# A PPENDIX 

# E

# 2011,	2014,	2017,	2020,	2022	and

2027	SO 2 

# On‐Road	Emissions Inventory	for	Campbell‐Clermont

Counties,

KY‐OH	1‐HOUR	SO 2 

# Nonattainment	Area

REVISED January	2015

P repared for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Kentucky Division for Air Quality

by

OKI Regional Council of Governments

## 2 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015

## 3 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 

### Acknowledgments

Title 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2027 SO2 On

‐ Road Emissions Inventory

for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH 1

‐ HOUR SO2 Nonattainment Area

Abstract This report was prepared for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

The SO2 Nonattainment Area includes a portions of Campbell County

Kentucky and Clermont County Ohio. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission

Simulation (MOVES) 2014 was used to generate the emission inventory.

Date January 2015

Agency Ohio

‐ Kentucky

‐ Indiana Regional Council of Governments

Mark Policinski, Executive Director

Robert Koehler, P.E., Deputy Director

Project Manager Andrew J. Reser, AICP

Project Staff Larry Buckler

The preparation of this document was financed cooperatively by the Federal Highway Administration,

the Federal Transit Administration, the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, the Ohio

Department of Transportation, and the units of local and county government in the OKI region. The

opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this document are those of the OKI Regional Council of

Governments and are not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does

not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

## 4 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015

## 5 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 

# 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2027 SO 2 

# On

‐ Road

Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties,

KY

‐ OH 1

‐ HOUR SO 2

This report was prepared for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the Kentucky Department

for Air Quality. The SO 2 nonattainment area includes a portion of Campbell County Kentucky and a

portion of Clermont County Ohio. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2014 model was

used to generate the vehicle emission inventory. Details on the various county data inputs used to

generate the SO 2 inventory are described in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 1 shows daily (tons per summer day) and annual (tons per year) on

‐ road SO 2 emissions for the

Nonattainment Area. Emissions within each state portion of the Nonattainment Area are also shown.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the nonattainment area ranges from 510 million per year in 2011 to 570

million per year in 2027. Information on OKI’s process for developing forecasts of future travel patterns

is provided.

Table 1

Campbell

‐ Clermont KY

‐ OH SO 2 Nonattainment Area ‐ Daily On

‐ Road Emissions (tons per summer day)

2011 2014 2017 2020 2022 2027

Campbell

‐ Clermont

SO 2 Daily Mobile

Emissions 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005

Campbell, KY (partial) 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004

Clermont, OH (partial) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Campbell

‐ Clermont KY

‐ OH SO 2 Nonattainment Area ‐ Annual On

‐ Road Emissions (tons per year)

2011 2014 2017 2020 2022 2027

Campbell

‐ Clermont

SO 2 Annual Mobile

Emissions 1.887 1.837 1.757 1.702 1.668 1.537

Campbell, KY (partial) 1.547 1.506 1.441 1.396 1.368 1.260

Clermont, OH (partial) 0.340 0.331 0.316 0.306 0.300 0.277

## 6 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 

### Mobile Source Emission Forecast Process

Emission Factor Model

OKI’s inventory assessment utilized U.S.EPA’s emissions model MOVES2014 to generate SO 2 emissions.

Table 3 summarizes the settings used in the MOVES run specification file. Table 4 lists the data used in

the MOVES County

‐ Data Manager. Further technical details on the use of MOVES are found in the

appendix to the OKI report “Mobile Source Emissions Inventory for Cincinnati PM2.5 Nonattainment

Area”

, revised December 2010.

Table 2



### MOVES Run Specications Parameter Settings

MOVES 2014 default database 20141021

Scale County, Emission Rates

Time Span Time aggregation = Hour
July and April weekday, July meteorological

data and annual average meteorological data

used in place of April data

All hours of day selected
Weekdays only

Geographic Bounds One Custom Domain for 3 Kentucky counties
Vehicles/Equipment All vehicle source types. Fuel types=gasoline,

diesel, ethanol and CNG

Road Type All road types including off

‐ network

Pollutants and Processes SO2. No emissions from refueling.

Strategies Default

General Output Units= grams, joules and miles

Output Emissions Time = hour, Location =county, on

‐ road

emission rates by road type and source use

type.

Advanced Performance none

## 7 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 Table 3

MOVES County Data Manager Data Source

Source Type Population Local and default. Local data from KYTC (2013) and ODOT (2010)

from motor vehicle registration data. Default data used for source

types 41, 61 and 62 in Ohio and types 61 and 62 in Kentucky.

Growth factor applied for future years.

Vehicle Type VMT Local and default. HPMSVTypeYear VMT=daily VMT from OKI travel

demand model with EPA’s daily to annual VMT converter applied.

monthVMTFraction = default. dayVMTFraction=default,

hourVMTFraction=local.

I/M Programs No I/M program.

Fuel Formulation Default MOVES2014 fuel formulations. Reflects RFG program in KY.

Fuel Supply Default

Meteorology Data Local. MOBILE6 converted values for Ohio and Kentucky values

from Kentucky Division for Air Quality.

Ramp Fraction Local. OKI travel demand model.

Road Type Distribution Local. OKI travel demand model.

Age Distribution Local and default. Local data from KYTC (2013) and ODOT (2010)

from motor vehicle registration data. Default data used for source

types 41, 61 and 62 in Ohio and types 61 and 62 in Kentucky.

Average Speed Distribution Local. OKI travel demand model.



### OKI Travel Demand Model

Vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours were estimated using the OKI Travel Demand Model Version

7.6. The OKI Travel Demand Model is composed of CUBE Voyager programs and a series of FORTRAN

programs written by OKI. It is a state of the practice model that uses the standard four phase sequential

modeling approach of trip generation, distribution, modal choice and assignment. The model uses
demographic and land use data and capacity and free

‐ flow speed characteristics for each roadway

segment in the network to produce a “loaded” highway network with forecasted traffic volumes with

revised speeds based on specified speed/capacity relationships.

Travel analysis zones are the basic geographic unit for estimating travel in the OKI model. The OKI region

is subdivided into 1608 traffic analysis zones to permit detail as well as manageability. A variety of

socioeconomic data items are used in the OKI transportation planning process. These data are used
primarily to forecast future travel patterns by serving as independent variables in OKI trip generation

equations. The following categories of planning data are utilized:

• Population (household and group quarter)

• Households

## 8 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 • Household vehicles

• Employment (by employment category and zone of work)

• Labor force participation (by zone of residence)

• Area type

The principal data requirements of the OKI travel demand forecasting model are population and

employment. From these variables, other characteristics including households, labor force, and personal

vehicles may be derived. Chapter 3 of OKI 2040 Regional Transportation Plan Update provides a
complete demographic overview of the region.

OKI utilizes both base year (2005), past year (2010) and future year data (2015, 2020, 2030, and 2040) in

the planning process. Planning data are maintained at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, and originate

in the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Base year 2005 and future year data for each variable are
developed through various methods. More detailed explanation of base year and future year data

generation for each of the above

‐ mentioned categories of planning data follows. All of the variables

represent the latest OKI planning assumptions.



### Population

Base and Future Year Data: Population data for base year 2005, past year 2010 and future years 2015,

2020, 2030, and 2040 originate with the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Utilizing ArcGIS,

population data at the zonal level for 2000 was derived from the area proportion allocation of block

level population.

As a tri

‐ state regional planning agency, OKI uses the most current county level projections as prepared

by the respective state data centers (Ohio Department of Development Office of Strategic Research,

Kentucky State Data Center and Indiana Business Research Center) as control totals. Projections (years

2005 to 2040) were released by the Ohio state data center in 2011, the Indiana state data center in 2007

and the Kentucky State Data Center in 2009. Population projections at the zonal level are calculated by

multiplying household size by the projected zonal households. Household size is factored so that, in each

county, the sum of the zonal populations equals the control total.



### Households

Base Year Data: Household data for base year 2005 originates with the 2000 Census of Population and

Housing. Utilizing the geographic information system ArcGIS, household data at the zonal level for 2000

was derived from the area proportion allocation of block level households. Year 2000 household data

was updated to 2005 with residential building permits issued between January 2000 and December

2004. The residential building locations were geo

‐ coded in ArcGIS, and then aggregated to the TAZs. The

housing unit totals for each TAZ were converted to households by applying a vacancy rate, an
adjustment for permitted but unbuilt units, and subtracting demolitions (where data was available).

## 9 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 These households were then added to the year Census 2000 zonal household total to arrive at 2005

households for each TAZ.

Future Year Data: The preparation of household projections was accomplished by calculating the

number of households for a projected county population using ratios of householders to total

population by age specific cohorts derived from the 2000 Census for each analysis year. Disaggregation

to TAZs was determined by historical trends, existing and future land use, topography, flood plain

information, availability of land, local knowledge and other factors.



### Household Vehicles

Base and Future Year Data: Base and future year household vehicle data were obtained from the 2000

Census of Population and Housing. The 2000 Census was the only source of household vehicle data

available at the block group level at the time the data was developed. Average vehicles per household

were calculated for block groups then applied to the TAZs associated with each block group. The 2005,

2010, 2020, 2030 and 2040 vehicles per household level was held at the 2000 level based on the fact

that, since 2002, the number of vehicles per household has exceeded the number of drivers per

household.



### Labor Force

Base and Future Year Data: The OKI labor force is a function of the population as determined by a labor

force participation ratio (the number of employed persons in the labor force per persons 16 and over).

Household data for base year 2005 originates with the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Utilizing

the geographic information system ArcGIS, household data at the zonal level for 2000 was derived from

the area proportion allocation of block group level employed labor force. The labor force projections for

2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2030, and 2040 were based on the most recent projections of national labor

force participation rates by age and sex cohorts from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics for each of those years. These rates were then applied to the projected county age/sex cohorts

and adjusted to eliminate the unemployed to arrive at a county employed labor force control total.

Employed labor force at the zonal level is calculated by multiplying the labor force participation rate by

the zonal population. The labor force participation rate is adjusted so that, in each county, the sum of

the zonal labor force counts equals the control total.



### Employment

Base Year Data: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW or ES202) data for 2005 was

utilized as the primary tool to calculate employment at the zonal level. Individual business records

containing physical location, number of employees and North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) code were geocoded through ArcGIS and aggregated to the TAZ level. This data set was
supplemented by other sources of data to complete the commuting employment picture in the OKI

region. Each zone’s employment was divided according to the NAICS code into three classes (retail,

office, industrial) based upon the potential for generating trips.

## 10 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 Future Year Data: For future year employment projection, calculation was first made of the

employment at the regional level. At the regional level, employment is a calculation of the region’s

employed labor force minus workers who live in the region but commute out to work, plus workers who

live outside the region but commute in to work. The regional total was disaggregated first to the county

level based on historic trends and expected changes in the county’s share of the region’s employment

and then to the TAZ level. Disaggregation to TAZs was determined by historical trends, existing and

future land use, topography, flood plain information, availability of land, local knowledge and other

factors.



### Area Type

Base and Future Year Data: For each analysis year, each TAZ is assigned an area type designation as

CBD, Urban, Suburban or Rural based on population and employment densities.



### Model Calibration

OKI’s Travel Demand Model has been validated to observed traffic volumes for the model base year

2005. The modeling network encompasses the entire ozone Maintenance area with the exception of

Clinton County, Ohio. The modeling network also includes Greene, Miami and Montgomery counties in

Ohio and the remainder of Dearborn County Indiana. The difference between estimated vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) and 2005 observed VMT is less than 1%. A highway screenline analysis compares the

screenline observed and simulated traffic volume discrepancies with the ODOT standard of maximum

desirable deviation. The comparison shows that the model performs at a satisfactory level and all the

errors were under the ODOT curve. Further information can be found in OKI’s 2007 report, “OKI/MVRPC

Travel Demand Model Methodology/Validation Report”. For the calibration, OKI used over 3000 traffic

counts collected through 2006 by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Kentucky

Transportation Cabinet, many county and local governments, transportation engineering consultants,

and OKI. These traffic counts cover nearly 50% percent of the links in the OKI portion of the modeling

network. The methodology provides consistency with past emission inventory and conformity analysis

work performed by OKI.



### Local Inputs and Post

‐ Model Processing

OKI incorporates a variety of sources of local data to both improve and confirm the accuracy of VMT, as

well as other travel

‐ related parameters. Free flow speeds used on the highway and transit networks are

based on travel time studies performed locally. The OKI post

‐ processing program, IMPACT, uses the

loaded highway network to generate VMT by hour, VMT by speed distribution and VMT by facility type.

These tables are then included as input into MOVES. Two separate sets of VMT tables are generated:

one for the four Ohio counties plus Dearborn County Indiana, and a second for the three Kentucky

counties. The VMT by hour tables utilize hourly traffic distribution and directional split factors for

different roadway types as developed by OKI. The main source of the data was the permanent traffic

counting stations located throughout the OKI region for the years of 2004

‐ 2006. This data was
supplemented with data collected at coverage count stations (locations with counts taken on only one

‐

## 11 On

‐ Road SO2Emissions Inventory for Campbell

‐ Clermont Counties, KY

‐ OH SO2Nonattainment Area,

January 2015 two days). The stations were classified by area type: urban and rural, and functional classification:

freeway, arterial and collector. Speeds representing various “loaded” conditions (with traffic volumes)

are estimated using techniques from the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. This permits the estimation of

speeds as conditions vary from hour to hour on the different facility types throughout the region. The

IMPACT program performs the appropriate summation by area and roadway type as well as regional

totals. OKI has also developed seasonal conversion factors to adjust traffic volumes to summer

conditions. The factors were derived from local data collected at permanent traffic counting stations

during 2004

‐ 2007 utilizing the average daily traffic monthly conversion factors for June, July and August.



### Use of SO2 Nonattainment Area District in Post

‐ Model Processing

U.S.EPA defined the census tracts included in the Campbell

‐ Clermont KY

‐ OH SO 2 Nonattainment area.

These same census tract boundaries were used to establish a “reporting district” in the OKI post

‐ model

processing. Average speed and VMT distribution by month, hour, vehicle type and road type were
generated for the SO 2 nonattainment area and used in the emission calculation. Emissions were further

split into Kentucky and Ohio portions based on the percentage of calculated nonattainment area VMT

within each state.

# A PPENDIX 

# F

### Appendix F

Background Concentration Determination for Non

- A ttainment Area January 23, 2015

U.S.EPA issued the “ Guidan ce for 1

- Hour SO 2 

### Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions”

on April 23, 2014. In Appendix A of the guidance

, several approaches for determining

the SO 2 

### background concentrations are suggested. In this appendix

, Ohio EPA , working with the Kentucky DAQ, has applied the methods suggested in U.S. EPA’s guidance to identify the po tential SO 2 

### background concentration in the Campbell County KY

- OH

, nonattainment area for the 1

- hour SO 2 

### National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

According to the guidance, a “ f irst t ier” approach uses a uniform monitored background

contribution based on the overall highest hourly backgro und SO 2 

### concentration from a representative monitor. However, t his approach is identified as “... conservative in many cases and may also be prone to reflecting source

- oriented impacts, increasing the potential for double

- cou nting of monitored contribution

. ” Therefore, U.S.EPA recommends a less conservation “first tier” method based on the monitored design

values for the latest 3

- year period. F rom the design value report ( See Appendix A

- 2 of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan ) at Monitor 21

- 037

- 3002 for 2012

- 2014 , the 3

- year design value is 7 2 ppb, which is slightly less than the 2010 1

- hour SO 2 

### NAAQS

. Thus, both of the “first tier” methods are overly conservative and are not appropriate for determining the background concentration of this area

.
As discussed in U.S. EPA’s guidance, Section 8.2.2 .b of Appendix W provid es another option :

“ U se air quality data in the vicinity of the source to determine the background concentration for the averaging times of concern . Determine the mean background concentration at each monitor by excluding concentrations when the source in question is impacting the monitor...For shorter time periods, the

mete o rological conditions accompanying concentrations fo r concern should be

identified. Conce n trations for meteorological conditions of concern, at monitors, not impacted by the source in question, should be averaged for separate averaging time to determine the average background value. Monitoring sites

inside a 90 degree sector downwind of the source may be used to determine the area of impact. ”

The Kentucky monitor 21

- 037

- 3002 is the only monitor located in the vicinity of our study area suitable for this analysis. T wo major SO 2 

### emission sources , Duke Energy’s W.C. Beckjord (Beckjord) and W. H. Zimmer (Zimmer) facilities were considered as a part of this analysis and concentrations were excluded when these sources in question were impacting the monitor.

Google Earth tools were used to determine a n arc of 90 degrees when the se two sources in question are impacting the monitor , and the hourly meteorological data (WBAN: 93814) was downloaded via ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/isd

- l ite

. As can be seen in the Figure 1 below, these two sources would impact the monitor when

### the wind blows from 74.81° to 164.81° . Therefore, the hourly monitoring data with the

recorded wind directions within the range were eliminated

.

Figure 1

T he average SO 2 

### concentration was then calculated for each year in the 2010

- 2014

dataset which was retrieved from U.S. EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS)

. Data for 2014 was only available through August 31, 2014 at the time of this analysis. In addition, to be more conservative, the annual average SO2 concentrations for non

- zero values

w ere calculated

. The results show t he highest value , 4.4 0 ppb, is the background

concentration for this area using this approach ( see Table 1).

Table 1

Year Background Concentration (all data)

(unit: ppb) Background Concentration (non

zero) (unit: ppb)

2010 3.82 4.36

2011 2.12 4.1 0

2012 1.16 3.91

2013 1.01 4.40

2014 1 

### 1.86 2.89

1 Through August 31, 2014

### Because it has been determined that Beckjord is the only source impacting this monitor

,

and given their proximity to the monitor and the predominant wind directions potentially impacting the monitor , the same analysis was also conducted and concentrations were

excluded only when Beckjord was impacting the monitor

. Again, Google Earth tools

w ere used to determine an arc of wind directions to exclude from the background

determination. In this instance, a reduced arc of 45 degrees was used instead of 90 degrees. It was determined that an exclusion arc of 90 degrees relative to the monitor

woul d potentially eliminate any potential contributions of Zimmer emissions to monitor

values. The reduced arc allows for the exclusion of Beckjord emission impacts, the inclusion of Zimmer impacts, and provides an additional measure of conservatism to the

ba ckground determination. T he hourly meteorological data (WBAN: 93814) was
downloaded via ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/isd

- lite

. As can be seen in the Figure 2 below, Beckjord would impact the monitor when the wind blows from 81 ° to

126 ° . Therefore, the hourly monitoring data with the recorded wind directions within the

range were eliminated. Figure 2

The average SO 2 

### concentration was then calculated for each year in the 20 10

- 2014

dataset. Again , to be more conservative, the annual average SO 2 

### concentrations for

non

- zero values w ere calculated

. The results show t he highest value, 4.76 ppb, is the background concentration for this area using this approach (see Table 2 ).

### Table 2

Year Background Concentration (all data)

(unit: ppb) Background Concentration (non

zero) (unit: ppb)

2010 3.82 4.49

2011 1.94 4.28

2012 1.03 4.29

2013 0.8 4.76

2014 2 

### 1.66 2.91

In sum mary , the background concentration for this area can be conservatively

estimated at 4.76 ppb without double

- counting emissions from Beckjord based on the above analysis

.

To preserve conservatism in the background and to demonstrate further that the shutdown of the Walter C. Beckjord facilities provides for attainment, Ohio EPA

conducted an ana lysis of hourly SO 2 

### concentrations recorded at monitor 21

- 037

- 3002,

wind direction data from the Cincinnati weather station located at the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Airport, and emissions fro m both the Walter C. Beckjord and William H. Zimmer facilities for years 2012 through February 28, 2015. The full analysis is presented in detail in Appendix K of the redesignation request. Briefly, Ohio EPA compiled 2,939 non

- zero monitor values for whi ch SO 2 

### emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility were zero. The 99 th 

### percentile value of these hourly data is the 29 th



### highest hourly value, or 11 ppb. Note that 11 ppb represents the 99 th 

### percentile of all hours, not of maximum daily values and is t herefore more conservative than an actual design value for this period. Additionally, by not attempting to account for plume travel time from the Walter C. Beckjord facility to the monitor, it is likely that some hours in this dataset represent impacts of emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility, and therefore carry an additional measure of conservatism. As noted in Appendix K of the redesignation request, no exceedances of the standard were recorded at any hour for

which emissions from Walter C. Be ckjord were zero.

2 Through August 31, 2014

# A PPENDIX 

# GWalterC.BeckjordSO2EmissionsSource:CleanAirMarketsDivisionUnitIDYearSO2(tons)TotalforYear(tons)Unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December1 2008 2,431.5452312.89 1233.69 1841.44 1965.11 288.49 6.11 1348.93 119.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 2008 1,738.0665010.98 3795.20 3667.22 3549.07 0.00 5.74 4817.56 2640.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 2008 3,554.09Facility7323.87 5028.90 5508.66 5514.18 288.49 11.85 6166.49 2760.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 2008 4,985.545 2008 4,712.976 2008 8,978.3226,400.521 2009 2,097.942 2009 2,527.043 2009 3,347.044 2009 6,756.475 2009 7,566.786 2009 19,669.2441,964.511 20102 20103 20104 2010 4,492.465 2010 17,719.176 2010 46,944.6469,156.261 20112 2011 44.333 2011 42.044 2011 2,884.315 2011 30,555.616 2011 57,308.2290,834.501 20122 20123 2012 1,732.394 2012 2,697.965 2012 19,639.146 2012 42,999.3467,068.831 20132 20133 20134 2013 1,546.015 2013 19,324.966 2013 31,029.3651,900.331 20142 20143 20144 20145 2014 9,116.646 2014 23,485.8032,602.44

# A PPENDIX 

# H**Public Notice** 

**Ohio Environmental**  **Protection Agency**  **Redesignation and**  **Maintenance Plan**  **for the** 

**Ohio Portion**  **of the**  **Campbell-Clermont KY-OH**  **502 Nonattainment**  **Area**

**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**  **least ten 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**  **of Ohio**  **proposes to:** 

**1. Request**  **the U.S.**  **EPA redesignate**  **the Ohio**  **portion, Pierce**  **Township in** 

**Clermont County,**  **of the Campbell-Cl**  **ermont KY-OH**  **area to**  **attainment with** 
**respect to**  **the 2010**  **1-hour S02**  **NAAQS and**  **incorporate the**  **maintenance plan.** 

**This request**  **will document**  **that existing**  **enforceable control**  **measures are**  **responsible for**  **the 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 of**  **attainment and**  **maintenance.**

**Written comments**  **will be**  **received on**  **or before April**  **16, 2015**  **at the**  **following address:** 

**E-mail: Erica.Fetty@epa.state.oh.us** 



### Mailing **address: Erica**  **Fetty**

**Ohio Environmental**  **Protection Agency,**  **DAPC**

**Lazarus Government**  **Center**

### P.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 or to**  **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**  **of the**  **official record** 

**of the**  **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.Fe tty@**  **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**  **at the**  **above address.** 

# Ohio **EPA**

**Division of**  **Air Pollution**  **Control**

**Response to**  **Comments**

**Redesignation Request**  **and Maintenance Plan**  **for the**  **Campbell-Clermont**

**KY-OH Sulfur Dioxide**  **(S02) Nonattainment**  **Area**

**Agency Contacts**  **for this**  **Project**

**Division Contact:**  **(Jennifer Van**  **Vlerah, Division**  **of Air**  **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 authority**  **to consider**  **specific issues**  **related to**  **protection**

**of the**  **environment and**  **public health.** 

**In an**  **effort to**  **help you**  **review this**  **document, the**  **questions are**  **grouped by**  **topic and**  **organized in**  **a consistent**  **format. The**  **name of**  **the commenter**  **follows the**  **comment in**  **parentheses.**

**Comment 1:**  

### The **Utilities support Ohio**  **EPA's request**  **for 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 EPA**  **was notified**  **of the**  **permanent shutdown**  **on October**  **14, 2014.** 

**There is**  **no other significant**  **source located**  **in the**  **area. Ohio**  **EPA has**  **determined that**  **the violations**  **at the**  **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 attainment**  **for the**  **one-hour S02**  **NAAQS. (Cheri**  **A. Budzynski,**  **Shumaker, Loop**  **& Kendrick,**  **LLP on**  **behalf**

**of the**  **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 of**  **an "unclassifiable"**  **designation.**

**Attaining the**  **standard:**

**The key**  **test here**  **is whether,**  **on the**  **basis of**  **available**
**evidence, we**  **can conclude**  **that the**  **entirety of**  **the**

**nonattainment area**  **is now**  **attaining the standard.**  **Please do** 

**not suggest that EPA Regions**  **4 and**  **5 agreed**  **with a**  **determination that**  **an analysis**  **of maximum**  **concentration**

**location was**  **not warranted.**  **To the**  **extent that**  **Zimmer is**  **the**

**most significant**  **remaining source anywhere**  **near the**  **area, that**  **would suggest**  **that the**  **maximum concentration**  **location**

**would be**  **the portion**  **of the**  **area closest**  **to Zimmer.**  **Thus, to** 

**that extent,**  **the question**  **instead would**  **be whether**  **the**

**monitor provides**  **a sufficient**  **representation of** 

**concentrations throughout**  **the non**  **attainment area**  **to be**  **able**

**to conclude**  **that the**  **entire area,**  **including portions**  **of the** 

**area closer to**  **Zimmer, are**  **attaining the**  **standard. Modeling** 

**of Beckjord**  **of course**  **is unnecessary,**  **but Ohio**  **needs to** 

**make more**  **of a**  **case that**  **modeling of other**  **sources is**  **not**

**necessary to determine that**  **even concentrations**  **even at**  **the**

**maximum concentration**  **location in**  **the nonattainment**  **area**

**are below**  **the standard.** 

**The trajectory**  **analysis is**  **a key**  **part of**  **this evaluation,**  **even though**  **the work**  **was done**  **more to**  **determine contribution**  **at**

**the monitor**  **location rather**  **than impacts**  **throughout the** 

**nonattainment. An**  **important point**  **is that**  **trajectories in** 

**which winds**  **do not**  **carry emissions**  **from Zimmer**  **to the** 

**monitor also**  **represent trajectories**  **that largely**  **do not**  **carry emissions**  **from Zimmer**  **to any**  **of the**  **rest of**  **the**

**nonattainment area, either.**  **Another important point**  **is that** 

**Zimmer is**  **sufficient distance**  **from the**  **nonattainment area**  **to**

**conclude that impacts**  **at the**  **nearest edge**  **of the** 

**nonattainment area**  **are likely**  **to be**  **similar to**  **impacts at**  **the**

**monitor. (For**  **making this**  **point. it**  **would be**  **useful to** 

**compare the**  **distance from**  **Zimmer to**  **the nonattainment** 

**area versus**  **the distance from**  **Zimmer to**  **the monitor.)**  **This**

**would support**  **an argument**  **that, 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**  **air**

### quality **for the**  **portions of**  **2014 when**  **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**  **of a**  **peak statistic**  **for the**  **period, e.g.**  **the ggth** 



### percentile **(if this**  **statistic is**  **adequately robust).**  **Data**

**collected so**  **far in**  **2015 may**  **be useful**  **for this**  **purpose. I**  **recognize that**  **these periods**  **did not**  **constitute an**  **entire**

**year, but**  **these data**  **would likely**  **provide strong**  **support for** 

**the hypothesis**  **that a**  **scenario in**  **which Beckjord**  **emissions**

**are zero**  **can be**  **expected to**  **have attaining**  **air quality**  **throughout the**  **area, even**  **in portions**  **of the**  **nonattainment**

**that might**  **have more**  **impact from**  **sources like**  **Zimmer that** 

**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**  **of this**  **figure obscure**  **the relationship.**  **First,**

**it is**  **not clear**  **which label**  **applies to**  **which of**  **the three**  **graphs. Second,**  **it is**  **not clear**  **what an**  **"18 per. Mov.**  **Avg."**

**is or**  **why this**  **statistic was**  **used. I**  **presume it**  **is an**  **average of**  **18 hours**  **of data,**  **but the**  **use of**  **this statistic**  **would seem** 
**to obscure**  **the level**  **of the**  **peak concentrations**  **that are**  **of**

**most concern.**  **Finally, this**  **set of**  **graphs is**  **difficult to**  **interpret. Given**  **the importance**  **of demonstrating**  **that the** 

**shutdown of**  **Beckjord has**  **had and**  **will have**  **a dramatic**  **impact on**  **802 concentrations**  **in the**  **area, it**  **is worth**  **the**

**effort to**  **improve the presentation**  **of the**  **information that**  **can be**  **obtained from**  **the data**  **used in**  **preparing these**  **graphs.**

**Appendix D**  **focuses 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 of**  **another 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 likely**  **to 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**  **of whether** 

**data from**  **the monitor**  **provides adequate**  **evidence that**  **the Response**  **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 request**  **to address**  **evidence of**  **attainment of**  **the**

**standard. Several clarifications**  **and additional**  **analyses are**  **incorporated into**  **the body**  **of the**  **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**
**attainment throughout**  **the entire**  **nonattainment area**  **taking**

**into consideration**  **the potential**  **impact of**  **other sources**  **within the**  **vicinity but**  **located outside**  **the nonattainment** 

**area.**

**Adequate SIP:** 

**More important**  **than 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't want to**  **take the effort to**  **compute them**  **or because**  **you didn't**  **want us**  **to**

**know. Although**  **Kentucky emissions**  **are low, it**  **would 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**  **if you** 

**were compiling**  **conformity budgets,**  **but I**  **understand you**  **are finding**  **that no**  **conformity budget is**  **needed.**

**In light**  **of the**  **recent Sixth**  **Circuit decision**  **in relation**  **to the**  **redesignation of**  **the Cincinnati**  **area for**  **PM2.5, Ohio**  **may or** 

**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 better**  **way of**  **arguing that**  **Ohio has**  **satisfied these**  **requirements is**  **to state** 

**that in**  **absence of**  **major point**  **sources, no**  **point source**

**emission controls**  **are possible.**  **Ohio should**  **also address** 

**minor source**  **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 of**  **6, to**  **identify the**  **importance of**  **the OAC** **Comment4:**

**Response 4:** 

**Comment 5:**  

### 3745-18 **regulations. Ohio**  **EPA has also provided** 

**clarification regarding**  **the negligible**  **biogenic emissions**  **in Chapter**  **4, Requirement**  **1 of**  **4. 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 of**  **6 under**  **Chapter 5.**

**Permanent and**  **enforceable cause of air**  **quality improvement:** 

**Discussion of**  **the permanence**  **and enforceability**  **of Beckjord's**  **shutdown should**  **be included**  **in this** 

**section. After**  **noting that**  **the letter from**  **the company**  **results**

**in the**  **termination of**  **the permit**  **that authorizes**  **them to**  **operate, you**  **should identify**  **the provisions**  **in state**  **regulation**

**that the**  **state and**  **EPA could**  **enforce that**  **prohibit operating** 

**without such**  **a permit.**  **Discussion of**  **the 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** 

**attributable to**  **the shutdown**  **of Beckjord.**  **This section**  **should clarify**  **that the entirety**  **of Beckjord**  **is required**  **not to**  **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**  **throughout the**  **request regarding**  **the permanence**  **of Beckord's shutdown**  **of the**  **major coal**  **fired units**  **and more**  **recent permanent**  **shutdown**

**of the**  **minor oil-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 of**  **the entirety**  **of the**  **facility.**

**Ohio EPA**  **has also**  **provided clarification**  **on how**  **the state** 

**and U.S.**  **EPA could**  **enforce the**  **prohibition of**  **operating**

**without a**  **permit and/or**  **after notification**  **of permanent** 
**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**  **demonstrating Response**  **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, I**  **would**

**not say**  **(especially for**  **a nonattainment**  **area) that** 

**"maintenance is**  **demonstrated [when**  **emissions are**  **below**

**2014 levels.]"**  **Similarly, the**  **fact that**  **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 I**  **was not clear**  **why we**  **recommended analyzing**  **background concentrations.**  **If you**  **"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 of**  **the**

**future "modeled" (predicted)**  **concentration. That**  **is, it**  **appears that you**  **may reasonably**  **assert that**  **you anticipate** 
**future design**  **values to**  **be on**  **the order**  **of 5**  **ppb. In**  **these**
**circumstances, a**  **reasonable anticipation**  **of design**  **values**

**around 5**  **ppb is**  **a stronger**  **argument for**  **maintenance than** 

**the anticipation**  **of emissions**  **being below**  **32,619 tpy.** 

**We acknowledge**  **(and it**  **would be worth**  **stating explicitly)** 

**that the**  **absence of**  **sources 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 exist that**  **might help**  **address**

**any future**  **violation. Nevertheless,**  **Ohio should**  **specify what** 

**event (e.g.,**  **what monitored**  **concentration) would**  **trigger the** 

**process of**  **investigating and**  **adopting contingency**  **measures and**  **what timetable**  **Ohio would**  **expect to**  **operate under.**  **(U.S. EPA**  **Region V,**  **submitted via**  **email)**



### Ohio **EPA has**  **provided clarification**  **in Requirement**  **2 of**  **4**

**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**  **of 4**  **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 of**  **4 and**  **Requirement 3**  **of 4**  **under Chapter** 

**6. Comment6:** 

**Response 6:** 

**Comment 7:** 

**Response 7:** 

**CommentS:** 

### Satisfaction **of section**  **11 0**  **and Part**  **D:**

**Discussion of**  **the satisfaction of**  **section 110**  **and Part**  **D**

**should include**  **discussion of**  **the satisfaction**  **of section**  **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**  **as the** 

**"infrastructure" provisions**  **of section**  **11 O(a)(2).**  **{U.S. EPA**  **Region V,**  **submitted via**  **email)**



### Ohio **EPA has**  **added additional clarification**  **under Chapter**  **2 (5.a)**  **to address**  **the importance**  **of section**  **11 O(a)(1**  **).**

**I guess**  **I would**  **like to**  **provide testimony.**  **I would**  **like to**  **ask**

**that the**  **State of**  **Ohio EPA hold**  **this in**  **abeyance until**  **you receive**  **an answer**  **to whether**  **the peaking units**  **that are**  **in**

**the east**  **end of**  **the Beckjord**  **plant will**  **be decommissioned** 

**and never**  **used. I'd**  **like a**  **response from**  **that. And**  **also I'd** 

**like to**  **know whether**  **they have**  **been calculated**  **in the**  **sulfur**

**dioxide output,**  **and whether**  **they are**  **presently able**  **to burn** 

**low sulfur**  **and whether**  **this is**  **a consideration**  **that has**  **been**

**included in**  **this, because**  **the notice simply**  **indicates that**  **the**

**Walter C.**  **Beckjord plant**  **is being**  **closed that**  **is the coal**  **fire plant,**  **and there**  **is a**  **major peaking**  **unit on**  **the east**  **end of** 

**the plant**  **that is**  **referred to**  **as the**  **oil plant**  **and I**  **would like**  **to**

**know whether**  **that 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**  **ask that**  **you**
**not make**  **the decision**  **until that**  **is answered**  **because of**  **that**

**and that**  **is actually**  **definitively addressed.**  **My name**  **is Daniel**  **Owens, I'm**  **a resident**  **of Pierce**  **Township, I'm**  **an attorney,** 

**and I**  **was a**  **trustee here**  **for 16**  **years. And**  **I am**  **part of**  **an environmental**  **agreement with**  **Duke Energy,**  **that is**  **in the** 

**28th year**  **of its**  **existence, concerning the Beckjord plant.**  **Thank you very**  **much. (Daniel**  **Owens, Hearing**  **Testimony)**



### As discussed **in response**  **4,** 

### the **entirety of**  **the Beckjord**  **facility is**  **permanently shutdown.** 

**My name**  **is Alan**  **Freeman, a**  **Pierce Township**  **resident, I**  **just**

**wanted to**  **make sure**  **that I**  **understood that this**  **attainment is** 

**on for S02,**  **not for**  **any other**  **ozone related**  **compounds; is** 

**that correct?** 

**The important**  **thing is**  **that we**  **are going**  **to be**  **hopefully in** 

**the future**  **in attainment**  **for sulphur**  **dioxide only,**  **not for**  **the**

**VOCs or**  **the NOxs. That's**  **important to**  **this area,**  **because Re**  **sponse 8:**  

### quite **frankly we**  **have some**  **issues with**  **regard to**  **some other**  **agencies that**  **are applying**  **for federal**  **dollars for**  **other ozone type**  **related contaminants,**  **we want**  **to make**  **sure those** 

**won't be**  **harmed in**  **any way**  **and want**  **to move**  **forward with**  **those, so**  **that also**  **we can**  **eventually be**  **in attainment**  **for**

**ozone related**  **contaminants as**  **well. So**  **moving forward**  **we really**  **are hopeful**  **that we**  **can put**  **this on**  **the record that**  **it is** 

**true that**  **this is**  **only for that one**  **component, not**  **for the**  **others, so**  **that we**  **will be**  **able to**  **talk to**  **some of**  **the funders** 

**in the**  **area, so**  **we will**  **continue to**  **be eligible**  **for those**  **appropriate funds**  **without exception.**  **(Alan Freeman,**  **Hearing Testimony)** 



### This **submittal does**  **not address**  **ozone but**  **only sulfur** 

**dioxide.**

**End of**  **Response to**  **Comments 1** 

**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**  **1 1**  **BEFORE:**

**2 Ohio**  **EPA Public Interest**  **Center**

**Darla Peel1ee** 

**3 Public**  **Involvement Coordi**  **nator**

**Northwest and**  **Southwest District**  **Offices**

**4 50**  **W. Town**  **Street**

**Columbus, Ohio**  **4 3 215** 

**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**  **432 15**  **2 3** 

**1 MS.**  **PEELLE: The**  **purpose of**  **this hearing**  **today**

**2 is**  **to accept public**  **comments on**  **Ohio EP**  **A'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**  **would 4** 

**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 for** **1 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.** 

**13 response**  **from that.**  **I'd like**  **a**

**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**  **is 1**  **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 3:18**  **p.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:**  **(In audible.)**  **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**

**25 1**  **CERTIF ICATE** 

**2**

**- - -**  **Page: 8 of**  **9**

**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**  **W I TNESS**  **WHEREOF, I**  **have hereunto**  **set my** 

**hand and**  **official seal**  **of office**  **at Columbus,**  **Ohio, this** 

**9 24th**  **day of**  **April, 2015.** 

**10**

**11 Cheryl**  **D. Edwards,** 
**Notary Public**  **in and**  **for**

**the State**  **of Ohio** 

**12 My**  **commission expires**  **11/0 5/18** 

**13**

**14**

**15**

**16**

**17**

**18**

**19**

**20**

**21**

**22**

**23**

**24**

**25**

**StenoCAT 32**  **Sample Template** **1**

**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 Huntington**  **Center**

**41 South**  **High Street** 

**Suite 2400** 

**Columbus, Ohio**  **43215-6104 614.463.94<!1** 

**614.463.1108 fax** 

**www.slk-Jaw.com**

**VIA EMAil.**  **AND U.S.**  **MAIL**

**Erica Fetty** 

**Ohio Environmental**  **Pmtection Agency** 

**Division of**  **Air Pollution**  **Control**

**P.O. Box**  **1049**
**Columbus, Ohio 4321601049**  **Erica.Fettv@epa.state.oh.us April**  **16, 2015** 

**Re: Request**  **for Redesignation**  **of the**  **Ohio Portion**  **of the**  **Campbell-Clermont KY** 

**OH Area to Attainment**  **of the**  **2010 One-Hour**  **Sulfm· Dioxide**  **National**

**Ambient Air Quality**  **Standard**

**011r File No.**  **043591**

**Dear Ms.**  **Blakley:**

**In March**  **2015, Ohio**  **EPA requested**  **to redesignate**  **the Ohio**  **portion of**  **the Campbell** 

**Clumont KY-OH**  **Area to Attainment**  **of the**  **2010 One-Hour**  **Sulfur Dioxide**  **("S02") National** 

**Ambient Air**  **Quality Standard**  **("NAAQS"). The**  **following comments**  **are submitted**  **on behalf**  **of**

**the Ohio**  **Utility Group**  **and its**  **member companies**  **("OUG" or**  **"the Utilities"),**  **1 which**  **is an**  **association of**  **individual electric**  **utilities in**  **the State**  **of Ohio.**  **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.**

**The Utilities**  **support Ohio**  **EPA's reqnest**  **for redesignation**  **of Pierce**  **Township in Clermont**  **County. Of**  **note on**  **the redesignation**  **requests, the**  **Walter C.**  **Beckjord facility**  **ceased operation**  **on September**  **l, 2014**  **and Ohio**  **EPA was**  **notified of**  **the 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** 

**Electric Corporation.** 

**COLUMBUS I**  **TOLEDO !**  **TAMPA CHARLOTTE** **Erica Fetty** 

**April 16,**  **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 attainment**  **for the**  **one- hour**  **S02 NAA**  **QS.**

**The Utilities**  **appreciate the opportunity to**  **comment on**  **the proposed rule.**  **If you**  **have any**  **questions regarding**  **these comments,**  **please contact**  **me.**

**V ety**  **truly yours,** 

**Cheri A.**  **Budzynski**

**CAB\bd**

**Sl K**

**__ TOL:#256h&Wvl** **Van Vlerah,**  **Jennifer**

**From:**

**Sent:**

**To:**

**Cc: Subject:**  **Summerhays, John**  **<Summerhays.John@epa.gov> Friday,**  **April 17,**  **2015 5:31**  **PM**
**Fetty, Erica;**  **Van Vlerah,**  **Jennifer**
**Bradley, Twunjala; Aburano,**  **Douglas; Portanova,**  **Mary; Blakley,**  **Pamela**
**Clermont-Campbell Draft**  **Redesigna tion**  **Request**

**Please consider**  **the following**  **as you**  **proceed toward**  **completing this**  **package.**

**1. Attaining**  **the standard:** 

**The key**  **test here**  **is whether,**  **on the**  **basis of**  **available evidence,**  **we can**  **conclude that**  **the entirety**  **of the**  **nonattainment**

**area is**  **now attaining**  **the standard.**  **Please do**  **not suggest**  **that EPA**  **Regions 4**  **and 5**  **agreed with**  **a determination**  **that an**  **analysis of**  **maximum concentration**  **location was not**  **warranted. To**  **the extent**  **that Zimmer**  **is the**  **most significant** 

**remaining source**  **anywhere near**  **the area,**  **that would**  **suggest that**  **the maximum**  **concentration location**  **would be**  **the**
**portion of**  **the area closest**  **to Zimmer.**  **Thus, to**  **that extent,**  **the question**  **instead would**  **be whether**  **the monitor** 
**provides a**  **sufficient representation**  **of concentrations**  **throughout the**  **nonattainment area**  **to be**  **able to**  **conclude that** 

**the entire area, including**  **portions of**  **the area**  **closer to**  **Zimmer, are**  **attaining the**  **standard. Modeling**  **of Beckjord**  **of**

**course is unnecessary,**  **but Ohio**  **needs to**  **make more**  **of a**  **case that**  **modeling of**  **other sources**  **is not**  **necessary to** 

**determine that even concentrations**  **even at**  **the maximum**  **concentration location**  **in the**  **nonattainment area**  **are below** 

**the standard.** 

**The trajectory**  **analysis is**  **a key**  **part of**  **this evaluation,**  **even though**  **the work**  **was done**  **more to**  **determine contribution** 

**at the**  **monitor location**  **rather than**  **impacts throughout**  **the nonattainment.**  **An important**  **point is**  **that trajectories**  **in**

**which winds do**  **not carry**  **emissions from**  **Zimmer to**  **the monitor**  **also represent**  **trajectories that**  **largely do**  **not carry** 

**emissions from**  **Zimmer to**  **any of**  **the rest**  **of the**  **nonattainment area,**  **either. Another**  **important point**  **is that**  **Zimmer is** 

**sufficient distance**  **from the**  **nonattainment area to**  **conclude that**  **impacts at**  **the nearest**  **edge of**  **the nonattainment area** 

**are likely**  **to be**  **similar to**  **impacts at**  **the monitor.**  **(For making**  **this point,**  **it would**  **be useful**  **to compare**  **the distance** 

**from Zimmer**  **to the**  **nonattainment area versus**  **the distance**  **from Zimmer**  **to the**  **monitor.) This**  **would support**  **an**
**argument that,**  **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 air** 
**quality for**  **the portions**  **of 20**  **14 when**  **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**  **of a**  **peak statistic**  **for the**  **period, e.g. the gg'h** 

**percentile (if**  **this statistic**  **is adequately**  **robust). Data**  **collected so**  **far in**  **2015 may**  **be useful**  **for this**  **purpose. I**  **recognize**

**that these**  **periods did**  **not constitute**  **an entire**  **year, but**  **these data**  **would likely**  **provide strong**  **support for**  **the**
**hypothesis that**  **a scenario**  **in which**  **Beckjord emissions**  **are zero**  **can be**  **expected to**  **have attaining**  **air quality**  **throughout**

**the area,**  **even in**  **portions of**  **the nonattainment**  **that might**  **have more impact**  **from sources**  **like Zimmer**  **that 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 of**  **this figure**  **obscure the**  **relationship. First,**  **it is**  **not clear**  **which label**  **applies to**  **which of**  **the three** 
**graphs. Second,**  **it is**  **not clear**  **what an**  **"18 per.**  **Mov. Avg."**  **is or**  **why this**  **statistic was**  **used. I**  **presume it**  **is an**  **average of** 

**18 hours**  **of data,**  **but the**  **use of**  **this statistic**  **would seem**  **to obscure**  **the level**  **of the**  **peak concentrations**  **that are**  **of**

**most concern.**  **Finally, this**  **set of**  **graphs is**  **difficult to**  **interpret. Given**  **the importance**  **of demonstrating**  **that the** 

**shutdown of**  **Beckjord has had and will have**  **a dramatic**  **impact on**  **502 concentrations**  **in the area,**  **it is**  **worth the**  **effort**

**to improve**  **the presentation**  **of the**  **information that**  **can be**  **obtained from**  **the data**  **used in**  **preparing these**  **graphs.**

**1 Appendix D**  **focuses 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**

**im portant**  **point to**  **address.**

**I am**  **stressing this**  **point because**  **we have**  **other areas around**  **the country that are**  **seeking clean**  **data determinations.** 

**am aware**  **of another**  **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 likely**  **to 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 concent**  **ration location**  **with respect**  **to the**  **remaining sources.**  **Your submittal**  **for the** 

**Camp bell-Clermont**  **area must**  **address the issue**  **of whether**  **data from**  **the monitor**  **provides adequate**  **evidence that**  **the**

**entire area**  **is attaining.** 

**2. Adequate**  **SIP**
**More important than**  **the infra**  **structure SIP**  **is all**  **your rules**  **in OAC**  **3745 -18,**  **most notably**  **3 7 45-18-19**  **and perhaps**  **3745**

**-**
**1 8 -37.** 

**I presume**  **that the**  **reason biogenic**  **emissions are**  **not included**  **is because**  **you believe**  **these emissions**  **to be negligible,** 

**not because**  **you didn't**  **want to**  **take the**  **effort to**  **compute them**  **or because**  **you didn't**  **want us**  **to know.**  **Although**

**Kentucky emissions**  **are low,**  **it would**  **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**  **if you**  **were compiling**  **conformity**
**budgets, but**  **I understand**  **you are**  **finding that**  **no conformity**  **budget is**  **needed.**

**In light**  **of the**  **recent Sixth Circuit**  **decision in**  **relation to**  **the redesignation**  **of the**  **Cincinnati area**  **for PM2.5, Ohio**  **may or** 

**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 better**  **way of**  **arguing that**  **Ohio has**  **satisfied these**  **requirements is**  **to state**  **that in** 

**absence of major**  **point sources,**  **no point source emission**  **controls are**  **possible. Ohio**  **should also**  **address minor**  **source**

**measures, presumably**  **to conclude**  **that no**  **further measures**  **constitute RACM**  **on the**  **minor sources**  **that remain.** 

**3. Permanent**  **and enforceable cause**  **of air**  **quality improvement** 

**Discussion of**  **the permanence**  **and enforceability**  **of Beckjord's**  **shutdown should be**  **included in**  **this section.**  **After noting** 

**that the**  **letter from**  **the company**  **results in**  **the termination**  **of the**  **permit that**  **authorizes them**  **to operate,**  **you should** 

**identify the**  **provisions in**  **state regulation that**  **the state**  **and EPA**  **could enforce**  **that prohibit**  **operating without**  **such a**  **permit. Discussion of**  **the 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 attributable**  **to the**  **shutdown of**  **Beckjord. This**  **section should**  **clarify that**  **the entirety of** 
**Beckjord is**  **required not**  **to operate, i.e.**  **that allowable**  **emissions from**  **the entire**  **facility are**  **now zero.** 

**4. Maintenance**  **Modeling or**  **having emissions**  **below the**  **attainment inventory**  **are not**  **the only**  **options for**  **demonstrating**

**maintenance. In**  **particular, I**  **am much**  **less convinced**  **of maintenance**  **by having**  **future emissions**  **below 32,619**  **tpy than** 

**1 am by having**  **emissions at**  **16 tpy.**  **For S02,**  **I would**  **not say**  **(especially for**  **a nonattainment**  **area) that**  **"maintenance is** 

**demonstrated [when**  **emissions are**  **below 2014**  **levels.]" Similarly,**  **the fact**  **that 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 I**  **was not**  **clear why**  **we recommended**  **analyzing background**  **concentrations. If**  **you "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 of**  **the future**  **"modeled" (predicted)**  **concentration. That**  **is, it**  **appears that**  **you**

**may reasonably**  **assert that you anticipate**  **future design**  **values to**  **be on**  **the order**  **of 5**  **ppb. In**  **these circumstances,**  **a**
**reasonable anticipation**  **of design values around 5**  **ppb is**  **a stronger argument**  **for maintenance**  **than the**  **anticipation of** 

**emissions being**  **below 32**  **,619 tpy.** 

**2 We**  **acknowledge (and**  **it would**  **be worth**  **stating explicitly) that**  **the absence**  **of sources**  **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**  **exist that**  **might help**  **address any**  **future violation.**  **Nevertheless, Ohio**  **should specify**  **what event**  **(e.g.,**

**what monitored**  **concentration) would**  **trigger the**  **process of**  **investigating and**  **adopting contingency**  **measures and what** 

**timetable Ohio**  **would expect**  **to operate**  **under.**

**5. Satisfaction**  **of section**  **110 and**  **Part D** 

**Discussion of**  **the satisfaction**  **of section**  **110 and**  **Part D should**  **include discussion**  **of the**  **satisfaction of**  **section 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**  **as the**  **"infrastructure" provisions of**  **section 110(a)(2).** 

**3**

# A PPENDIX 

# I

# ����GY**.**

**OHIO**

**May 28,**  **2015**

**Mr. Christopher**  **Beekman**

**Ohio EPA** 

**- DAPC** 

**Lazarus Government**  **Center**

**50 West**  **Town St.,**  **Suite 700** 
**Columbus, Ohio**  **43215**

**RE: Duke**  **Energy Ohio,**  **Inc., W.C.**  **Beckjord Station** 

**Facility ID**  **No.: 1413100008** 

**Emissions Units:**  **B007, B008,**  **B009, and**  **BOlO**

**Dear Mr.**  **Beekman: Duke**  **Energy Ohio,**  **Inc**

**. 139 E. 4**  **th Streel** 
**Cincinnati, OH**  **45202**

**This letter**  **is to**  **inform you**  **that, as**  **of December**  **31, 2014,**  **the four**  **oil-fired emissions**  **units at** 

**W.C. Beckjord**  **Station (B007,**  **B008, B009,**  **and BOlO)**  **are permanently shut**  **down and**  **removed**

**from service.**  **It is**  **the understanding**  **of Duke**  **Energy Ohio,**  **Inc. that**  **authorization to**  **operate the** 

**affected units**  **has ceased**  **as of**  **December 31,**  **2014 and**  **the permittee shall**  **not be**  **required to** 

**meet any**  **Title V**  **permit requirements**  **applicable to**  **these emissions**  **units, except**  **for any**  **residual requirements,**  **such as**  **the quarterly**  **deviation reports and**  **annual compliance**  **certification covering**  **the period**  **during which**  **the emissions**  **units last**  **operated.**

**Please call**  **Andrew Roebel**  **at 513-287-2356**  **if you**  **should have**  **any questions**  **regarding this** 

**information.**

**Based on**  **information and**  **belief formed**  **after reasonable**  **inquiry, I**  **certify that**  **all factual** 

**statements in**  **this transmittal**  **are true,**  **accurate and**  **complete to**  **the best**  **of my**  **knowledge.**

**Very truly**  **yours,** 

# 'ff/� **J S**  **�**

**Mark J.**  **Schmidt Manager** 

**- Reg**  **Plant Demo**  **& Retirement** 

# A PPENDIX 

# J

## Appendix J

Supplemental Modeling Demonstration, William H. Zimmer Facility

Introduction

This document supports the redesignation request for the Campbell

- Clermont partial nonattainment area in the State of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This nonattainment area encompasses emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility. There are no other significant sources of SO 2 

### emissions with in the nonattainment area that warrant inclusion in the modeling analysis. As can be seen from the inventory included

in the redesignation request , the SO 2 

### emissions from the point sources comprise

99.95% of the 201 4 SO 2 

### emissions in the entire nonattainm ent area. Notably , violations at this monitor were determined to be caused by emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility located along the Ohio River in Ohio east of the monitor. On September 1,

2014 1 

### , the Walter C. Beckjord facility ceased operation s. Ohio EPA was notified of the permanent shutdown on October 14, 2014. (Appendix B and I of the redesignation
request ) There are no other significant point sources of SO 2 

### emissions located in the nonattainment area. Within the portion of Campbell County, KY that is a part of this area there are 11 sources which combined emit less than one ton per year (tpy) of SO 2



### . (Appendix C of the redesignation request ) There are no oth er point sources of SO 2 

### emissions in the portion of Clermont County, OH that is a part of this area.

Located south (and slightly east) of the monitor, but outside of the nonattainment area, is the William H. Zimmer facility (see Figure 1). It was deter mined during the nonattainment designation process that emissions from the William H. Zimmer facility likely do not impact the violating monitor at question, and therefore, the nonattainment area was not expanded to encompass this facility. To support the previous conclusion, Ohio EPA performed an extensive meteorology, emissions and back

- trajectory analysis and has included this analysis as Appendix D of the redesignation request . This analysis concludes that it was in fact the Walter C. Beckjord facilit y that caused the violations and not the William H. Zimmer facility.

1 The letter contained in Appendix B identifies the permanent shutdown of all units occurred on October 1,
2014. However, a review of CAMD emissions showed that all the units ceased operation by September
1, 2014.Figure 1 : Location of monitor 21

- 037

- 3002 the William H. Zimmer Station.



### In support of this conclusion, Ohio EPA conducted a supplemental modeling analysis to determine the location of maximum impact from emissions originating from the William H. Zimmer facility as well as a conservative extrapolation of monitored values to the point of maximum impact. The supplemental modeling was performed due to the proximity of the William H. Zimmer facility to the nonattainment area and the level of emissions from this source. Ohio EPA determined that the significant distance (30 to 35 km) , prevailing winds, and emission reductions from sources located t o the west of the

nonattainment area did not warrant the inclusion of these sources in a supplemental modeling analysis. This is consistent with U.S. EPA’s Ohio Area Designations For the 2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard technical supp ort document. The analysis presented in this document further demonstrates that emissions from

William H. Zimmer do not impact the nonattainment area to a significant degree and that

emissions from William H. Zimmer are not likely to cause exceedances both at the

monitor location or in the entirety of the nonattainment area.

Modeling Approach

Per U.S. EPA’s SO 2 

### n onattainment area SIP g uidance

,

“Appendix A of this document contains modeling guidance supplemental to that provided in the preamble to the final rulemaking promulgating the 2010 S02 NAAQS and in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. Appendix A of this document has also been updated to respond to issues raised during the comment period related

### to the September 2011 draft SO 2 

### Guidance Document. This guidance clarifies

the EPA's recommendations on how to conduct refined dispersion modeling under Appendix W to support th e implementation of the 2010 SO 2 

### NAAQS.”

Per the SO 2 

### n onattainment area SIP g uidance, five years of National Weather Service data is sufficient to repres ent attainment of the standard. The purpose of this demonstration, determining the location of maximum impact of emissions from William H. Zimmer and demonstrating that these emis sions will not cause exceedances in the

nonattainment area , necessitates that the limited period of time for which monitor data is

available after the shutdown of the Walter C. Beckjord facility is replicated by the modeling analysis. As such , five years of meteorological data was not used, but a limited meteorological dataset from August 30, 2014 to February 28, 2015, inclusive,

was modeled . This period of time represents the most recent period of time for which the Walter C. Beckjord facility is shutdown and data is available

. As a full three years of
data are not available, the modeled form of the standard is expressed as the 99 th



### percentile of the available 192 maximum daily values. For a time period of 192 days

, the form of the standard of both monitored and modeled values is represented by th e
second highest maximum daily value.

The recommended dispersion model for SIP modeling for SO 2 

### is the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) modeling system. There are two input data processors that are regulatory components of the AERMOD modeling system: AERMET, a meteorological data preprocessor that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concept s, and AERMAP, a terrain data preprocessor that incorporates complex terrain using United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Elevation Data. Additionally, Ohio EPA utilized the AERMINUTE module to incorporate 1

- minute ASOS meteorological data into th e hourly surface input file. Ohio EPA utilized the most up

- to

date versions of AERMOD and the associated preprocessors available at the time of the modeling analyses. These are as follows: AERMOD version 14134, AERMET version
14134, AERMINUTE version 142 37, and AERMAP version 11103.

The intent of this supplemental modeling is to demonstrate that the William H. Zimmer facility does not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standard not only at the violating monitor, but across the entirety of the nonattainment area. For this purpose,

Ohio EPA collected monitor data for the August 30, 20 14 through February 28, 2015 period, when the entirety of the Walter C. Beckjord facility is known to have zero emissions. Using this monitor data, Ohio EPA modeled all sources at the William H. Zimmer facility at 1 gram per second. Using the modeled imp acts at receptors across the nonattainment area, as well as the location of the monitor, Ohio EPA scaled the 99 th



### percentile of monitor data for this period to represent a maximum predicted impacted in

the nonattainment area as a whole. As described below , this modeling is conservative in its treatment of constant emissions, the assumption that a one

- to

- one ratio between monitored concentrations and impacts in the nonattainment area is present, and its consideration of only the spatial, and not temporal, r elationship between monitor and

modeled values.

### Meteorological Data

In order to generate meteorological input data for use with AERMOD, AERMET, along with AERMINUTE and AERSURFACE preprocessing for the modeling domain was conducted to generate the surface (.sfc) and profile (.pfl). Ohio EPA used the AERMINUTE pre

- processing module. This module accepts as input 1

- minute ASOS meteorological surface observations, calculates an hourly average for each hour in the modeled time period, and substitutes a ny missing values from the co

- located ISHD surface data. Use of AERMINUTE reduces the number of calm hours present in the input files, and these enhanced hourly files are therefore considered more representative of local meteorological conditions.

Met eorolog ical data from August 30, 2014 through February 28, 2015 from the Cincinnati, OH surface stati on (Station # 93814 ) located at the Covington/Greater Cincinnati Airport in Kentucky and the Wilmington, OH up per air station (Station #

13841 ) located at the Wilmington Airborne Park airport were used in these analyses. These sites were determined to be represen tative of the nonattainment area

. AERSURFACE was run using twelve sectors and four seasons for the surface station

location

.

Emission Sources

Thr ee emission sources (two egress points) from William H. Zimmer were included in the modeling analysis. The relevant release point parameters for the two egress points

included in the analysis are presented in Table 1, below. As described previously , the emission rate of all units was set to 1 gram/second to allow for a straightforward scaling

of modeled values to monitored concentrations. All emissions sources included in the modeling analysis were treated as point sources.

Source

ID Source Description Easting (X) Northing

(Y) Base

Elevation Stack

Height Temperature Exit Velocity Stack

Diameter SO2

(m) (m) (m) (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (g/s)

B006_ZM Main Boiler Unit 1 Stack 740462.3 4305892 155.4 174 328 16.971 12.8 1

AUX_AB Aux Blr AB Comn Stack 740391.7 4305630 155.3 91 604 26.3 3.35 1

Table 1 : Modeled SO2 e mission sources, William H. Zimmer.



### Receptors

A receptor grid of 1000 meter spacing was placed within the boundaries of the

nonattainment area. Initial screening

- level modeling indicated that the maximum impact

of William H. Zimmer occurs within approximately 1 km of the facility. The center of the nonattainment area itself is located approximately 20 km (11.5 km at the closest point)

from the Wi lliam H. Zimmer emission units, and as such, a fine receptor grid was deemed unnecessary to capture significant concentration gradients. Limiting the number of receptors was also necessary to maintain reasonable file sizes to conduct

### post

- processing and a nalysis of modeled outputs. In addition to this grid, a single

receptor was placed in the monitor location. A second modeling grid, using 50 meter spacing to 3 km, was performed to determine the location of Zimmer’s maximum impact. This finer grid was pl aced based on screening level modeling analysis.

Results

As stated previously, the modeling analysis was conducted to determine the location of maximum impact from emissions originating from the William H. Zimmer facility and to conservatively demonstrate, using monitored values, that emissions from William H.

Zimmer will not cause an ex ceedance of the standard anywhere within the

nonattainment area . The 2 nd 

### highest modeled maxi mum daily value for the time period (99 th 

### percentile) at the recept or represent ing the monitor was 0.18731  g/m 3



### . Ohio EPA

determined that the 2 nd 

### highest maximum modeled value across all receptors in th e
nonattainment area was 0. 40866  g/m 3 

### , and used this value for the extrapolation analysis.

To extrapolate these values based on monitor data, Ohio EPA determined that the 2 nd



### highest maximum daily value recorded during the August 30, 2014 to February 28, 2015 period to be 24 ppb. Using the modeled impacts ab ove, Ohio EPA used a simple ratio to scale this value to the poi nt of maximum impact in the nonattainment area, as follows:

0

. 18731

24 ppb = 0

. 40866

X



### Using the 2 nd 

### highest maximum daily value across all receptors in the n onattainment

area, 0.40866  g/m 3



### , in the ratio above yields a maximum concentration of 52.4 ppb.

T he conservatively extrapolated value is below the standard.

Ohio EPA considers this demonstration highly conservative for several reasons. Firstly, the modeling assumed continuous operation of all units at the William H. Zimmer facility, which is not reflective of normal operating conditions, in particular the two auxiliary

boilers. These units operated only 676 hours in 2013 and 1,167 hours in 2014. Secondly, the extrapolat ion implicitly assumes that all ambient SO 2 

### recor ded at the monitor location originates from William H. Z imme r. Lastly, the temporal relationship

between the monitor data an d model ed data was not considered. By accounting only for the spatial relationship between modeled and monitor values, the extrapol ation

assumes that the 99 th 

### percentile impacts occur simultaneously across the entirety of
nonattainment area, including at the monitor location. This provides an additional layer of conservatism to the analysis. When modeled values and monitor values are paired in time, the first

- highest maximum extrapolated impact was determined to be 30 ppb.

An additional extrapolation of modeled impacts was performed based on actual emissions data from the William H. Zimmer facility. The highest annual emissions from years 2010

- 2014 occurred in 2010, when the William H. Zimmer facility emitted 19,388.1 tons of SO 2



### . This annual emission rate was converted to an average emission

### rate of 557.73 grams/second. Using this value, and the results of the extrapolation

demonstration above, Ohio EPA used the following ratio to estimate the impacts of emissions from the William H. Zimmer plant at both the receptor location and at the point of highest impact in the nonattainment area:

2 grams / second

0

. 40866 ug / m 3 = 557

. 73 grams / second

X ug / m 3



### The solution to this equation, 113.96  g/m 3 

### (43.56 ppb) is well below the standard of 75 ppb and indicates that emissions from the William H. Zimmer facility are unlikely to

cause an exceedance of the standar d across the entirety of the nonattainment area. Substituting the modeled results at the monitor location, 0.18731  g/m 3 

### , into the above ratio yields an estimated impact of 52.23  g/m 3 

### (19.96 ppb). This extrapolation is remarkable in its consistency with the monitor data for periods when the Walter C. Beckjord facility was not operational and with the previous extrapolation based on
monitor data. These results, as well as the consisten cy of these analyses with monitor values, provide strong additional support for Ohio EPA’s contention that the closure of

the Walter C. Beckjord facility will provide for attainment of the standard in the entirety

of the nonattainment area and that emissio ns from William H. Zimmer will not cause or

contribute to an exceedance of the standard.

Analysis of wind rose data from the Covington/Greater Cincinnati Airport for the first highest and second highest maximum daily concentrations recorded at the monitor during the August 30, 2014 through February 28, 2015 period support the conclusion that the analysis conducted by Ohio EPA is highly conservative and indicates that

emissions from William H. Zimmer are not contributing to elevated monitor readings.

The f irst highest maximum daily value recorded during this period was 34 ppb, occurring on January 14, 2015 at 9:00 AM. Monitor values remained elevated until 12:00 PM on the same day. The second highest maximum daily value of 24 ppb occurred on January 6, 20 15 at 7:00 PM. Concentrations recorded at the monitor were elevated from January 6, 2015 at 5:00 AM until 12:00 AM on January 7, 2015. The wind roses for these perio ds are shown in Figure 2 , below

.Figure 2 : KCVG wind roses, January 6 and January 14, 2015.

### The data shown in Figure 2 indicates that winds were primarily from the West and

Northwest during the times when the highest and second highest monitored values were recorded. This suggests that emission s from William H. Zimmer were not impacting the monitor, or the nonattainment area, during these times. An analysis of hourly emissions, monitor values, and wind directions, prese nted in Appendix K of this redesignation submittal confirms that when emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility are eliminated from analysis, the wind directions primarily impacting the monitor

are from the West and Northwest , and that at no time when the Walter C. Beckjord facility was not operating was an hourly monit or value above 34 ppb recorded

. Thus, the extrapolation analysis performed based on modeled impacts represents a highly conservative estimate of the impact of emissions from William H. Zimmer on both the

monitor and the nonattainment area as a whole. Fur ther, Ohio EPA determined that point of maximum impact of emissions from Zimmer during the modeled time period was located approximately 1.4 km to the southeast from the largest source at the

William H. Zimmer facility

. From the point of this maximum impa ct to the point of maximum impact within the nonattainment area, there is a decrease in concentration of

84%.

These analyses , as well as the ana lysis presented in Appendix K

, further support the results of the trajectory ana lysis presented in Appendix D , and demonstrate that the impacts of Zimmer are minimal at both the monitor location and the entirety of the

nonattainment area

. These results are consistent with the predominant winds in the area, which originate primarily from the south and southwest. Additional wind rose data is presented in Appendix K.

# A PPENDIX 

# K

## Appendix K

Analys is of Monitored Concentrations and Wind Direction

Introduction

This document supports the redesignation request for the Campbell

- Clermont partial nonattainment area in the State of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This nonattainment area encompasses emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility. There are no other significant sources of SO 2 

### emissions with in the nonattainment area that warrant inclusion in the modeling analysis. As can be seen from the inventory included

in the redesignation request , the SO 2 

### emissions from the point sources comprise

99.95% of the 201 4 SO 2 

### emissions in the en tire nonattainment area. Notably , violations at this monitor were determined to be caused by emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility located along the Ohio River in Ohio east of the monitor. On September 1,

2014 1 

### , the Walter C. Beckjord facility c eased operations. Ohio EPA was notified of the permanent shutdown on October 14, 2014. (Appendix B and I of the redesignation
request ) There are no other significant point sources of SO 2 

### emissions located in the nonattainment area. Within the portion of Campbell County, KY that is a part of this area there are 11 sources which combined emit less than one ton per year (tpy) of SO 2



### . (Appendix C of the redesignation request ) There are no other point sources of SO 2 

### emissions in the portion of Clermont County, OH that is a part of this area.

Located south (and slightly east) of the monitor, but outside of the nonattainment area, is the William H. Zimmer facility (see Figure 1). It was determined during the nonattainment designation process that emissions fr om the William H. Zimmer facility likely do not impact the violating monitor at question, and therefore, the nonattainment area was not expanded to encompass this facility. To support the previous conclusion, Ohio EPA performed an extensive meteorology, e missions and back

- trajectory analysis and has included this analysis as Appendix D of the redesignation request . This analysis concludes that it was in fact the Walter C. Beckjord facility that caused the violations and not the William H. Zimmer facility.

In support of this conclusio n, Ohio EPA conducted an ana lysis of hourly SO 2 

### concentrations recorded at monitor 21

- 037

- 3002, wind direction data from the Cincinnati weather station located at the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Airport, and emissions from both the Walter C. Beckjord and William H. Zimmer facilities for years 2012 through February 28, 2015. This time p eriod is henceforth referred to as the study period. The analysis presented in this document further demonstrates that emissions from William

H. Zimmer and other sources within and outside of the nonattainment area are not likely

to cause e xceedances both at the monitor and in the entire ty of the nonattainment area

1 The letter contained in Appendix B identifies the permanent shutdown of all units occurred on October 1,
2014. However, a review of CAMD emissions showed that all the units ceased operation by September
1, 2014.

### and that the shutdown of the Walter C. Beckjord facility will result in attainment of the

standard.

Methodology

Hourly SO 2 

### emissions data from the Walter C. Beckjord and William H. Zimmer facilities were collected from the U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Database for the study period. Hourly and one

- minute wind data were collected from the National Weather Service station located at the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Airpor t. To ensure that the most complete meteorological record possible was used, Ohio EPA processed the hourly meteorological data and one

- minute ASOS data using the most recent versions of the AERMOD preprocessors AERMET and AERMINUTE. In addition to elimin ating missing periods in the meteorological data, this processing provided hourly outputs that were more easily paired with hourly emission and monitor data. Hourly monitoring data for

monitor 21

- 037

- 3002 were obtained from U.S. EPA’s Air Quality System

.
After compiling the above hourly data, Ohio EPA binned all data based on wind direction data, in ten degree increments. This was done for the entirety of the study period. The same binning of the data by wind direction was also done for only those peri ods in which the Walter C. Beckjord facility had zero SO 2 

### emissions. This yielded a substantial dataset of 10,231 hours monitoring data not impacted by emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility. It should be noted, howe ver, that no accounting for an y temporal overlap between any hour of zero emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility and monitor values was performed. Thus, it is likely that this dataset represents some impacts from Walter C. Beckjord at the monitor location . Ohio EPA believes t hat by not accounting for this overlap, any subsequent analysis of this dataset will be

conservative.

Within each of the above datasets, Ohio EPA determined for each wind direction bin the highest and second

- highest monitored concentration, the percentage each wind direction bin represents to the total, and the number and percentage of monitor values of 0 ppb.

Analysis and Results

To determine the primary wind directions in which monitored concentrations are elevated, Ohio EPA evaluated those bins for whi ch either the first or second highest monitored value represented an exceedance of the standard. Further, Ohio EPA included in its evaluation any bin for which the sum of the first and second highest

monitored values within that bin exceeded the average plus the sample standard

deviation of this value

, across all bins. For the full study period, which includes impacts from the Walter C. Beckjord facility, Ohio EPA determined that winds originating from

between 31 ° and 140 ° and from between 151 ° and 170 ° had the greatest impact on monitor concentrations. The results of this analysis are consistent with those presented in Appendix D of the redesignation request . The maximum concentration recorded at the monitor during the study period, 156 ppb, was the r esult of winds originating

between 121 ° and 130 °

. This result is again consistent with the results presented in

### Appendix D of the redesignation request , which details this exceedance as the February

20, 2012 exceedance, and is attributed to emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility.

The same binning analysis described above was performed for the dataset compiled from hours in which emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility were zero. It should be noted that this data set of 10,231 hours encompasses 1,445 hours of 2012, 2,542 hours of 2013, 4,828 hours of 2014, and 1,416 hours of 2015. Additionally, no exceedances of the standard were monitored during these hours, and the highest maximum hourly concentration recorded during these hours was 34 ppb. Using the same procedure as described above, Ohio EPA determined that for this dataset, winds originating between 211 ° and 220 ° , as well as those originating between 251 ° and 300 ° had the greatest impact on monitor concentrations. This represents a significant shift in impacting wind directions with respect to the results of the full study period. Further,

these wind direction bins resulted in no exceedances at the moni tor over the full 2012 to February 28, 2015 study period. Ohio EPA contends that this is strong evidence that the shutdown of the Walter C. Beckjord facility will result in the attainment of the standard both at the monitor and across the entirety of the nonattainment area. This is supported by the supplemental modeling and extrapolation ana lysis described in Appendix J of the redesignation request

.

The shift in impacting wind directions observed between the datasets is significant, and

warrants further analysis. Figure 1, below, shows the location of monitor 21

- 03 7

- 3002

and facilities within a 5 0 km radius with SO 2 

### emissions greater than or equal to 1,000

TPY in 2014.Figure 1 : Facilities within 50 km of monitor 21

- 037

- 3002 with 2014 emissions >1

, 000 tons SO2.



### As stated above, Ohio EPA determined that for the dataset excluding periods when the Walter C. Beckjord facility was emitting SO 2 

### , winds originating between 211 ° and 220 °

, as well as those originating between 251 ° and 300 ° had the greatest impact on monitor concentrations. Figure 1 above suggests that these wind directions would bring emissions from the Miami Fort Station, 30.3 km away from the monitor , and from the Duke Energy Kentucky East Bend facility, located 35.3 km distant from the monitor

. Given these large distances, Ohio EPA believes that the impact of these facilities will be relatively uniform across the nonattainment area. Dispersio n screening tests for Miami Fort Station would suggest that over this distance, there would be an approximately 86% decrease from the point of maximum concentration, located within approximately 1 km of the facility, to a point 30 km distant, and an 89% decrease at 40 km. This indicates that there is little concentration g radient across the nonattainment area

associated with sources located 30 to 35 km distant. Further, as demonstrated above, the highest concentration recorded at the monitor with winds originating from the above directions is 34 ppb. Ohio EPA believes th at it is highly unlikely that a future

exceedance of the standard will be observed at the monitor location due to emissions from these facilities, and given the significant distances between these facilities and the

nonattainment area it is unlikely that a significant concentration gradient across the

nonattainment area from these facilities is present. Additionally, Ohio EPA anticipates a

further reduction in SO 2 

### emissions from those facilities potentially impacting the monitor

in the future.

### In 2014, the facilities above emitted 78,349 tons of SO 2 

### . The shutdown of the Walter C.

Beckjord facility, which Ohio EPA has demonstrated in detail is the primary cause of monitored exceedances, will result in a 32,603 ton decrease in SO 2 

### emissions. Miami Fort Unit 6 (Ohio EPA unit ID B007), an uncontrolled unit, is shutdown as of June 1, 2016 to comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. (Appendix L of the redesignation request ) This will result in a further 18,796 ton reduction from 2014 levels. In total, this represents a reduction in SO 2 

### emissions of approximately 66% from 2014 levels. As previously demonstrated, no hourly SO 2 

### values were above the standard have been recorded when emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facilit y are eliminated from analysis, and the highest recorded monitor value across this dataset is 34 ppb. When this is considered in light of the substantial reduction in SO 2 

### emissions in and around the nonattainment area, it is highly unlikely that an exceed ance of the

standard will be monitored in the future, nor is there likely to be a significant concentration gradient in the nonattainment area given the significant distances

between SO 2 

### emission sources and the nonattainment area

.
Lastly, Ohio EPA compil ed the first through 30 th 

### highest hourly monitored SO 2 

### concentrations for all hours during the 2012

- February 28, 2015 period for which SO 2 

### emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility were zero. These data are presented in
Table 1, below.

Monitor 21

- 037

- 3002

Date Hour Monitor Value (ppb)

January 14, 2015 10 34

September 2, 2013 7 29

January 14, 2015 9 26

January 6, 2015 19 24

September 4, 2013 17 20

January 14, 2015 11 20

May 17, 2013 12 19

August 22, 2014 11 19

January 8, 2015 1 19

September 22, 2012 9 18

September 2, 2014 17 18

January 5, 2015 9 18

January 6, 2015 21 18

September 2, 2013 6 17

January 6, 2015 18 17

August 27, 2014 15 15

January 9, 2015 22 15

January 6, 2015 17 14

January 6, 2015 20 14

January 9, 2015 21 14

September 30, 2012 10 13May 17, 2013 11 13

November 12, 2014 16 13

January 5, 2015 13 13

January 22, 2015 16 13

September 14, 2012 11 12

October 9, 2013 10 12

October 28, 2014 15 12

September 30, 2012 11 11

May 25, 2013 11 11

Table 1 : Highest hourly monitored SO2 concentrations, 2012

- February 28, 2015, monitor 21

- 037

- 3002, Walter C. Beckjord impacts removed.



### To maintain conservatism, Ohio EPA eliminated monitor values of zero from the percentile calculation, giving a total of 2,939 non

- zero monitor values for which SO 2 

### emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility were zero. Thus, the 99 th 

### percentile value

of these data is the 29 th 

### highest hourly value. This value, 11 ppb, was recorded on September 30, 2012 and is highlighted in Table 1, above.

Ohio EPA has demonstrated that a significant shift in wind directions which impact

monitor 21

- 037

- 3002 are observed when emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility are eliminated from hourly wind and monitor data. From amongst this dataset, the highest monitor value recorded was 34 ppb, and the 99 th 

### percentile of the non

- zero values is 11 ppb. Further, those sources impacting the monitor in the absence of emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord facility are located 30 to 35 km distant from the monitor and are therefore unlikely to cause a significant concentration gradient across the nonattainment area. Thus, monitor values are considered representative of ambient

SO 2 

### concentrations across the entire nonattainment area. Additionally, a significant

reduction in SO 2 

### emissions is anticipated for those sources in and around th e nonattainment area. Taken together, Ohio EPA contends that the monitor is representative of the nonattainment area, that the shutdown of the W alter C. Beckjord facility will bring the monitor and nonattainment area into attainment of the standard, and that no hourly monitored value for the January 1, 2012 to February 28, 2015 study period associated with periods of zero emissions from the Walter C. Beckjord was

above the standard.

# A PPENDIX 

# L**Dvn eg**  **y Resour.ce ,**  **IL!LC**

**1500 Eastport**  **Plaza Drive** 

**Collinsville, Illinois**  **62234**

**June 11,**  **2015**

**Mr. Christopher**  **Beekman**

**Ohio Environmental**  **Protection Agency** 

**Division of**  **Air Pollution**  **Control**

**P.O. Box**  **1049 Columbus,**  **Oh 43216-1049** 

**Re: Miami**  **Fort Power**  **Station, ID**  **No. 1431350093** 

**MATS Rule**  **Compliance Extension**  **for Unit**  **6- Final**  **Quarterly Status**  **Update**

**Dear Mr.**  **Beekman:**

**On December**  **12, 2013,**  **Ohio EPA's**  **Division of**  **Air Pollution**  **Control (DAPC)**  **approved a**  **request by**  **Duke Energy**  **Kentucky (DEK)**  **to extend**  **the Mercury**  **and Air**  **Taxies (MATS)**  **Rule compliance**  **date for**  **Unit 6**  **at Miami**  **Fort Power**  **Station by**  **47 days,**  **to June**  **1, 2015.**  **DAPC's approval**  **directed DEK**  **to submit**  **quarterly status**  **update reports**  **regarding this extension within** 

**15 days**  **after the**  **end of**  **calendar quarters.**

**Though DEK**  **remains the**  **owner of**  **Miami Fort**  **Unit 6,**  **responsibility for**  **its operation**  **shifted from** 

**Duke Energy**  **to Dynegy**  **on April**  **2, 2015.**  **This final**  **quarterly status**  **update report**  **is provided**  **by Dynegy.** 

**During the**  **second quarter**  **of 2015,**  **DEK continued**  **to include**  **Miami Fort**  **Unit 6**  **as an**  **eligible**

**resource in**  **its Fixed**  **Resource Requirement (FRR) plan**  **to meet**  **its FRR**  **capacity obligation,** 

**and offered**  **it on**  **a day-ahead**  **basis into**  **the PJM**  **energy market**  **until May**  **31, 2015.** 

**Consistent with**  **the terms**  **of DAPC's**  **compliance extension,**  **operation of**  **Miami Fort**  **Unit 6**  **has ceased,**  **effective June**  **1, 2015.** 

**Please contact**  **me at**  **513-467-5885 (Chris.Osterbrink@Dynegy.com)**  **or Larry**  **Waite at**  **618-343-**

**7828 (Larry.Waite@Dynegy.com)**  **with any**  **questions regarding**  **this report.** 

**Sincerely,** 

# 1CJ:�,u-�

**Chris Osterbrink**  **Managing Director,**  **Plant Operations** 

**Miami Fort**  **Power Station** 

**cc: Robert**  **Hodanbosi, Ohio**  **EPA, DAPC,**  **Central Office** 

**Brad Miller,**  **Southwest Ohio**  **Air Quality**  **Agency**

**J. Michael**  **Geers, Duke**  **Energy**