Public Notice Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Redesignation and Maintenance Plan forthe Ohio Portion ofthe Campbell-Clermont KY-OH 502 NonattainmentArea 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 leastten 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 ofOhio 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 S02NAAQS and incorporate the maintenance plan. This request will document that existing enforceable control measures are responsible forthe 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 ofattainment and maintenance. Written comments will be received on or before April 16, 2015 atthe following address: E-mail: Erica.Fetty@epa.state.oh.us Mailing address: Erica Fetty Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, DAPC Lazarus Government CenterP.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 orto 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 ofthe official record ofthe 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 atthe above address.

# OhioEPA

Division ofAir Pollution Control Response to Comments Redesignation Requestand Maintenance Plan forthe Campbell-Clermont KY-OH Sulfur Dioxide (S02) NonattainmentArea Agency Contactsforthis Project Division Contact: (JenniferVan Vlerah, Division ofAir 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 authorityto consider specific issues related to protection ofthe environment and public health. In an effortto help you review this document, the questions are grouped by topic and organized in a consistentformat. The name ofthe commenterfollows the comment in parentheses.

Comment 1: The Utilities support Ohio EPA's requestfor 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 EPAwas notified ofthe permanent shutdown on October 14, 2014. There is no other significant source located in the area. Ohio EPA has determined that the violations atthe 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 attainmentfor the one-hour S02 NAAQS. (Cheri A. Budzynski, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP on behalf ofthe 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 ofan "unclassifiable" designation. Attaining the standard: The key test here is whether, on the basis ofavailable evidence, we can conclude that the entirety ofthe nonattainment area is now attaining the standard. Please do not suggest that EPA Regions 4 and 5 agreed with a determination that an analysis ofmaximum concentration location was notwarranted. To the extentthat Zimmer is the most significant remaining source anywhere nearthe area, that would suggestthat the maximum concentration location would be the portion ofthe area closestto Zimmer. Thus, to that extent, the question instead would be whetherthe monitor provides a sufficient representation of concentrations throughout the nonattainment area to be able to conclude thatthe entire area, including portions ofthe area closer to Zimmer, are attaining the standard. Modeling of Beckjord ofcourse is unnecessary, but Ohio needs to make more ofa case that modeling ofother sources is not necessaryto determine that even concentrations even at the maximum concentration location in the nonattainment area are belowthe standard. The trajectory analysis is a key part ofthis evaluation, even though theworkwas done more to determine contribution at the monitor location ratherthan impactsthroughout the nonattainment. An important point is that trajectories in which winds do not carry emissionsfrom Zimmerto the monitor also representtrajectories that largely do not carry emissions from Zimmerto any ofthe rest ofthe nonattainment area, either. Another important point is that Zimmer is sufficient distancefrom the nonattainment area to conclude that impacts at the nearest edge ofthe nonattainment area are likely to be similarto impacts atthe monitor. (For making this point. itwould be useful to compare the distancefrom Zimmerto the nonattainment area versus the distancefrom Zimmerto the monitor.) This would support an argumentthat, 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 airqualityfor the portions of2014when 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 ofa peak statisticfor the period, e.g. the ggth percentile (ifthis statistic is adequately robust). Data collected so far in 2015 may be useful forthis purpose. I recognize that these periods did not constitute an entire year, but these data would likely provide strong supportfor the hypothesisthat a scenario in which Beckjord emissions are zero can be expected to have attaining air quality throughout the area, even in portions ofthe nonattainment that might have more impactfrom sources like Zimmerthat 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 ofthis figure obscure the relationship. First, it is not clear which label appliesto which ofthe three graphs. Second, it is not clearwhat an "18 per. Mov. Avg." is orwhythis statisticwas used. I presume it is an average of 18 hours ofdata, but the use ofthis statistic would seem to obscure the level ofthe peak concentrations that are of most concern. Finally, this set of graphs is difficultto interpret. Given the importance ofdemonstrating that the shutdown of Beckjord has had and will have a dramatic impact on 

### 802 concentrations in the area, it is worth the effortto improve the presentation ofthe information that can be obtained from the data used in preparing these graphs. Appendix Dfocuses 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 ofanother 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 likelyto 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 ofwhether data from the monitor provides adequate evidence that theResponse 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 requestto address evidence ofattainment ofthe standard. Several clarifications and additional analyses are incorporated into the body ofthe 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 attainmentthroughoutthe entire nonattainment area taking into consideration the potential impact ofother sources within the vicinity but located outside the nonattainment area. Adequate SIP: More importantthan 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'twant to take the effortto compute them or because you didn'twant us to know. Although Kentucky emissions are low, itwould 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 ifyou were compiling conformity budgets, but I understand you are finding that no conformity budget is needed. In light ofthe recent Sixth Circuit decision in relation to the redesignation ofthe Cincinnati area for PM2.5, Ohio mayor 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 betterway of arguing that Ohio has satisfied these requirements is to state that in absence ofmajor point sources, no point source emission controls are possible. Ohio should also address minorsource 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 of6, to identify the importance ofthe OACComment4:

Response 4:

Comment5: 3745-18 regulations. Ohio EPA has also provided clarification regarding the negligible biogenic emissions in Chapter 4, Requirement 1of4. 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 of6 under Chapter 5. Permanent and enforceable cause of air quality improvement: Discussion ofthe permanence and enforceability of Beckjord's shutdown should be included in this section. After noting that the letterfrom the company results in the termination ofthe permit that authorizes them to operate, you should identifythe provisions in state regulation that the state and EPA could enforce that prohibit operating without such a permit. Discussion ofthe 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 attributableto the shutdown ofBeckjord. This section should clarify that the entirety ofBeckjord is required notto 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 throughoutthe request regarding the permanence of Beckord's shutdown ofthe major coal fired units and more recent permanent shutdown ofthe minoroil-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 ofthe entirety ofthe facility. Ohio EPA has also provided clarification on howthe state and U.S. EPA could enforce the prohibition ofoperating without a permit and/or after notification ofpermanent 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 demonstratingResponse 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, Iwould not say (especiallyfor a nonattainmentarea) that "maintenance is demonstrated [when emissions are below 2014 levels.]" Similarly, the factthat 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 Iwas not clear whywe recommended analyzing background concentrations. Ifyou "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 ofthe future "modeled" (predicted) concentration. That is, it appears that you may reasonably assertthat you anticipate future design values to be on the order of

### 5 ppb. In these circumstances, a reasonable anticipation ofdesign values around 

### 5 ppb is a stronger argumentfor maintenance than the anticipation ofemissions being below 32,619 tpy. We acknowledge (and itwould be worth stating explicitly) thatthe absence ofsources 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 existthat might help address any future violation. Nevertheless, Ohio should specifywhat event (e.g., what monitored concentration) would trigger the process ofinvestigating and adopting contingency measures and whattimetable Ohio would expect to operate under. (U.S. EPA Region V, submitted via email) Ohio EPA has provided clarification in Requirement 2 of4 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 of4 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 of4 and Requirement 3 of4 under Chapter 

### 6.Comment6:

Response 

### 6:

Comment

### 7:

Response 7:

CommentS: Satisfaction ofsection 110 and Part D: Discussion ofthe satisfaction ofsection 110 and Part D should include discussion ofthe satisfaction ofsection 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 asthe "infrastructure" provisions ofsection 11O(a)(2). {U.S. EPA Region V, submitted via email) Ohio EPA has added additional clarification underChapter 2 (5.a) to address the importance ofsection 11O(a)(1). I guess Iwould like to provide testimony. Iwould like to ask thatthe State ofOhio EPA hold this in abeyance until you receive an answerto whetherthe peaking units that are in the east end ofthe Beckjord plantwill be decommissioned and never used. I'd like a response from that. And also I'd like to know whetherthey have been calculated in the sulfur dioxide output, and whetherthey are presently ableto burn lowsulfur and whetherthis is a consideration that has been included in this, because the notice simply indicatesthat the Walter C. Beckjord plant is being closed that is the coal fire plant, and there is a major peaking uniton the east end of the plant that is referred to as the oil plant and Iwould like to know whetherthat 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 askthat you not make the decision until that is answered because ofthat and that is actually definitively addressed. My name is Daniel Owens, I'm a resident of Pierce Township, I'm an attorney, and Iwas a trustee here for 16 years. And Iam part ofan environmental agreement with Duke Energy, that is in the 28th year of its existence, concerning the Beckjord plant. Thankyou very much. (Daniel Owens, Hearing Testimony) As discussed in response 4, the entirety ofthe Beckjord facility is permanently shutdown. My name is Alan Freeman, a Pierce Township resident, Ijust wanted to make sure that I understood that this attainment is on for S02, notfor any other ozone related compounds; is that correct? The important thing is that we are going to be hopefully in thefuture in attainmentfor sulphur dioxide only, notfor the VOCs orthe NOxs. That's important to this area, becauseResponse 8: quitefranklywe have some issues with regard to some other agencies that are applying for federal dollarsfor otherozone type related contaminants, we wantto make sure those won't be harmed in any way and wantto move forward with those, so that also we can eventually be in attainmentfor ozone related contaminants as well. So moving forward we really are hopeful thatwe can putthis on the record that it is true that this is only forthat one component, notfor the others, so that we will be able to talk to some ofthe funders in the area, so we will continue to be eligible forthose appropriatefunds without exception. (Alan Freeman, Hearing Testimony) This submittal does not address ozone but only sulfur dioxide.

End of Response to Comments1 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 11 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 23

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 would4

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 for1 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 is1 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 25Page: 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 Template1 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 HuntingtonCenter 41 South HighStreet Suite2400 Columbus,Ohio43215-6104 614.463.94<!1 614.463.1108 fax

www.slk-Jaw.com

VIAEMAil.ANDU.S. MAIL

Erica Fetty OhioEnvironmentalPmtectionAgency Division ofAirPollution Control P.O.Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio4321601049 Erica.Fettv@epa.state.oh.us April 16,2015

Re: Requestfor Redesignationofthe Ohio Portionofthe Campbell-ClermontKYOH Area to Attainment of the 2010 One-Hour Sulfm· Dioxide National AmbientAir Quality Standard 011rFile No. 043591 DearMs. 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 AmbientAir Quality Standard ("NAAQS"). The following comments are submitted on behalfof the Ohio Utility Group and its member companies ("OUG" or "the Utilities"),1 which is an association ofindividual electric utilities in the State ofOhio. 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. TheUtilities support Ohio EPA'sreqnest for redesignation ofPierceTownship in Clermont County. Ofnote on the redesignation requests, the Walter C. Beckjord facility ceased operation on September l, 2014 and Ohio EPA was notified ofthe 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 ElectricCorporation.

COLUMBUS I TOLEDO! TAMPA CHARLOTTEErica 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 attainmentfor the one-hour S02NAAQS. The Utilities appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Ifyou have any questions regarding these comments,please contactme.

Vety truly yours,

CheriA. Budzynski CAB\bd

SlK

__TOL:#256h&WvlVan 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 considerthe following as you proceed toward completing this package. 1. Attainingthe standard: The key test here is whether, on the basis ofavailable evidence, we can conclude thatthe entirety ofthe nonattainment area is nowattainingthe standard. Please do notsuggest that EPA Regions 4and 5 agreed with adetermination thatan analysis ofmaximum concentration location was notwarranted. To the extentthatZimmer is the most significant remaining source anywhere nearthe area, thatwould suggest thatthe maximum concentration location would be the portion ofthe area closest toZimmer. Thus, tothat extent, the question instead would be whetherthe monitor provides asufficient representation ofconcentrationsthroughoutthe nonattainmentarea to be able to conclude that the entire area, including portionsofthe area closer toZimmer, are attainingthe standard. Modeling ofBeckjord of course is unnecessary, but Ohio needs to make more ofacase that modeling ofothersources is not necessaryto determinethateven concentrations even atthe maximum concentration location in the nonattainmentarea are below the standard. The trajectory analysis is a key partofthis evaluation, eventhough the workwas done moreto determine contribution atthe monitor location ratherthan impacts throughoutthe nonattainment. An important point is thattrajectories in which winds do notcarry emissions from Zimmertothe monitoralso representtrajectoriesthat largely do notcarry emissions from Zimmerto any ofthe rest ofthe nonattainment area, either. Another important point is thatZimmer is sufficient distancefrom the nonattainment area to conclude that impactsatthe nearestedge ofthe nonattainment area are likelyto be similarto impacts atthe monitor. (For makingthis point, itwould be useful to compare the distance from Zimmertothe nonattainmentarea versus the distancefrom Zimmertothe monitor.) This would supportan argumentthat, with Beckjord emissions at zero, concentrations throughoutthe nonattainmentarea are relatively uniform, such that concentrations elsewhere in the nonattainment area would not likely be significantly higher. Itwould also be useful to examine airqualitydata in relationto emissions from Beckjord, forexample to examine air qualityforthe portionsof2014 when emissionswere loworeven zero. You analyze average concentrationswith and withoutthetwo unitsat Beckjord, but itwould be useful to analyze more ofapeak statistic forthe period, e.g. the gg'h percentile (ifthis statistic is adequately robust). Data collected so far in 2015 may be useful forthis purpose. I recognize thatthese periods did not constitute an entireyear, butthese data would likely provide strong support forthe hypothesis that ascenario in which Beckjord emissions are zero can be expected to have attaining air qualitythroughout the area, even in portions ofthe nonattainmentthat might have more impactfrom sources like Zimmerthat are outside the nonattainment area. Figure 3 is intended to illustrate the relationship between emissions at Beckjord and Zimmerand airquality, butseveral aspects ofthis figure obscure the relationship. First, it is notclear which label applies towhich ofthe three graphs. Second, it is notclear what an "18 per. Mov.Avg." is orwhythis statisticwas used. I presume it is an average of 18 hours ofdata, butthe use ofthis statistic would seem to obscure the level ofthe peak concentrationsthat are of most concern. Finally, this set ofgraphs is difficultto interpret. Given the importance ofdemonstratingthat the shutdown ofBeckjord has had and will have a dramatic impacton 502 concentrations in the area, it is worththe effort to improvethe presentation ofthe information that can be obtained from the data used in preparingthese graphs.

1Appendix Dfocuses on Zimmer. Ohio should also address whetherany sources elsewhere, such as in Hamilton County, are prone to have significant impacts anywhere in the nonattainment area. The trajectoriessuggest not, butthis is an important pointto address. Iam stressingthis point because we have otherareas around the countrythat are seeking clean data determinations. am aware ofanothercase where a relatively small nonattainmentarea has onlyone source, which has shut down, but several other nearby sources are continuingto operate, and we seem likelyto rejectthe clean data determination in absence ofevidence, presumably in theform ofmodeling, to demonstratethatthe (clean) monitoradequately represents the maximum concentration location with respect tothe remaining sources. Your submittal forthe Campbell-Clermont area must address the issue ofwhetherdata from the monitor provides adequate evidence thatthe entire area is attaining. 2. Adequate SIP More importantthan the infrastructure SIP is all your rules in OAC 3745-18, most notably3745-18-19 and perhaps 3745- 18-37. I presume thatthe reason biogenic emissions are not included is because you believe these emissions to be negligible, not because you didn'twanttotake the effortto compute them or because you didn'twant us to know. Although Kentucky emissions are low, itwould be worth explaining why non-EGU emissions become zero by 2020. I'm notsure whatthe "safety margin" column signifies. Perhapsthis column would have meaning ifyou were compiling conformity budgets, but I understand you are finding that no conformity budget is needed. In lightofthe recent Sixth Circuit decision in relation tothe redesignation ofthe Cincinnati area for PM2.5, Ohio may or may not be "obligated to submit RACM and RACT." This makes Ohio's second rationale, relatingtothe absence ofmajor pointsources, more important. A betterway ofarguingthat Ohio has satisfied these requirements is to state that in absence ofmajor point sources, no pointsource emission controls are possible. Ohio should also address minorsource measures, presumablyto conclude that nofurther measures constitute RACM on the minorsources that remain. 3. Permanent and enforceable cause ofairquality improvement Discussion ofthe permanence and enforceability of Beckjord's shutdown should be included in this section. After noting thatthe letterfrom the company results in thetermination ofthe permitthat authorizesthem to operate, you should identifythe provisions in state regulationthatthestate and EPAcould enforcethatprohibitoperatingwithoutsuch a permit. Discussion ofthe relationship between the decline and cessation ofBeckjord's emissions and air quality (as discussed above in relationship to airquality) would also help make the case thatthe airquality improvement seen so far, from 2011 to present, is attributabletothe shutdown ofBeckjord. This section should clarifythatthe entirety of Beckjord is required notto operate, i.e. that allowable emissions from the entirefacility are now zero. 4. Maintenance Modelingor having emissions belowthe attainment inventory are not the onlyoptionsfordemonstrating maintenance. In particular, Iam much less convinced ofmaintenance by havingfuture emissions below 32,619 tpythan 1am by having emissions at 16tpy. For S02, Iwould notsay (especially fora nonattainment area) that "maintenance is demonstrated [when emissions are below2014 levels.]" Similarly, the fact thatyou consulted with EPA regions 4and 5 is notagood reason toforgo modeling. Clearly, you have reasons to forgo modeling, beyond simplythat "unique circumstances" exist, and you should articulatethose reasons. Perhaps Iwas notclear whywe recommended analyzing background concentrations. Ifyou "model" Beckjord as having zero emissions, and there are no othersources with impacts not represented in the background concentration, then the background concentration is the entiretyofthefuture "modeled" (predicted) concentration. That is, itappears thatyou may reasonably assert thatyou anticipate future design values to be on the orderof5 ppb. In these circumstances, a reasonable anticipation ofdesign values around 5 ppb is astrongerargumentfor maintenance thanthe anticipation of emissions being below 32,619 tpy.

2We acknowledge (and itwould be worth stating explicitly)thatthe absence ofsources with any evident potentialto cause violations means that Ohio cannot anticipate what mightcause a violation in this area and thus whatcontingency measures mightexistthat might help address anyfutureviolation. Nevertheless, Ohio should specifywhat event (e.g., what monitored concentration) would triggerthe process ofinvestigating and adoptingcontingency measures and what timetable Ohio would expectto operate under. 5. Satisfaction ofsection 110 and Part D Discussion ofthesatisfaction ofsection 110 and Part Dshould include discussion ofthe satisfaction ofsection 110(a)(1). These provisions, which work in concert withthe provisions of Part Dand most notably require providingfor attainment, are at least as importantto address as the "infrastructure" provisions ofsection 110(a)(2).

3