STREETADDRESS:

Lazarus GovernmentCenter 50W. Town St., Suite700 Columbus, Ohio43215**~u.gus.t:** 22, 2008

Ms. Lynn Buhl Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 5 77W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 StateofOhio Environmental Protection Agency

TELE: (614) 644-3020 FAX: (614) 644-3184 www.epa.state.oh.us MAILING ADDRESS:

P.O. Box 1049 Columbus,OH 43216-1049

Certified Mail

Re: Request for approval of the revIsions of OAC Chapter 3745-17 (Particulate Matter Standards) as part of the Ohio State Implementation Plan

DearMs. Buhl:
The purpose of this letter is to officially submit the recent reVISIons to OAC Chapter3745-17 (Particulate Matter Standards) and to request your approval of these revisions as part of Ohio's State Implementation Plan. The rules comprising this Chapter contain the particulate emission control requirements that have been necessaryto attain and maintain the National AmbientAirQuality Standardsforparticulate matter.

OAC Chapter 3745-17 was revised pursuant to the 5-year rule review requirements specified in Section 119.032 of the Ohio Revised Code. Specifically, OAC rule 3745-17-05 was rescinded and OAC rules 3745-17-01,

- 02, -03, -04, -07, -08, -09, -10, -11, -12, -13, and -14 were amended in fulfilling the 5-yearrule requirements.

A public hearing concerning the proposed rule revisions was held on October 19, 2007. Onlyone set ofcomments was received as a result ofthe public hearing, and those comments did not necessitate anyfurther changes to the rules. The JointCommittee on Agency Rule Review, a legislative Committee, held its public hearing on the proposed rules on November 13, 2007, at which time the Committee approved the rules. The Director's order of adoption for the rule revisions was issued on January 22, 2008, and the revised rules became effective on February 1, 2008.
Appendix 

### V to 40 CFR Part 51 is entitled: "Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions." Section 2.0 ("Criteria") of this Appendix


### \



# *

Printed on Recycled Paper Ted Strickland, Governor Lee Fisher, Lieutenant Governor Chris Korleski, Director
OhioEPA isan EqualOpportunityEmployeroutlines the minimum criteria for determining the acceptability of a request to revise a state implementation plan. In the following paragraphs, we have summarized howwe have addressed each ofthe relevant criteria in Section 2.0:

***********************************************************

"2.1. Administrative Materials"
"(a) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting approval ofthe plan orrevision thereof(hereafter"the Plan")."

This lettersatisfiesthis criterion.
"(b) Evidencethatthe State has adopted the plan in the State code orbody of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter "document") in final form. Thatevidence shall includethe date ofadoption
orfinal issuance as well as the effective date ofthe plan, if different from the adoption/issuance."

and
"(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made (such as redline/strikeout) to the existing approved plan where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that itisfullyenforceable bythe State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the documentitself."

A certified copy of each revised rule, in redline and strikeout, is included in Appendix A of this submission for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan. The copies are included as evidence thatthe State has adopted all the rules in final form. Each rule included in this submission is a copy ofthe official State rule that is signed, stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official indicating the rule is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of each rule is specified at the end ofthe rule. (Please note that Ohio has an electronic rule filing system and that all certifications and signatures forthe rules are done electronically.) AppendixA also includes a synopsis ofall the revisions made to each ofthe rules in OAC Chapter3745-17.
Copies of the public notice and the Director's Findings and Orders also are included in Appendix B of this submission. The copy of the public notice provides evidence that public notice ofthe proposed rule revisions was provided in accordance with State law. The copy ofthe public notice also includes the

2date of its publication. The Director's Findings and Orders provide evidencethat the rule revisionswere adopted in accordancewith State law.
"(c) Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State lawto adoptand implementthe plan."
Copies ofORC sections 3704.02(A)(2) and 3704.03(A), (E), and (F) are included in Appendix C ofthis submission as evidence that the State has the necessary legal authorityto adoptthe revised rules and implementthe plan.
"(e) Evidence thatthe State followed all ofthe procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance ofthe plan."

and



### "(f) Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication ofsuch notice."

A narrative and several attachments are included in Appendix D of this submission to provide evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements ofthe State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption ofthe proposed rule revisions.
"(g) Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable, and consistent with the public hearing requirements in 40 CFR51.102."

A copy ofthe transcriptfrom the public hearing is included in Appendix E ofthis submission as certification that a public hearing was in accordance with the information contained in the public noticeand in accordancewith the State's laws and constitution.
"(h) Compilation ofpubliccomments and the State's responsethereto."
Copies ofthe "Response to Comments" documents for the comments received concerning both the draft rules and the proposed rules are included in Appendix Fof this submission.

"2.2. Technical Support"
"(a) Identification ofall regulated pollutants affected bythe plan."

3GAC Chapter 3745-17 only regulates "particulate emissions" and emissions of "fugitivedust," asthoseterms are defined in GAC rule 3745-17-01.
"(b) Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designations of the locations and the status of the attainment plan forthe affected sources."

The revisions that were made to the rules within GAC Chapter 3745-17 as a result of the 5-year rule review process are not comparable to the scope and detail ofwhat one would expect to see ifthe Chapterwere revised to attain and maintain a new NAAQS for particulate matter. However, there are fourfacilities and two categories of emission sources that are specifically affected by the revisions included in this submission. The four facilities are Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc. in Woodville (Sandusky County), AK Steel Corporation, Middletown Works in Middletown (Butler County), Ford Motor Company, Cleveland Casting Plant in Brook Park (Cuyahoga County), and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation in Martins Ferry and Steubenville (Jefferson County); and the two categories of emission sources are jet engine test cells and standsand surface coating processes (i.e., painting operationsthat generate particulate emissions due to paint overspray). Sandusky County is designated attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. Butler, Cuyahoga, and Jefferson Counties are designated attainmentfor PM10 and nonattainmentfor PM2.5. The affected jet engine test cells and stands and the surface coating processes are located in several counties, all ofwhich are designated as attainment for PM10 and some ofwhich aredesignated nonattainmentfor PM2.5.
"(c) Quantification ofthe changes in the plan allowable emissionsfrom the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification ofchanges in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result ofthe revision."

Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc. operates two lime kilns in a county that is currentlydesignated attainmentforthe PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule revisions that affect this company are contained in GAC rule 3745-17-07, which specifies visible emission limitations for various sources of particulate emissions and fugitive dust. The company demonstrated a need for exemptions from the 20% and 60% limitations for the kilns to prevent damage to their baghouse during periods of start-up and shutdown and to prevent explosive conditions in their electrostatic precipitator during periods of start-up. (Appendix G of this submission contains the technical support provided by the company for the requested exemptions.) Because these periods of start-up and shutdown are infrequent and not of extended durations, the new exemptions are expected to have a negligible impact on the ambient air quality in Sandusky County and, therefore, there is no need to tryto quantifyanychanges in actual emissionsthat

4would result from the rule reVISions. In addition, these exemptions from the opacitylimitations do not relaxthe allowable mass emission ratesforthe kilns, as specified byGAC rule 3745-17-11. Therefore, becausethe revisions ofGAC rule 3745-17-07 forthis facility do not change the allowable mass emission rates for the kilns in the plan, there is no need to quantify changes in the plan allowable emissions.

GAC rule 3745-17-08 has been revised to eliminate the exemptions from the requirement to employ reasonably available control measures forthe emissions offugitive dustfrom the blastfurnace and basicoxygen furnaces atthe AK Steel Corporation, Middletown Works. These emission sources were causing a public nuisance, and as part ofthe settlement of an enforcement case concerning the nuisance violations, the company agreed to the elimination ofthe exemptions in GAC rule 3745-17-08. The emissions of fugitive dust from these sources are now controlled to comply with the MACT standards for iron and steel mills. Because the general control requirements specified in GAC rule 3745-17-08 did not change in any way with the removal of the exemptions for AK Steel Corporation, and because the actual emissions from the blastfurnace and basic oxygen furnaces decreased as a result of the removal of the exemptions, the revisions of this rule will only improve the ambient air quality in Butler County. Therefore, there is no need to try to quantify the changes in plan allowable emissions orin actual emissions that have occurred as a resultofthe removal of the exemptions.

The rule revisions that affectthe Ford MotorCompany, Cleveland Casting Plant
are contained in GAC rules 3745-17-04 and -12. Ford Motor Company is planning to shut down this entire facility bythe end of2010, and the revisions to these rules reflectthe source shutdownsthat have occurred to-date atthefacility. All ofthese shutdowns result in less actual emissionsfrom thefacility. Therewill be no increases in actual emissions (from current levels) orallowable emissions from thefacilityand noadverse impacts upon ambientairqualitywill occurdueto the rule revisions; therefore, there is no need to try to quantify the changes in actual emissions thatwould correspond to the rule revisions relating to the Ford MotorCompany.

The Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation also has shut down a number of
sources at its Martins Ferry and Steubenville facilities. The company has requested that Chapter3745-17 be revised to reflect the source shutdowns and to increase the allowable emission rates for several sources at these facilities. The rule revisions that affectthesefacilities are contained in GAC rules 3745-17- 04and -13. The revisionsto GAC rule 3745-17-13 identifythe sourcesthat have been shut down as well as the sources for which increases in allowable emissions have been requested.

GAC rule 3745-17-11 has been revised to exempt jet engine test cells and stands from the requirements ofthat rule. Most ofthe jet engine test cells and

5stands have low particulate emission rates (less than 10 Ibs/hr), and it is not reasonable, from an economic standpoint, to install add-on, particulate emission controls for these sources. This conclusion is consistent with USEPA's MACT standards forengine test cells and stands (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPP), in which USEPAconcluded that it is not economically reasonable to install add-on controls for HAP emissions from any existing engine test cells or stands. Because this new exemption does not change the allowable emission rates specified in GAC rule 3745-17-11, there is no need to tryto quantifythe changes in plan allowable emissions as a result ofthis rule revision. Also, because nojet engine test cells or stands have installed controls to comply with the requirements of GAC rule 3745-17-11, there will be no increase in actual emissions as a result ofthis newexemption that could adversely impact ambient airquality.

The rule revisions that affect surface coating processes are contained in GAC rule 3745-17-11. These revisions replace the existing generic emission limitationsforsuch processeswith new requirementsthat reflect industrypractice and reasonably available control technology (RACT). These new RACT requirements are based upon and very similarto an Indiana rule [326 lAC 6-3-2 (d)(1 )-(4)] that has been approved by Region V. The primary impetus forthese rule revisions wasthe desireto resolve theTitleV permitappealsfiled byseveral automobile manufacturing companies (Daimler-Chrysler, GM, et al.) regarding the application of GAC rule 3745-17-11 to surface coating processes. The new RACT requirements will affectasubstantial numberofsurface coating processes throughout the State, in addition to the companies that appealed the Title V permits. Because the work practices and controls comprising the new RACT requirements are based in part upon current, state-of-the-art, industry practices,
no increases in actual emissions are expected from these rule revisions and, therefore, there is no need to tryto quantifythe changes in the actual emissions. Also, because the existing generic emission limitations specified by GAC rule 3745-17-11 for surface coating processes are in many cases technically unrealistic and infeasibleto achieve, hencethe basisforthe permit appeals, and because the new RACT requirements do not specify allowable mass emission rates, no attemptwas madetotryto quantifyanychanges in allowable emissions thatwould resultfrom the rule revisions.
"(d) The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected ifthe plan is approved and implemented. Forall requeststo redesignate an area to attainment for a national primary ambient air quality standard, under section 107 ofthe Act, a revision must be submitted to provide for the maintenance ofthe national primaryambientairqualitystandardsforat least 10years as required bysection 175AoftheAct."

and

6"(e) Modeling information required to support the proposed reVISion, including input data, output data, models used, justification of model selections, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacyofthe modeling analysis."

The only rule revisions that require a demonstration of attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS are the revisions relating to the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation. Because the allowable emission rates for several sources at the company's facilities increased, a modeling analysis was performed to demonstrate that the new attainment strategyforthe facilities would continue to
ensure compliance with the NAAQS for PM10. A copyofthat modeling analysis is contained in Appendix H ofthis submission. The modeling analysis includes the information required byparagraphs (d) and (e) above.



### "(f) Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology."

This paragraph is not relevantto anyofthe revisions in OAC Chapter3745-17.
"(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to
ensure emission levels."

Forthe rule revisions included in this submission, this provision isapplicable only to the rule revisions pertaining to the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and surface coating processes. ForWheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, OAC rule 3745-17-12 veryspecificallydefinesthe emission limitations, work practices, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements that must be met by the company. Likewise, OAC rule 3745-17-11 specifies the work practices, inspections, and recordkeeping requirementsforthe surface coating processes subjecttothe new RACT requirements.
"(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies, including howcompliancewill be determined in practice."

OAC rule 3745-17-03 specifies the compliance methods for all of the emission limitations and control requirements contained in OAC Chapter3745-17. Title V permit facilities and synthetic minor facilities are required to be inspected in accordancewith thefederal grantforthe Ohio EPA, DAPC. Smallerfacilities are inspected on a lessfrequent basis and/oras complaints are received. In general, during facility inspections bythe field office staff, the compliance status of each emissions unitwill be determined. Each emissions unitwill be inspected and any records relevantto that emissions unitwill be reviewed. Also, on a routine basis

7the field office staff will review all reports, including emission test reports, submitted by facilities within theirjurisdiction and determine whether or not the reports show compliance with the applicable requirements. If any violations of applicable requirements are discovered by the field office staff, appropriate enforcement action must be initiated in accordance with the "Enforcement Procedures for the Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control," dated March 2001.
"(i) Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies, or an explanation of why such justifications are not necessary."

There are no applicable EPA policies that are relevant to the rule revisions included in this submission.

****************************************************

Your prompt review and approval of this submission as part of the Ohio State Implementation Plan will be appreciated. If your staff have any questions concerning this submission, please havethem contact Bob Hodanbosi (614-644- 3585) orJim Orlemann (614-644-3592).
Sincerely,

# C12.~ Chris Korleski Director

xc: Bob Hodanbosi, DAPC [letteronly] Jim Orlemann, DAPC [letterand attachments] Tom Kalman, DAPC [letteronly] John Mooney, USEPA, Region V, SIP Section [letteronly] John Summerhays, USEPA, Region V, SIP Section [letterand attachments] PeggyMalone, AGO [letteronly]

8