Requirement 4 of 6, to identify the importance of the OAC 
Comment4: 

Response 4: 

Comment 5: 

3745-18 regulations. Ohio EPA has also provided 

clarification regarding the negligible biogenic emissions in 

Chapter 4, Requirement 1 of 4. In addition, the tables in this 

section were corrected for rounding errors and the accidental 

omission of non-EGU emissions in 2020 and 2027 and to 

remove the "safety margin" column which has no significant 

meaning. 

With respect to RACM/RACT, additional clarification was 

incorporated into Requirement 1 of 6 under Chapter 5. 

Permanent and enforceable cause of air quality 

improvement: 

Discussion of the permanence and enforceability of 

Beckjord's shutdown should be included in this 

section. After noting that the letter from the company results 

in the termination of the permit that authorizes them to 

operate, you should identify the provisions in state regulation 

that the state and EPA could enforce that prohibit operating 

without such a permit. Discussion of the relationship 

between the decline and cessation of Beckjord's emissions 

and air quality (as discussed above in relationship to air 

quality) would also help make the case that the air quality 

improvement seen so far, from 2011 to present, is 

attributable to the shutdown of Beckjord. This section should 

clarify that the entirety of Beckjord is required not to operate, 

i.e. that allowable emissions from the entire facility are now 

zero. (U.S. EPA Region V, submitted via email) 

Ohio EPA has made clarification throughout the request 

regarding the permanence of Beckord's shutdown of the 

major coal fired units and more recent permanent shutdown 

of the minor oil-fired units (see newly added Appendix 1). It 

should be noted that the minor oil-fired units contributed little 

to no sulfur dioxide emissions. This now represents 

shutdown of the entirety of the facility. 

Ohio EPA has also provided clarification on how the state 

and U.S. EPA could enforce the prohibition of operating 

without a permit and/or after notification of permanent 

shutdown. This clarification is provided in Requirement 3 of 

4 under Chapter 4. 

Maintenance: 

Modeling or having emissions below the attainment 

inventory are not the only options for demonstrating 
Response 5: 

maintenance. In particular, I am much less convinced of 

maintenance by having future emissions below 32,619 tpy 

than I am by having emissions at 16 tpy. For S02, I would 

not say (especially for a nonattainment area) that 

"maintenance is demonstrated [when emissions are below 

2014 levels.]" Similarly, the fact that you consulted with EPA 

regions 4 and 5 is not a good reason to forgo 

modeling. Clearly, you have reasons to forgo modeling, 

beyond simply that "unique circumstances" exist, and you 

should articulate those reasons. 

Perhaps I was not clear why we recommended analyzing 

background concentrations. If you "model" Beckjord as 

having zero emissions, and there are no other sources with 

impacts not represented in the background concentration, 

then the background concentration is the entirety of the 

future "modeled" (predicted) concentration. That is, it 

appears that you may reasonably assert that you anticipate 

future design values to be on the order of 5 ppb. In these 

circumstances, a reasonable anticipation of design values 

around 5 ppb is a stronger argument for maintenance than 

the anticipation of emissions being below 32,619 tpy. 

We acknowledge (and it would be worth stating explicitly) 

that the absence of sources with any evident potential to 

cause violations means that Ohio cannot anticipate what 

might cause a violation in this area and thus what 

contingency measures might exist that might help address 

any future violation. Nevertheless, Ohio should specify what 

event (e.g., what monitored concentration) would trigger the 

process of investigating and adopting contingency measures 

and what timetable Ohio would expect to operate under. 

(U.S. EPA Region V, submitted via email) 

Ohio EPA has provided clarification in Requirement 2 of 4 

under Chapter 4 regarding the demonstration of 

maintenance. In addition, several additional analyses were 

incorporated, as discussed in response 2 above, to assist in 

further demonstrating both attainment and maintenance. 

In addition, Requirement 2 of 4 under Chapter 4 provides 

additional summaries and analyses regarding background 

concentrations. 

Lastly, Ohio EPA has incorporated additional clarification 

and triggering events for contingency measures under 

Requirement 2 of 4 and Requirement 3 of 4 under Chapter 

6. 
Comment6: 

Response 6: 

Comment 7: 

Response 7: 

CommentS: 

Satisfaction of section 11 0 and Part D: 

Discussion of the satisfaction of section 110 and Part D 

should include discussion of the satisfaction of section 

110(a)(1). These provisions, which work in concert with the 

provisions of Part D and most notably require providing for 

attainment, are at least as important to address as the 

"infrastructure" provisions of section 11 O(a)(2). {U.S. EPA 

Region V, submitted via email) 

Ohio EPA has added additional clarification under Chapter 2 

(5.a) to address the importance of section 11 O(a)(1 ). 

I guess I would like to provide testimony. I would like to ask 

that the State of Ohio EPA hold this in abeyance until you 

receive an answer to whether the peaking units that are in 

the east end of the Beckjord plant will be decommissioned 

and never used. I'd like a response from that. And also I'd 

like to know whether they have been calculated in the sulfur 

dioxide output, and whether they are presently able to burn 

low sulfur and whether this is a consideration that has been 

included in this, because the notice simply indicates that the 

Walter C. Beckjord plant is being closed that is the coal fire 

plant, and there is a major peaking unit on the east end of 

the plant that is referred to as the oil plant and I would like to 

know whether that is actually also being closed and would 

like to know whether they do burn low sulfur oil and whether 

that consideration is involved in this decision. I ask that you 

not make the decision until that is answered because of that 

and that is actually definitively addressed. My name is Daniel 

Owens, I'm a resident of Pierce Township, I'm an attorney, 

and I was a trustee here for 16 years. And I am part of an 

environmental agreement with Duke Energy, that is in the 

28th year of its existence, concerning the Beckjord plant. 

Thank you very much. (Daniel Owens, Hearing Testimony) 

As discussed in response 4, the entirety of the Beckjord 

facility is permanently shutdown. 

My name is Alan Freeman, a Pierce Township resident, I just 

wanted to make sure that I understood that this attainment is 

on for S02, not for any other ozone related compounds; is 

that correct? 

The important thing is that we are going to be hopefully in 

the future in attainment for sulphur dioxide only, not for the 

VOCs or the NOxs. That's important to this area, because 
Response 8: 

quite frankly we have some issues with regard to some other 

agencies that are applying for federal dollars for other ozone 

type related contaminants, we want to make sure those 

won't be harmed in any way and want to move forward with 

those, so that also we can eventually be in attainment for 

ozone related contaminants as well. So moving forward we 

really are hopeful that we can put this on the record that it is 

true that this is only for that one component, not for the 

others, so that we will be able to talk to some of the funders 

in the area, so we will continue to be eligible for those 

appropriate funds without exception. (Alan Freeman, 

Hearing Testimony) 

This submittal does not address ozone but only sulfur 

dioxide. 

End of Response to Comments 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

BEFORE THE OHIO EPA 

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER 

Proposed Redesignation and Maintenance Plan 

for Pierce Twp. - Pierce Township Bldg. 

(Clermont County) 

April 16, 2015 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

1 
1 BEFORE: 

2 Ohio EPA Public Interest Center 

Darla Peel1ee 

3 Public Involvement Coordinator 

Northwest and Southwest District Offices 

4 50 W. Town Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Ohio EPA - Division of Air Pollution Control 

Erica Fetty and Mengyu Cai 

50 W. Town Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

2 
3 

1 MS. PEELLE: The purpose of this hearing today 

2 is to accept public comments on Ohio EPA's proposed request 

3 to officially recognize that air quality in Pierce Township 

4 for Clermont County, meets the Federal air quality standard 

5 for sulphur dioxide. 

6 Pierce Township is part of the Campbell Township 

7 Kentucky/Ohio non-attainment area for the 2010 one-hour 

8 sulphur dioxide national ambient air quality standard. 

9 Air quality monitoring data collected between 2012 

10 and 2014 demonstrates the area is now meeting the standard. 

11 Ohio EPA believes the improved air quality is due to the 

12 permanent emission reductions following the shutdown of the 

13 Walter C. Beckjord Power Plant. 

14 Ohio EPA published a public notice to announce the 

15 hearing and public comment period regarding the proposed 

16 redesignation in newspapers in the area. 

17 This notice was issued in Ohio EPA's Weekly Review, 

18 which is a publication that lists by county all Agency 

19 activities and actions taking place in the State of Ohio. 

20 Written and oral comments received as part of the 

21 official record are reviewed by Ohio EPA prior to a final 

22 action of the Director. To be included in the official 

23 record, written comments must be received by Ohio EPA by the 

24 close of business today, April 16th, 2015. Comments received 

25 after today may be considered as time and circumstances would 
4 

1 permit, but will not be apart of the official record for this 

2 hearing. 

3 Written comments can be filed with us today or can 

4 be e-mailed to Erica Fetty at erica.fetty@epa.ohio.gov. You 

5 can get that from either of us at the end of the hearing. 

6 All comments whether written or spoken are given 

7 the same consideration. 

8 Questions and comments made during the hearing will 

9 be responded to in a document known as a response to 

10 comments. Program staff recommendations and comments made by 

11 the public will be taken into consideration. 

12 Once a decision is made by the director the final 

13 decision and response to comments will be made available to 

14 anyone who requests a copy. 

15 If you have questions ask them on the record during 

16 the hearing and the Agency will respond to them in writing 

17 within the responsiveness suR~ary. 

18 Final actions of the Director are appealable to the 

19 Environmental Review Appeals Committee, also known as ERAC. 

20 The board is separate from Ohio EPA and reviews cases in 

21 accordance with Ohio's environmental laws and rules. 

22 Any ERAC decision is appealable to the Franklin 

23 County Court of Appeals. Any order of the Court of Appeals 

24 is appealable to the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

25 Each individual may testify only once and speak for 
1 five minutes, so please use your time wisely. 

2 What I would like to do since this is a small 

3 group, if you would like to provide testimony, if you would 

4 raise your hand, and once you are recognized please proceed 

5 

5 to give your testimony. Please stand in this area so that we 

6 can get a good recording. So if you would like to provide 

7 testimony please come forward at this time. 

8 MR. OWENS: I guess I would like to provide 

9 testimony. I would like to ask that the State of Ohio EPA 

10 hold this in abeyance until you receive an answer to whether 

11 the peaking units that are in the east end of the Beckjord 

12 plant will be decommissioned and never used. I'd like a 

13 response from that. 

14 And also I'd like to know whether they have been 

15 calculated in the sulphur dioxide output, and whether they 

16 are presently able to burn low sulphur and whether this is a 

17 consideration that has been included in this, because the 

18 notice simply indicates that the Walter C. Beckjord plant is 

19 being closed that is the coal fire plant, and there is a 

20 major peaking unit on the east end of the plant that is 

21 referred to as the oil plant and I would like to know whether 

22 that is actually also being closed and would like to know 

23 whether they do burn low sulphur oil and whether that 

24 consideration is involved in this decision. 

25 I ask that you not make the decision until that is 
1 answered because of that and that is actually definitively 

2 addressed. 

3 My name is Daniel Owens, I'm a resident of Pierce 

4 Township, I'm an attorney, and I was a trustee here for 16 

6 

5 years. And I am part of an environmental agreement with Duke 

6 Energy, that is in the 28th year of its existence, concerning 

7 the Beckjord plant. Thank you very much. 

8 MS. PEELLE: Thank you. Mr. Owens. Would 

9 anybody else like to provide testimony? 

10 

11 

All right. If there are no further requests for 

testimony we will end the hearing. Please remember that 

12 written comments will be accepted through the close of 

13 business today, April 16th. They can be sent to Erica Fetty 

14 at erica.fetty@epa.ohio.gov. 

15 We do appreciate you coming this afternoon in 

16 helping with the decision-making process. The time is now 

17 3:18p.m., and the hearing is adjourned, but we will stick 

18 around for a while in case someone shows up. 

19 MR. FREEMAN: My name is Alan Freeman, a 

20 Pierce Township resident, I just wanted to make sure that I 

21 understood that this attainment is on for S02, not for any 

22 other ozone related compounds; is that correct? 

23 

24 

MS. PEELLE: We can't answer questions. 

MR. FREEMAN: Okay. Let it reflect they 

25 nodded their heads. Roll it back I can take care of that. 
1 

2 

3 then. 

MS. PEELLE: (Inaudible.) We can't do that. 

MR. FREEMAN: All right. I will roll it back 

4 The important thing is that we are going to be 

5 hopefully in the future in attainment for sulphur dioxide 

6 only, not for the VOCs or the NOs. 

7 That's important to this area, because quite 

8 frankly we have some issues with regard to some other 

9 agencies that are applying for federal dollars for other 

10 ozone type related contaminants, we want to make sure those 

11 won't be harmed in any way and want to move forward with 

12 those, so that also we can eventually be in attainment for 

13 ozone related contaminants as well. 

7 

14 So moving forward we really are hopeful that we can 

15 put this on the record that it is true that this is only for 

16 that one component, not for the others, so that we will be 

17 able to talk to some of the funders in the area, so we will 

18 continue to be eligible for those appropriate funds without 

19 exception. Works for me. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
Page: 8 of 9 

1 CERTIFICATE 

2 - - -

3 I, Cheryl D. Edwards, Certified Professional 

Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, 

4 do certify that the foregoing is a transcript of the 

audio recording in this matter of the proceedings taken 

5 on April 16, 2015. 

6 That I am not an attorney for or relative of 

either party and have no interest whatsoever in the 

7 outcome of this matter. 

8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 

hand and official seal of office at Columbus, Ohio, this 

9 24th day of April, 2015. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Cheryl D. Edwards, 

Notary Public in and for 

the State of Ohio 

My commission expires 11/05/18 

StenoCAT 32 Sample Template 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 
SHUMAKER 

Shwnaker, Loop & Kenchick,LLP 

Cl-!HlH A BUDZYNSKI 

419.321.1332 

cbud:-:ynski@:<lk.-law.com 

Huntington Center 

41 South High Street 

Suite 2400 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-6104 

614.463.94<!1 

614.463.1108 fax 

www.slk-Jaw.com 

VIA EMAil. AND U.S. MAIL 

Erica Fetty 

Ohio Environmental Pmtection Agency 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

P.O. Box 1049 

Columbus, Ohio 4321601049 

Erica.Fettv@epa.state.oh.us 

April 16, 2015 

Re: Request for Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Campbell-Clermont KYOH Area to Attainment of the 2010 One-Hour Sulfm· Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

011r File No. 043591 

Dear Ms. Blakley: 

In March 2015, Ohio EPA requested to redesignate the Ohio portion of the CampbellClumont KY-OH Area to Attainment of the 2010 One-Hour Sulfur Dioxide ("S02") National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS"). The following comments are submitted on behalf of 

the Ohio Utility Group and its member companies ("OUG" or "the Utilities"), 1 which is an 

association of individual electric utilities in the State of Ohio. The electric utilities own and operate 

power plants and other facilities that generate electricity for residential, commercial, industrial, and 

institutional customers. These power plants and other facilities are subject to the Clean Air Act. 

OUG's pmpose, in part, is to participate collectively on behalf of its members in administrative 

proceedings under various environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and in litigation arising 

from those proceedings that affect electric generatm:s. Thus, the notice affects the members of 

OUG. 

The Utilities support Ohio EPA's reqnest for redesignation of Pierce Township in Clermont 

County. Of note on the redesignation requests, the Walter C. Beckjord facility ceased operation on 

September l, 2014 and Ohio EPA was notified of the permanent shutdown on October 14, 2014. 

There is no other significant source located in d1e area. Ohio EPA has determined that the 

1 The member companies include: AEP Generation Resources Inc., Buckeye Power, Inc., The 

Dayton Power and Light Company, Duke Energy Ohio, FirstEnergy Solutions, and Ohio Valley 

Electric Corporation. 

COLUMBUS I TOLEDO! TAMPA CHARLOTTE 
Erica Fetty 

April16, 2015 

Page 2 

violations at the monitor were likely caused by the Beckjord facility. Since there are no longer any 

significant sources impacting this monitor, the Utilities believe that it is appropriate to redesignate 

dus area as attainment for the one-hour S02 NAA QS. 

The Utilities appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. If you have any 

questions regarding these comments, please contact me. 

V ety truly yours, 

Cheri A. Budzynski 

CAB\bd 

Sl K __ TOL:#256h&Wvl 
Van Vlerah, Jennifer 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Summerhays, John <Summerhays.John@epa.gov> 

Friday, April17, 2015 5:31PM 

Fetty, Erica; Van Vlerah, Jennifer 

Bradley, Twunjala; Aburano, Douglas; Portanova, Mary; Blakley, Pamela 

Clermont-Campbell Draft Redesignation Request 

Please consider the following as you proceed toward completing this package. 

1. Attaining the standard: 

The key test here is whether, on the basis of available evidence, we can conclude that the entirety of the nonattainment 

area is now attaining the standard. Please do not suggest that EPA Regions 4 and 5 agreed with a determination that an 

analysis of maximum concentration location was not warranted. To the extent that Zimmer is the most significant 

remaining source anywhere near the area, that would suggest that the maximum concentration location would be the 

portion of the area closest to Zimmer. Thus, to that extent, the question instead would be whether the monitor 

provides a sufficient representation of concentrations throughout the nonattainment area to be able to conclude that 

the entire area, including portions of the area closer to Zimmer, are attaining the standard. Modeling of Beckjord of 

course is unnecessary, but Ohio needs to make more of a case that modeling of other sources is not necessary to 

determine that even concentrations even at the maximum concentration location in the nonattainment area are below 

the standard. 

The trajectory analysis is a key part of this evaluation, even though the work was done more to determine contribution 

at the monitor location rather than impacts throughout the nonattainment. An important point is that trajectories in 

which winds do not carry emissions from Zimmer to the monitor also represent trajectories that largely do not carry 

emissions from Zimmer to any of the rest of the nonattainment area, either. Another important point is that Zimmer is 

sufficient distance from the nonattainment area to conclude that impacts at the nearest edge of the nonattainment area 

are likely to be similar to impacts at the monitor. (For making this point, it would be useful to compare the distance 

from Zimmer to the nonattainment area versus the distance from Zimmer to the monitor.) This would support an 

argument that, with Beckjord emissions at zero, concentrations throughout the nonattainment area are relatively 

uniform, such that concentrations elsewhere in the nonattainment area would not likely be significantly higher. 

It would also be useful to examine air quality data in relation to emissions from Beckjord, for example to examine air 

quality for the portions of 2014 when emissions were low or even zero. You analyze average concentrations with and 

without the two units at Beckjord, but it would be useful to analyze more of a peak statistic for the period, e.g. the gg'h 

percentile (if this statistic is adequately robust). Data collected so far in 2015 may be useful for this purpose. I recognize 

that these periods did not constitute an entire year, but these data would likely provide strong support for the 

hypothesis that a scenario in which Beckjord emissions are zero can be expected to have attaining air quality throughout 

the area, even in portions of the nonattainment that might have more impact from sources like Zimmer that are outside 

the nonattainment area. 

Figure 3 is intended to illustrate the relationship between emissions at Beckjord and Zimmer and air quality, but several 

aspects of this figure obscure the relationship. First, it is not clear which label applies to which of the three 

graphs. Second, it is not clear what an "18 per. Mov. Avg." is or why this statistic was used. I presume it is an average of 

18 hours of data, but the use of this statistic would seem to obscure the level of the peak concentrations that are of 

most concern. Finally, this set of graphs is difficult to interpret. Given the importance of demonstrating that the 

shutdown of Beckjord has had and will have a dramatic impact on 502 concentrations in the area, it is worth the effort 

to improve the presentation of the information that can be obtained from the data used in preparing these graphs. 

1 
Appendix D focuses on Zimmer. Ohio should also address whether any sources elsewhere, such as in Hamilton County, 

are prone to have significant impacts anywhere in the nonattainment area. The trajectories suggest not, but this is an 

important point to address. 

I am stressing this point because we have other areas around the country that are seeking clean data determinations. 

am aware of another case where a relatively small nonattainment area has only one source, which has shut down, but 

several other nearby sources are continuing to operate, and we seem likely to reject the clean data determination in 

absence of evidence, presumably in the form of modeling, to demonstrate that the (clean) monitor adequately 

represents the maximum concentration location with respect to the remaining sources. Your submittal for the 

Campbell-Clermont area must address the issue of whether data from the monitor provides adequate evidence that the 

entire area is attaining. 

2. Adequate SIP 

More important than the infrastructure SIP is all your rules in OAC 3745-18, most notably 3745-18-19 and perhaps 3745-

18-37. 

I presume that the reason biogenic emissions are not included is because you believe these emissions to be negligible, 

not because you didn't want to take the effort to compute them or because you didn't want us to know. Although 

Kentucky emissions are low, it would be worth explaining why non-EGU emissions become zero by 2020. I'm not sure 

what the "safety margin" column signifies. Perhaps this column would have meaning if you were compiling conformity 

budgets, but I understand you are finding that no conformity budget is needed. 

In light of the recent Sixth Circuit decision in relation to the redesignation of the Cincinnati area for PM2.5, Ohio may or 

may not be "obligated to submit RACM and RACT." This makes Ohio's second rationale, relating to the absence of major 

point sources, more important. A better way of arguing that Ohio has satisfied these requirements is to state that in 

absence of major point sources, no point source emission controls are possible. Ohio should also address minor source 

measures, presumably to conclude that no further measures constitute RACM on the minor sources that remain. 

3. Permanent and enforceable cause of air quality improvement 

Discussion of the permanence and enforceability of Beckjord's shutdown should be included in this section. After noting 

that the letter from the company results in the termination of the permit that authorizes them to operate, you should 

identify the provisions in state regulation that the state and EPA could enforce that prohibit operating without such a 

permit. Discussion of the relationship between the decline and cessation of Beckjord's emissions and air quality (as 

discussed above in relationship to air quality) would also help make the case that the air quality improvement seen so 

far, from 2011 to present, is attributable to the shutdown of Beckjord. This section should clarify that the entirety of 

Beckjord is required not to operate, i.e. that allowable emissions from the entire facility are now zero. 

4. Maintenance 

Modeling or having emissions below the attainment inventory are not the only options for demonstrating 

maintenance. In particular, I am much less convinced of maintenance by having future emissions below 32,619 tpy than 

1 am by having emissions at 16 tpy. For S02, I would not say (especially for a nonattainment area) that "maintenance is 

demonstrated [when emissions are below 2014 levels.]" Similarly, the fact that you consulted with EPA regions 4 and 5 

is not a good reason to forgo modeling. Clearly, you have reasons to forgo modeling, beyond simply that "unique 

circumstances" exist, and you should articulate those reasons. 

Perhaps I was not clear why we recommended analyzing background concentrations. If you "model" Beckjord as having 

zero emissions, and there are no other sources with impacts not represented in the background concentration, then the 

background concentration is the entirety of the future "modeled" (predicted) concentration. That is, it appears that you 

may reasonably assert that you anticipate future design values to be on the order of 5 ppb. In these circumstances, a 

reasonable anticipation of design values around 5 ppb is a stronger argument for maintenance than the anticipation of 

emissions being below 32,619 tpy. 

2 
We acknowledge (and it would be worth stating explicitly) that the absence of sources with any evident potential to 

cause violations means that Ohio cannot anticipate what might cause a violation in this area and thus what contingency 

measures might exist that might help address any future violation. Nevertheless, Ohio should specify what event (e.g., 

what monitored concentration) would trigger the process of investigating and adopting contingency measures and what 

timetable Ohio would expect to operate under. 

5. Satisfaction of section 110 and Part D 

Discussion of the satisfaction of section 110 and Part D should include discussion of the satisfaction of section 

110(a)(1). These provisions, which work in concert with the provisions of Part D and most notably require providing for 

attainment, are at least as important to address as the "infrastructure" provisions of section 110(a)(2). 

3