ENCLOSURE 3

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RECORD

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(e), the complete record of testimony is located at the 

Department of Environmental Quality. The department 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 goals and objectives of the air quality program and the intended purpose of 

the document under review.

1. SUBJECT: Power Boiler #9, PM10 (particulate matter).

COMMENTER: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest 

Service, George Washington and 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 FLM (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 physically 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. We 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 PM10

emissions.” 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 technical infeasibility (lack of space) and 

DEQ has determined that addition of a field is economically feasible, the remaining 

factors must then be considered. 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. We 

suggest that DEQ’s determination 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 permitted 

emissions consistent with the modeling, which assumed compliance with the nowvacated Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology).” As noted in our 

previous comments, this is a “paper” reduction. The PM10 emission rate in the draft 

permit (0.07 lb/mmBtu) reflects reductions (from the current limit of 0.14 lb/mmBtu) that 

MW has already achieved under the vacated MACT rule. We believe that real PM10

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 feasible.

2. SUBJECT: Power Boiler #9, SO2 (sulfur dioxide).

COMMENTER: USDA, Forest Service, George Washington 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% SO2 reduction for the combined boiler 

exhaust. MW has proposed an additional 15% SO2 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 additional virgin caustic on their wastewater treatment 

plant (WWTP) and consequently on their effluent. The WWTP 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 SO2 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 SO2 reduction, we wish to add that the NewPage/Westvaco/Luke 

Paper Company has proposed to remove 90% of the SO2 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 

physical 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 emissions 

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, PM10.

COMMENTER: USDA, Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson 

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 ESP 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 additional 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. We 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 March 30, 2007 submittal, MW assumed that adding a field to 

this ESP would reduce PM10 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 

technical infeasibility (lack of space) and DEQ has determined that addition of a field is 

economically feasible,1the remaining factors must then be considered. 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 

 

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 additional explanation and justification.
JRF from this source, and also impacts SHEN. We suggest that DEQ’s determination 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.

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 Furnace #1, NOX.

COMMENTER: USDA, Forest Service, George Washington 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 control 

NOX emissions. The FLM argues that MW should better demonstrate why low 

temperature oxidation is not an applicable NOX 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 type of source under review 

under similar conditions, or 

(2) the technology could be applied to the source under review. (emphasis added)

Two key concepts are important in determining whether a technology could be applied: 

"availability" and "applicability." (A) technology is considered "available" if the source 

owner may 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 installed and operated on the source type under consideration. A 

technology that is available and applicable is technically feasible. 

Neither MW nor DEQ has addressed these criteria. We believe that low temperature 

oxidation is a clearly available control technology, so the remaining issue is its 

applicability to the #1 recovery furnace at MW. In our previous comments we stated, 

“Low temperature oxidation for NOX control was dismissed by MW because it has never 

been used on a recovery furnace. However this technology 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 limitations, but may be ideally suited to the 

relatively cool exhaust here. We 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 Document2for 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, Minnesota Steel will conduct a trial of LoTOxTM 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 cost 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 - notification.

COMMENTER: USDA, Forest Service, George Washington 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. We 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 Virginia 

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. While we make every attempt to provide additional notification 

to interested parties, it was not possible for this particular permit. We 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 containing, 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 MMBtu/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 requirement, and must be established prior to submission 

of the SIP. EPA's BART regulations make no provision for reopening BART or reevaluating 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 in the future on oil for over 10% of its capacity, the 

proper BART emissions limits for all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by the BARTsubject 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 is "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 

impairing 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 facility 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 (while 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 CFR 
51.308(f). BART, 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 information), 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 paragraphs 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\SOURCE-SPECIFIC\PLN03

SRCESPEC\MEADWESTVACO\MW-SIP-3.DOC