STREET ADDRESS:

Lazarus Government Center

50 W. Town St., Suite 700

Columbus, Ohio 43215

~u.gus.t: 22, 2008

Ms. Lynn Buhl

Regional Administrator

U.S. EPA, Region 5

77 W. Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

State of Ohio 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

Dear Ms. Buhl:

The purpose of this letter is to officially submit the recent reVISIons to OAC

Chapter 3745-17 (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 necessary to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for particulate 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Specifically, OAC rule 3745-17-05 was rescinded and OAC rules 3745-17-01, -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-year rule requirements.

A public hearing concerning the proposed rule revisions was held on October 19,

2007. Only one set of comments was received as a result of the public hearing,

and those comments did not necessitate any further changes to the rules. The

Joint Committee 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

Ohio EPA is an Equal Opportunity Employer
outlines the minimum criteria for determining the acceptability of a request to

revise a state implementation plan. In the following paragraphs, we have

summarized how we have addressed each of the relevant criteria in Section 2.0:

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

"2.1. Administrative Materials"

"(a) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee,

requesting approval of the plan or revision thereof (hereafter "the Plan")."

This letter satisfies this criterion.

"(b) Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body

of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter

"document") in final form. That evidence shall include the date of adoption

or final issuance as well as the effective date of the 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 it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date

of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the

document itself."

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 that the State has adopted all the

rules in final form. Each rule included in this submission is a copy of the 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 of the rule. (Please note that Ohio has an electronic

rule filing system and that all certifications and signatures for the rules are done

electronically.) Appendix A also includes a synopsis of all the revisions made to

each of the rules in OAC Chapter 3745-17.

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 of the proposed rule revisions was provided

in accordance with State law. The copy of the public notice also includes the

2
date of its publication. The Director's Findings and Orders provide evidence that

the rule revisions were adopted in accordance with State law.

"(c) Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State

law to adopt and implement the plan."

Copies of ORC sections 3704.02(A)(2) and 3704.03(A), (E), and (F) are included

in Appendix C of this submission as evidence that the State has the necessary

legal authority to adopt the revised rules and implement the plan.

"(e) Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of

the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the

adoption/issuance of the plan."

and

"(f) Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change

consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of

publication of such 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 of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing

the adoption of the 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 CFR 51.102."

A copy of the transcript from the public hearing is included in Appendix E of this

submission as certification that a public hearing was in accordance with the

information contained in the public notice and in accordance with the State's laws

and constitution.

"(h) Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto."

Copies of the "Response to Comments" documents for the comments received

concerning both the draft rules and the proposed rules are included in Appendix

F of this submission.

"2.2. Technical Support"

"(a) Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan."

3
GAC Chapter 3745-17 only regulates "particulate emissions" and emissions of

"fugitive dust," as those terms 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 for the 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 of what one would expect to see if the Chapter were revised to attain and

maintain a new NAAQS for particulate matter. However, there are four facilities

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 stands and surface coating processes (i.e., painting operations that

generate particulate emissions due to paint overspray). Sandusky County is

designated attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. Butler, Cuyahoga, and Jefferson

Counties are designated attainment for PM10 and nonattainment for PM2.5. The

affected jet engine test cells and stands and the surface coating processes are

located in several counties, all of which are designated as attainment for PM10

and some of which are designated nonattainment for PM2.5.

"(c) Quantification of the changes in the plan allowable emissions from the

affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from

affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual

emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences

between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a

result of the revision."

Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc. operates two lime kilns in a county

that is currently designated attainment for the 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 try to quantify any changes in actual emissions that

4
would result from the rule reVISions. In addition, these exemptions from the

opacity limitations do not relax the allowable mass emission rates for the kilns, as

specified by GAC rule 3745-17-11. Therefore, because the revisions of GAC rule

3745-17-07 for this 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 for the emissions

of fugitive dust from the blast furnace and basic oxygen furnaces at the AK Steel

Corporation, Middletown Works. These emission sources were causing a public

nuisance, and as part of the settlement of an enforcement case concerning the

nuisance violations, the company agreed to the elimination of the 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 blast furnace 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 or in actual emissions that have occurred as a result of the removal of

the exemptions.

The rule revisions that affect the Ford Motor Company, Cleveland Casting Plant

are contained in GAC rules 3745-17-04 and -12. Ford Motor Company is

planning to shut down this entire facility by the end of 2010, and the revisions to

these rules reflect the source shutdowns that have occurred to-date at the facility.

All of these shutdowns result in less actual emissions from the facility. There will

be no increases in actual emissions (from current levels) or allowable emissions

from the facility and no adverse impacts upon ambient air quality will occur due to

the rule revisions; therefore, there is no need to try to quantify the changes in

actual emissions that would correspond to the rule revisions relating to the Ford

Motor Company.

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 Chapter 3745-17 be revised to reflect the source shutdowns and

to increase the allowable emission rates for several sources at these facilities.

The rule revisions that affect these facilities are contained in GAC rules 3745-17-

04 and -13. The revisions to GAC rule 3745-17-13 identify the sources that 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 of that rule. Most of the jet engine test cells and

5
stands 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 for engine test cells and stands (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPP), in

which USEPA concluded 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 try to quantify the changes

in plan allowable emissions as a result of this rule revision. Also, because no jet

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 of this new exemption that could adversely impact ambient

air quality.

The rule revisions that affect surface coating processes are contained in GAC

rule 3745-17-11. These revisions replace the existing generic emission

limitations for such processes with new requirements that reflect industry practice

and reasonably available control technology (RACT). These new RACT

requirements are based upon and very similar to an Indiana rule [326 lAC 6-3-2

(d)(1 )-(4)] that has been approved by Region V. The primary impetus for these

rule revisions was the desire to resolve the Title V permit appeals filed by several

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 affect a substantial number of surface 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 try to quantify the 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 infeasible to achieve, hence the basis for the permit appeals, and

because the new RACT requirements do not specify allowable mass emission

rates, no attempt was made to try to quantify any changes in allowable emissions

that would result from 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

if the plan is approved and implemented. For all requests to redesignate an

area to attainment for a national primary ambient air quality standard,

under section 107 of the Act, a revision must be submitted to provide for

the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality standards for at

least 10 years as required by section 175A of the Act."

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

adequacy of the modeling analysis."

The only rule revisions that require a demonstration of attainment and

maintenance of the 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 strategy for the facilities would continue to

ensure compliance with the NAAQS for PM10. A copy of that modeling analysis

is contained in Appendix H of this submission. The modeling analysis includes

the information required by paragraphs (d) and (e) above.

"(f) Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on

continuous emission reduction technology."

This paragraph is not relevant to any of the revisions in OAC Chapter 3745-17.

"(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice

standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to

ensure emission levels."

For the rule revisions included in this submission, this provision is applicable only

to the rule revisions pertaining to the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and

surface coating processes. For Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, OAC rule

3745-17-12 very specifically defines the 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 requirements for the surface coating processes subject to the new

RACT requirements.

"(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will 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 Chapter 3745-17. Title V

permit facilities and synthetic minor facilities are required to be inspected in

accordance with the federal grant for the Ohio EPA, DAPC. Smaller facilities are

inspected on a less frequent basis and/or as complaints are received. In general,

during facility inspections by the field office staff, the compliance status of each

emissions unit will be determined. Each emissions unit will be inspected and any

records relevant to that emissions unit will be reviewed. Also, on a routine basis

7
the field office staff will review all reports, including emission test reports,

submitted by facilities within their jurisdiction 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 have them contact Bob Hodanbosi (614-644-

3585) or Jim Orlemann (614-644-3592).

Sincerely,

C12.~ Chris Korleski

Director

xc: Bob Hodanbosi, DAPC [letter only]

Jim Orlemann, DAPC [letter and attachments]

Tom Kalman, DAPC [letter only]

John Mooney, USEPA, Region V, SIP Section [letter only]

John Summerhays, USEPA, Region V, SIP Section [letter and attachments]

Peggy Malone, AGO [letter only]

8