ENCLOSURE 3

**PUBLIC PA RTICIPA** 

**TION RECORD** As required by 40 CFR 51.102(e), the complete record of testimony is located at the Department of Environmental Quality. The d epartment contact to access this information is the Office of Regulatory Affairs

. As required by Section 2.1(h) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, below is a summary of the testimony received and responses thereto. Included is a brief statement of the subject, the identification of the commenter, the summary of the comment and the response (analysis and action taken). Each issue is discussed in light of all of the comments received that affect that issue. All comments have been reviewed and responses developed based on an evaluation of the issues raised in consideration of the overall goa ls and objectives of the air quality program and the intended purpose of the document under review.
1. **SUBJECT :**  Power Boiler #9 , PM 1 0 (particulate matter)

. **COMMENTER :**  United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, George W ashington an d Jefferson National Forests
**TEXT :**  According to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff analysis, “The boiler is currently equipped with an ESP (electrostatic precipitator) and multicyclones. The ESP was installed around 1988. The FL M (Federal Land Manager) has proposed that MW should add a field to the ESP to increase its efficiency. Although addition of an ESP field is economically feasible for MW , it is not technologically feasible for the specific location of this ESP. There is ph ysically no real estate on which to place an additional field.” The first step in a top

- down BART analysis is a determination of which potential control technologies are technically feasible. W e could find no submittal from MW to support DEQ’s contention that it is not technically feasible to add a field to the ESP on the #9 power boiler. In its March 30, 2007 submittal, MW states, “All PM10 control technologies identified in Section 4 are considered feasible for the coal fired No. 9 Power Boiler...Addition of new stages or fields to the existing ESP or installation of a bag

- house may provide greater than 50% reduction of potential annual PM 10 emissions.” MW then provides analyses in both its March 30, 2007 and March 10, 2008 submittals of the economic feasib ility of adding a field. Considering that MW has not eliminated addition of a field on the basis of technical infeasibility (lack of space) and DEQ has determined that addition of a field is economically feasible, the remaining factors must then be conside red. As noted in our previous comments, our analysis of the modeling results provided by MW indicates that primary particulate is the most important pollutant with respect to visibility impairment at JRF from this source. W e suggest that DEQ ’s determinatio n of economic feasibility combined with our analysis of the benefits of reducing primary particulates from this source lead toward a conclusion that addition of a field is BART.Furthermore, DEQ concludes that, “The permit will require a decrease in per mitted

emissions consistent with the modeling, which assumed compliance with the now

vacated Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology).” As noted in our previous comments, this is a “paper” reduction. The PM 10 emission rate in the draft permit (0 .07 lb/mmBtu) reflect s reductions (from the current limit of 0.14 lb/mmBtu) that MW has already achieved under the vacated MACT rule. We believe that real PM 10 reductions could be achieved by addition of a field to the ESP on the #9 Power Boiler. **RESPONSE :**  MW ’s BART Determination Analysis including economic analysis submitted in March 2007 provides information rendering addition of an ESP field to be technologically feasible but economically unfeasible. The technical feasibility was based purely on the fact that it is possible to add a field to an ESP. This determination did not consider the specific precipitator associated with #9 Power Boiler. MW proceeded to analyze the economic feasibility following guidance from OAQPS and MANE

- VU and determined the cost per ton to be $26,000. MW added that this figure was “conservative” since they had not included site

- specific costs associated with the ESP’s location. DEQ’s engineering analysis was in error by stating that the project would be economically feasib le.
2. **SUBJECT :**  Power Boiler #9 , SO 2 (sulfur dioxide)

. **COMMENTER :**  USDA, Forest Service, George W ashington and Jefferson National Forests
**TEXT :**  According to DEQ’s staff analysis, “The scrubber uses caustic waste from the mill and achieves the current 45

- 55% SO 2 reduction for the combined boiler exhaust. MW has proposed an additional 15% SO 2 reduction by adding virgin caustic to the scrubber liquid. MW is reluctant to commit to more reduction since they are not sure of the potential impacts of the addi tional virgin caustic on their wastewater treatment plant (W WT P) and consequently on their effluent. The W WT P discharges directly to the Jackson River.”
We could find no submittal from MW to support DEQ ’s contention that the existing wastewater treatment plant is inadequate to handle additional scrubber effluent or that the environmental impacts of increasing scrubber effluent are so severe as to eliminate additional SO 2 reductions as an option. Even if the existing wastewater treatment plant is inadequate to handle the additional scrubber load, MW should have presented an analysis of the feasibility of upgrading the wastewater treatment plant accordingly. Finally, in addition to the comments we presented previously concerning the costs similar industrial facilities (Georgia Pacific

- Big Island, VA and Tennessee Eastman) have committed for SO 2 reduction, we wish to add that the NewPage/W estvaco/Luke Paper Company has proposed to remove 90% of the SO 2 from a power boiler to satisfy BART at its Luke, MD paper mill.**RESPONSE :**  EPA’s guidance advises “In the case where you are conducting a

BART determination for two regulated pollutants on the same source, if the result is two different BART technologies that do not work well together, you could then substitute a different technology or combination of technologies.” However there is no clear

- cut guidance for sources that share control equipment

. In this instance, one scrubber controls SO2 emissions from the #9 Power Boiler as well as the #6 Power Boiler. This existing scrubber system is further complicated by having a second scrubber servicing the #7 and #8 Power Boilers. The feedstock for both scrubbers comes from a common reservoir. Once again DEQ has had to consider the existing equipment set

- up and the ph ysical constraints of the area in making a decision about this particular boiler . The FLM argument that greater reductions can be realized may be true if in reality we could discuss the #9 Power Boiler alone. DEQ continues to argue that reducing emission s from not only the #9 Power Boiler but the 3 non

- BART

- eligible boilers exceeds any reductions that may be realized by addressing the #9 Power Boiler alone. 3

. **SUBJECT :**  Recovery Furnace #1, PM 10 . **COMMENTER :**  USDA, Forest Service, George W ashington and J efferson National Forests
**TEXT :**  According to DEQ’s staff analysis, “The recovery furnace is currently equipped with an ESP and multicyclones. The FLM has proposed that MW should add a field to the ESP to increase its efficiency. Although addition of an E SP field is economically feasible, it may not be technologically feasible for the specific location of this ESP since it is located on the roof of the recovery furnace building. MW ’s cost estimate did not include the additional costs of placing this additi onal field on the roof, nor the additional structural support for the added weight on the roof. DEQ feels that additional controls for this furnace are not warranted due to cost, space constraints and issues of safety.” The first step in a top

- down BART analysis is a determination of which potential control technologies are technically feasible. W e could find no submittal from MW to support DEQ ’s contention that it is not technically feasible to add a field to the ESP on the # 1 recovery furnace . In its Ma rch 30, 2007 submittal, MW assumed that adding a field to this ESP would reduce PM 10 emissions by 70%. MW then provides analyses in both its March 30, 2007 and March 10, 2008 submittals of the economic feasibility of adding a field. Considering that MW has not eliminated addition of a field on the basis of technic al infeasibility (lack of space) and DEQ has determined that addition of a f ield is economically feasible, 1 t he remaining factors must then be considered. As noted in our previous comments, our ana lysis of the modeling results provided by MW indicates that primary particulate is the most important pollutant with respect to visibility impairment at

1 DEQ ’s comments that “addition of an ESP field is economically feasible” and that “DEQ feels that additional controls for this furnace are not warranted due to cost, space constraints and issues of safety” appear contradictory

and require addition al explanation and justification.JRF from this source , and also impacts SHEN . W e suggest that DEQ ’s determination of

economic feasibilit y combined with our analysis of the benefits of reducing primary particulates from this source lead toward a conclusion that addition of a field is BART. **RESPONSE :**  MW ’s March 2007 BART Determination concluded that adding a new stage to the existing ESP would cost $12,000 per ton, rendering this option economically infeasible. DEQ’s argument for technological infeasibility was misstated and should have been to address unknown additional costs associated with the ESP’s location.
4

. **SUBJECT :**  Recovery Fur nace #1, NO X . **COMMENTER :**  USDA, Forest Service, George W ashington and Jefferson National Forests
**TEXT :**  According to DEQ’s staff analysis, “The recovery furnace currently utilizes staged combustion and proper operation and maintenance practices to contro l NO X emissions. The FLM argues that MW should better demonstrate why low temperature oxidation is not an applicable NO X control strategy. MW has contacted industry resources to see if any new installation or retrofits have been demonstrated and they could find none. DEQ concurs that this technology has not been sufficiently proven for recovery furnaces.” The BART Guidelines advise that: Control technologies are technically feasible if either (1) they have been installed and operated successfully for the ty pe of source under review under similar conditions, or (2) **the technology could be applied to the source under review. (emphasis added)**
Tw o key concepts are important in determining whether a technology could be applied: "availability " and "applicabil ity ." (A) technology is considered "available" if the source owner m ay

obtain it through commercial channels, or it is otherwise available within the common sense meaning of the term. An available technology is "applicable" if it can reasonably

be instal led and operated on the source ty pe under consideration. A technology

that is available and applicable is technically feasible. Neither MW nor DEQ has addressed these criteria. W e believe that low temperature oxidation is a clearly available control tec hnology, so the remaining issue is its applicability to the #1 recovery furnace at MW . In our previous comments we stated, “Low temperature oxidation for NO X control was dismissed by MW because it has never been used on a recovery furnace. However this te chnology is commercially available and has been successfully applied to, and permitted for, industrial processes [e.g., Minnesota Steel PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) permit]. It has not been used on boilers due to its temperature limitatio ns, but may be ideally suited to the relatively cool exhaust here. W e feel that DEQ must show why low temperature oxidation it is not applicable to this recovery furnace. DEQ has presented no evidence to indicate that this technology could not be applied

.**RESPONSE :**  DEQ continues to concur with MW ’s initial assessment that

LoTOxTM is not an appropriate BART emission control strategy for the recovery furnace. In addition to MW ’s contact with industry resources to see if any new installations or retrofits have been demonstrated, DEQ has spoken with the permit writer for the Minnesota Steel PSD permit and found that this installation has not yet been built. The Technical Support Document 2 for that permit states “ . . . the application of LoTOxTM to the indurating furnace is not directly transferable and testing is necessary to determine its feasibility and to adequately design a system. Despite the fact the LoTOxTM is an unproven technology, Mi nn esota Steel will conduct a trial of LoTOx TM on the pellet plant waste gas stream

. The purpose of the trial is to determine if LoTOxTM is technically feasible on the waste gas exhaust. If technically feasible, the data from the trial will also provide the information necessary to more accurately estimate the cos t and design for a full scale installation.” Since this technology has not been proven at the Minnesota Steel plant, DEQ does not see that this technology has been demonstrated to be “applicable” as described in the BART guideline.
5

. **SUBJECT :**  Procedural issues

- n otification

. **COMMENTER :**  USDA, Forest Service, George W ashington and Jefferson National Forests
**TEXT :**  We are concerned that we did not receive notification of the beginning of this public comment period until November 4, 2008, more than two weeks after its publication and only ten days prior to the deadline for submitting comments. W e ask that future notices be sent no later than the beginning of the comment period. **RESPONSE :**  As required by 40 CFR 51.102 and Section 2.1 of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, public participation activities for this particular comment period were originally announced on October 14, 2008 in the Covington Virginia Review , as well as on the DEQ internet site; additional notification was provided through the Virgin ia Register and Town Hall. In addition to this notification for the general public, the Forest Service was, as provided in 40 CFR 51.302(b)(2), given advance opportunity to comment on the permit. W hile we make every attempt to provide additional notifica tion to interested parties, it was not possible for this particular permit. W e will endeavor to provide the Forest Service with additional notice for future permits to the best of our ability. 6

. **SUBJECT :**  Condition 11, reopening the permit. **COMMENTER :**  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

2 Permit Action Number: 06100067

- 001 , page 78 of 165 (November 2, 2007)

.**TEXT :**  We believe the permit in its current form does not comply with EPA's

BART regulation, 40 CFR 51.308(e). EPA's BART regulation requires that a state must submit a regional haze implementation plan c ontaining, among other things, "emissions limitation representing BART. . ." BART is defined as "en emission limitation based on the degree of reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an existing stationary facility." 40 CFR 51.301. BART levels of control must be achieved no later than 5 years after EPA's approval of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision. 40 CFR 51.208(e)(iv). The permit does not fulfill the BART requirements due to condition 11. Condition 11 purports to reopen the BART determination for this facility in either of two circumstances: (1) boiler exceeds 50% of rated capacity of 2,891,000 MMBt u /yr, or (2) the boiler is operated on oil for over 10% of its annual capacity. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv). BART, however, is a present r equirement, and must be established prior to submission of the SIP. EPA's BART regulations make no provision for reopening BART or re

evaluating BART after the date of the SIP submission. Currently proposed condition 11 not only purports to allow BART to be re

- evaluated and redetermined after SIP submission, but even after the 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv) deadline for BART implementation. This is not permissible. If the facility wishes to operate i n the future on oil for over 10% of its capacity, the proper BAR T emissions limits for all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by the BART

subject facility must be set for this scenario in the current draft permit. Otherwise, the facility, no matter what fuel mix it uses, must meet the emissions limitation (BART i s "an emissions limitation," 40 CFR 51.301) established under the current permit, which we understand to be based on the facility's current use of natural gas rather than oil. If the permit does not establish emissions limitations based on use of fuel oil , the facility may emit at a level for any visibility impairing pollutant no higher than that set for burning natural gas. If burning oil would result in the emission of a visibility impairing pollutant that would not be emitted when burning natural gas, and if no limit is set for that pollutant in the current permit, the facility may not emit that pollutant in any quantity. Any such emission would violate BART. Similarly, the facility, even if it exceeds 50% of rated capacity, must emit visibility impai ring pollutants at a level no greater than that established under the current permit. If this would require the facility to install control equipment, the facility must install that control equipment to prevent violation of the BART limits. If the facili ty at some future time desires to operate at greater than 50% rated capacity and Virginia would like the facility, under those circumstances, to evaluate and install add

- on controls that might achieve emissions more stringent than permitted BART levels (wh ile operating at the higher capacity), there are probably a number of avenues Virginia can explore. These may include, but are not limited to, the reasonable progress and periodic revision provisions of the regional haze program. 40 CFR51.308(f). B ART , however, would not be a legally available means of establishing more

stringent controls. The BART emissions limits for each visibility impairing pollutant (absent perhaps extraordinary circumstances, such as a permit based on incorrect or fraudulent info rmation), cannot be changed once they have been established in the SIP. **RESPONSE :**  Condition #11 has been removed from the permit. 6

. **SUBJECT :**  Typographical error. **COMMENTER :**  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
**TEXT :**  Proposed paragraph s 2

- 11 cite 40 CFR 51.302 as authority for establishing the BART provisions of this permit. This is incorrect; the correct citation is 40 CFR 51.308(3) **RESPONSE :**  This comment is acceptable, and the proposal will be revised accordingly.

TEMPLATES \ SOU RCE

- SPECIFIC \ PLN03 SRCESPEC \ MEADW ESTVACO \ MW

- SIP

- 3.DOC