Article V

Hearing Transcripts
BEFORE THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

IN RE: PROPOSED OAC

RULES 3745-110-01

THROUGH 3745-110-05,

Transcript of proceedings taken before Mary

McCarron, Hearing Officer, Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency, taken before Margaret A. Marsh, a

Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public

in and for the State of Ohio, commencing at

10:01 a.m., on the 8th day of June, 2007, at the

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 50 West Town

Street, Sixth Floor, Conference Room A, Columbus,

Ohio.

€RaLeev

COOpeR

& assocfates

Newark, Ohio

(740) 345-8556

Main Office

8036 Smoke Road

Pataskala, Ohio 43062

(740) 927-3338

(800) 852-6163

Fax (740) 927-3436

e-mail: FraleyCooper@earthlink.net

Columbus, Ohio

(614) 228-0018
1

2

3

4

5 McCarron.

2

Friday Morning Session

June 8, 2007

10:01 a.m.

HEARING OFFICER MCCARRON: My name is Mary

I'm the public involvement manager for Ohio

6 EPA's Public Interest Center. I will be presiding over

7 the hearing today.

8 Thank you for taking the time to attend the

9 hearing before Ohio EPA. The purpose of the hearing

10 today is to obtain comments from any interested person

11 regarding Ohio EPA's proposed rules. The proposed new

12 rules in the OAC 3745-110-01 through 3745-110-05 apply

13 to eight moderate nonattainment counties located in the

14 Cleveland/Akron metropolitan area, specifically

15 Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina,

16 Portage, and Summit Counties.

17 These will regulate Nox emissions from

18 existing stationary combustion sources. And in

19 addition, the rules will apply statewide to any new or

20 modified source issued a permit to install after

21 January I, 2007.

22 These rules have been filed with the Joint

23 Committee on Agency Rule Review. Copies of the rules

24 are available for public review at Ohio EPA's Central

25 Office and may be obtained by contacting Alan Harness

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
3

1 with Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution Control at

2 (614)644-4838.

3 All interested persons are entitled to attend

4 or be represented and to present oral and/or written

5 comments concerning the proposed new rules. All

6 written and oral comments received as part of the

7 official record will be considered by the director of

8 Ohio EPA before a final decision is made.

9 Hello. If you want, you can sign in. We

10 just began.

11 To be included in the official record,

12 written comments must be received by Ohio EPA by the

13 close of business today, June 8, 2007. These comments

14 may be filed with me today or e-mailed to Alan Harness

15 A-L-A-N, H-A-R-N-E-S-S, at

16 alan.harness@epa.state.oh.us.

17 All written comments for the record receive

18 the same consideration as oral testimony given today.

19 Written statements submitted after today will be

20 considered as time and circumstances permit but will

21 not be part of the official record of the hearing.

22 If you wish to present oral testimony, I'll

23 be calling folks in the order that they signed in on

24 the registration sheet. If I call your name and you

25 wish not to provide testimony, go ahead and say pass.

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
1

4

There's no cross-examination of speakers or

2 representatives of Ohio EPA during hearings. Ohio EPA

3 hearings such as this offer citizens the opportunity to

4 provide comments on the official record. Therefore, we

5 won't be able to answer any questions; but we may ask

6 clarifying questions of the commenter to ensure that

7 the record is as accurate as possible.

8 I'll go ahead and call the names of the folks

9 who have registered. And again, if you don't want to

10 comment, go ahead and say pass.

11

12

Greg Fouche.

MR. FOUCHE: Pass.

13

14 Harrigan?

HEARING OFFICER MCCARRON: And Sarah

15 MS. HARRIGAN: Pass.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HEARING OFFICER MCCARRON: Okay. We will go

off the record until 10:30 to see if anybody is a late

arrival for the hearing.

(Recess taken.)

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
5

get back on the record. The time is 10:31 a.m. At

Thereupon, at 10:31 a.m., on Friday, June 8,

2007, the hearing was concluded.

HEARING OFFICER MCCARRON: We'll go ahead and

I want to remind folks

this time nobody else has arrived to testify so we'll

that written comments can be turned in by the end of

the day today. Thank you for coming.

go ahead and close the hearing.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

\

!

I 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740). 345-8556
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

)

6

C E R T I F I CAT E

STATE OF OHIO

ss:

COUNTY OF FRANKLIN

I, Margaret A. Marsh, Registered Professional

Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a

true, correct, and complete transcript of the

proceedings in this matter before the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency, as reported by me in

stenotype and transcribed from my stenographic notes.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2007.

.

-~~A.

YYVr " h>~.lE::llJwsh MARSH, RPRillmB

FRALEY, COOPER & ASSOCIATES

(614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
In Re: Proposed OAC Rules 3745-110-01 through 3745-110-05

Page 1

1

12:21

10:01 1:11 2:2

10:304:17

10:315:2,8

;

j

I

I

!

,

1

!

3

2 i

20071:11 2:1,21 I

3:13 5:96:13 I

22nd 6:13 i

•

1

5

SO 1:12

3745-110-01 1:3

2:12

3745-110-051:4

2:12

submitted 3:19 S

Summit 2:16 '1

";

.,

T ;

T 6:1,1 f

taken 1:6,84:19 i

takiog2:8 ;

testify 5:3 j

testimony 3: 18 I;

3:22,25

Tbank2:8 5:6

through 1:42:12 j

time 2:8 3:20 5:2 j

5:3 I

, today2:7,103:13

3:14,18,195:6 I

Town 1:12 I

transcribed 6: 11 I

transcript 1:6 6:8

true 6:8 t

turned 5:5

__--lU~__

unti14:17

want3:~:9 5:4 ~It West 1:12

we'U 5:1,3

wish 3:22,25 !

written 3:4,6,12

3:17,195:5

provide 3:25 4:4

pubUc 1:9 2:5,6

2:24

purpose 2:9

questions 4:5,6

same 3:18

Sarah 4:13

see4:17

Session 2:1

sheet 3:24

slgn3:9

signed 3:23

Sixth 1:13

source 2:20

sources 2: 18

speakers 4:1

specifically 2: 14

SS6:3

State 1:10 6:3

statements 3:19

statewide 2: 19

stationary 2:18

stenographic

6:11

stenotype 6: 11

Street 1:13

R6:1

RE 1:3

receive 3:17

received 3:6,12

Recess 4:19

record 3:7,11,17

3:214:4,7,17

5:2

regarding 2:11

registered 1:94:9

6:6

registration 3:24

regulate 2: 17

remlnd5:4

reported 6:10

Reporter 1:9 6:7

representatives

4:2

represented 3:4

review 2:23,24

Room 1:13

RPR6:15

Rule 2:23

rules 1:3 2:11,12

2:19,22,233:5

S

R

o

moderate 2: 13

modified 2:20

Morniog2:1

must 3:12

part 3:6,21

pass 3:254:10,12

4:15

permit 2:20 3:20

person 2:10

persons 3:3

Pollution 3:1

Portage 2:16

possible 4:7

present 3:4,22

presiding 2:6

proceedings 1:6

6:9

Professional 1:9

6:6

proposed 1:3

2:11,11 3:5

Protection 1:1,8

1:126:10

o

P

N

name 2:4 3:24

names 4:8

new2:11,193:5

nobody 5:3

nonattainment

2:13

Notary 1:9

notes 6:11

Nox2:17

OAC 1:32:12

obtain 2:10

obtained 2:25

off4:17

offer 4:3

Office 2:25

Officer 1:7 2:4

4:13,165:1

official 3:7,11,21

4:4

Ohio 1:1,7,10,12

1:142:5,9,11

2:243:1,8,12

4:2,2 6:3,9

Okay 4:16

opportunity 4:3

oral 3:4,6,18,22

order 3:23

over 2:6

M

L

G

made 3:8

manager 2:5

Margaret 1:8 6:6

6:15

Marsh 1:86:6,15

Mary 1:62:4

matter 6:9

may 2:253:14

4:5

McCarron 1:7

2:4,54:13,16

5:1

Medina 2:15

metropolitan

2:14

Geauga2:15

given 3:18

go 3:25 4:8,10,16

5:1,4

Greg 4:11

Included 3:11

insta112:20

Interest 2:6

interested 2: 10

3:3

involvement 2:5

issued 2:20

I

J

H

Harness 2:25

3:14

Harrigan 4:14,15

he~n&i~:7 2:~,7

2.9,9 £\1..1 4.13

4:16,1 5:1,4,9

bearings :2,3

Hello 3:.'

H-A-R-N-E-S-S

3:15

January 2:21

Joint 2:22

June 1:11 2:1

3:13 5:8 6:13

just 3:10

Lake 2:15

late 4:17

located 2: 13

Lorain 2:15

DATED 6:13

day 1:11 5:66:13

decision 3:8

director 3:7

Division 3:1

during 4:2

F6:1

med2:223:14

final3:8

Floor 1:13

folks 3:23 4:8 5:4

foregoing 6:7

Fouche 4:11,12

FRANKLIN 6:4

Friday 2:15:8

from 2: 10,17

6:11

F

E6:I,1

eight 2: 13

emissions 2: 17

end 5:5

ensure 4:6

entitied 3:3

Environmental

1:1,7,126:10

EPA 2:93:8,12

4:2,2

EPA's 2:6,11,24

3:1

existing 2: 18

e-mailed 3:14

E

4:45:5

Committee 2:23

complete 6:8

concerning 3:5

concluded 5:9

Conference I: 13

consideration

3:18

considered 3:7

3:20

contacting 2:25

Control3:1

Copies 2:23

correct 6:8

counties 2:13,16

COUNTY 6:4

cross-examinat..•

4:1

Cuyahoga 2: 15

D

able 4:5

accurate 4:7

addition 2:19

after 2:203:19

agaio4:9

Agency 1:1,8,12

2:236:10

ahead 3:254:8

4:105:1,4

Air 3:1

Alan 2:25 3:14

alan.hamesS@•••

3:16

aod!or3:4

answer 4:5

anybody 4: 17

apply 2:12,19

area 2:14

arriva14: 18

arrived 5:3

Ashtabula 2: 15

attend 2:8 3:3

available 2:24

A-L-A-N 3: 15

a.m 1:11 2:25:2

5:8

C

A

B

back 5:2

before 1:1,6,8 2:9

3:8 6:9

began 3:10

business 3:13

C 6:1,1

ea1l3:244:8

caUing3:23

Center 2:6

Central 2:24

certify 6:7

circumstances

3:20

citizens 4:3

clarifying 4:6

Cleveland!Akron

2:14

close 3:13 5:4

Columbus 1:13

combustion 2: 18

coming 5:6

commencing 1:10

comment 4: 10

conunenter 4:6

comments 2: 10

3:5,6,12,13,17

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
82:13:13 5:8

8th 1:11

In Re: Proposed OAe Rules 3745-110-01 through 3745-110-05

Page 2

"

j ••• '2,:.IlO ~~LT.~;·...:xnl~. !I

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
Article VI

Response to Comments

AlA J l
Division of Air Pollution Control

Chapter 3:r45-110 (NOx RACT) Interested Parties Rule Package

Summary of Responses

Commenters

1 The Medical Center Company

2 Sunoco Inc. Toledo Refinery

3 Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

4 The Ohio Steel Group

5 The Ohio Environmental Council

6 The Ohio Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of

Commerce, and The Ohio Manufacturers' Association.

Chester Willcox &Saxbe LLP on behalf of its clients, the -

7 Shelly Company, Shelly Materials and Allied Corporation

(collectively "Shelly").

Chester Willcox & Saxbe LLP on behalf of its clients,

8 American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. ("AMP-Ohio") and

AMP-Ohio's affected member communities and projects.

9 First Energy

10 Cleveland Thermal, LLC
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 2

1. Commenter: The Medical Center Company, 2250 Circle drive, Cleveland,

Ohio

The Medical Center Company (MCCo) operates two (2) mid-size and two (2)

large natural gas-only wall-fired boilers. These boilers employ 10w-NOx burners

and have existing permit conditions that limit the NOx emission rate to 0.0375

Ib/mmBtu. These boilers currently meet the proposed NOx RACT emission Imit

of 0.10 Ib/mmBtu for gas-only wall-fired boilers.

MCCo also operates two (2) large, 140 mmBtu/hr coal-fired stoker boilers. The

applicable emission limit contained in the draft NOx RACT rules for these units is

0.15 Ib/mm.Btu and the presumptive control technology to achieve this emission

limit is Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). The Medical Center Company

believes that the applicable emission limit and the presumptive application of

SCR is an inappropriate definition of RACT for these two coal-fired boilers for the

following reasons:

Whereas, the optimal temperature range for SCR operation is 675-840 degrees F

and the minimum operating temperature is 450 degrees F, the normal operating

temperature at the coal-fired boilers' outlet is 500-625 degrees F and the flue gas

temperature at the economizer outlets is reduced by yet another 150 degrees F.

The resulting flue gas temperature of 350-475 degrees F makes the performance

of an SCR system questionable. MCCo is currently in the process of installing

Duct Sorbent Injection (OSI) to control HCI and mercury emissions in order to

comply with the applicable 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart 00000 MACT emission

limits. This control technology must be installed upstream of the existing

baghouse and requires that the flue gas be cooled to approximately 300 degrees

F to provide effective reduction of HCI and mercury emissions. MCCo could not

install retrofit SCR control technology at either the economizer outlet or the

baghouse outlet without also installing natural gas-fired duct burners or air

preheaters to raise the flue gas temperature to the acceptable operating range

for SCR. Installation of an SCR system upstream of the OSI system might

reduce requirements for flue gas pre-heating but the high-dust environment at

that location may lead to increased catalyst plugging and associated SCR

malfunction/downtime.

MCCo burns medium to high-sulfur Ohio coal. It has been shown that higher

S02 concentrations in flue gas typically require higher minimum operating

temperatures for SCR systems, since lower temperatures will lead to the

formation of ammonium sulfate salts in the catalyst bed and reduce control

efficiency.

MCCo's stoker boilers are load-following units that experience dynamic load

swings during the course of operation. These boilers are operated differently

than large utility units or even smaller industrial units that employ SCR controls
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 3

under base-load conditions. It is reasonable to expect that SCR controls on a

load-following boiler may produce a higher incidence of ammonia slip than is

experienced with base-load units. This is a particular concern at the MCCo

where the distance from our stack to sensitive receptors is very short.

SCR control systems require storage and handling of large quantities of

anhydrous or aqueous ammonia or urea. The MCCo plant site does not have the

space required for installation of the less hazardous urea system. Although

section 112(R) of the Clean Air Act requires risk management planning for

storage and handling activities involving hazardous chemicals over a certain

threshold volume, MCCo believes that storage and handling of large quantities of

highly toxic ammonia on a densely populated college campus and adjacent to a

large, high-traffic hospital complex poses significant technical problems.

The MCCo Steam Plant is bordered on all sides by heavily-traveled urban streets

and driveways. Due to site property constraints, an SCR system would likely

necessitate installation on the roof of the existing plant. This would entail

significant additional expense for structural steel supports and associated

construction activities which may not be included in Ohio EPA's retrofit cost

factor. The technical feasibility of construction is a legitimate concern for an SCR

retrofit project at this location.

The coal-fired boilers at the MCCo are nearly forty years old. The costeffectiveness associated with the addition of an SCR control system on these

units must consider the relatively short remaining useful life of the units. Ohio

EPA should not impose NOx RACT requirements on units which have a limited

remaining life. A provision should be included in the rules to allow any unit that

will be shut down by a certain date to be exempted from the RACT requirements.

MCCo urges Ohio EPA to develop a NOx RACT control strategy for the

Cleveland area which takes into account the actual impact sources have on

ozone formation. The cost effectiveness of controls based on a unit's capacity

factor during the ozone season should be considered. MCCo's coal-fired boilers

operate at a high capacity factor only during the winter months. This is typical of

many industrial, commercial and institutional boilers that produce steam primarily

for space heating. By contrast, during the period from May 1 - September 30

when the contribution of NOx emissions to ozone formation is of primary

concern, MCCo's coal-fired boilers typically are operated at less than 50%

capacity factor. Both coal-fired boilers at the MCCo are normally off-line for a full

month during the summer for routine annual maintenance. The limited use of

these boilers during the summer months further reduces the cost-effectiveness of

a retrofit SCR control strategy.

MCCo believes that the final rule adopted by Ohio EPA should include provisions

for demonstrating compliance with the RACT emissions limits on a plant-wide

average basis during the period such limits are needed as part of the overall

ozone control strategy. The final rules should include a specific authorization to

establish a NOx RACT PAL (plant-wide applicable limit) that is only applicable
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 4

during the summer ozone season.

In conclusion, MCCo does not feel that Ohio EPA was able to consider during the

development of the draft NOx RACT rules the significant balance-of-plant

requirements that would be involved in an SCR retrofit at the MCCo Steam Plant.

The existing duct work would need to undergo major modification to carry flue

gas to an SCR located on the roof and then back to the existing baghouse

located adjacent to the coal-fired boilers. MCCo would be required to install

natural gas duct burner(s) and/or air preheaters to achieve minimum operating

temperatures for the system, adding significant capital and operating cost to the

project. MCCo would also be required to install one or more new ID fans to

account for the additional pressure drop across the SCR reactor and significantly

longer duct run.

For the reasons presented above, the Medical Center Company believes that the

proposed RACT emission limit of 0.15 Ib/mmBtu and presumptive control using

SCR is inappropriate for the MCCo Steam Plant. MCCo appreciates the

opportunity to comment on the draft NOx RACT rules and would be pleased to

provide any additional information that Ohio EPA may find useful. Please contact

me at 216-368-4256 (ext.15) if you have any questions regarding these

comments.

Ohio EPA Response:

The presumptive NOx emission control of employing an SCR is just an example

ofa emission control methodology that may be used. Any NOx emission control

or combination of controls may be employed to achieve the applicable NOx

emission limitation. Ohio EPA also realizes that the initial NOx emission

standards, while restrictive, are achievable. Certainly older emission units cannot

achieve the same level ofperformance that new emission units can achieve.

To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some of the presumptive NOx emission limits

for boilers and combustion turbines to a figure that is more representative of a

RACT standard. In addition, emissions averaging will be included in the revised

version of this rule as an option for compliance with the presumptive NOx

emission limits.

In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there may be technical and economic

feasibility issues with some ofthese units. In accordance with proposed OAC

rule 3745-110-03(H), an affected facility will have the option of conducting a

RACT study to determine if the applicable limit is technically feasible and/or

economically unreasonable (i.e., not cost effective).
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

2. Commenter: Sunoco Inc. Toledo Refinery

Comment

5

Applicability of Rule to All Affected Sources in Ohio Under Proposed OAC

3745- 10-02.

Sunoco does not believe this rule should be applied to all new affected sources in

Ohio, regardless of location. Since this rule is being specifically implemented in

order to bring the Cleveland/Akron moderate ozone nonattainment area into

attainment, Sunoco believes the requirements should be limited to only sources

located in the nonattainment area. As a practical matter, new/modified sources

will be required to meet the applicable NSPS and/or BAT stanqard for the

affected category anyway, so S'unoco feels this additional requirement is

redundant and is not protective of human health and the environment. Rather, it

is just duplicate regulation for no additional protection.

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA believes that any new source operating in the state of Ohio should

meet, at a minimum, the applicable NOx emission standards as required by

existing sources operating in the 8-county non-attainment area.

Comment

CO boilers should be excluded under proposed OAC rule 3745-110-

03(1).

Under proposed OAC 3745-110-03(1), Ohio EPA has ,listed sources where the

requirements of OAC 3745-110 do not apply. Sunoco believes CO boilers

should be added to the list. In the past, Ohio EPA has recognized that CO

boilers are not like ordinary industrial boilers is that the primary purpose is to

combust CO gas produced in FCC regenerators, as opposed to only producing

process steam. For that reason, Ohio EPA has specifically excluded CO boilers

from regulation under the NOx Budget Program found at OAC 3745-14. Sunoco

recommends that Ohio EPA simply exclude CO boilers from this rule as well. As

an alternative to listing CO boilers as an exemption under OAC 3745-110-03(1),

Ohio EPA could exclude CO boilers from the definition of "industrial boiler" found

in proposed OAC 3745-110-01(B)(15).

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA agrees. OAC rule 3745-110-03(1) will be amended to include CO

boilers.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

3. Commenter: Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

Comment:

3745-110-01 :

6

(8)(1): Honda wonders if it would be easier to remove the following "definitional"

language from 110-02(A)(1 )(b) and (A)(2)(b) and simply include it in the definition

of "affected facility":

"a facility that emits or has the potential to emit a total of more than 100 TPY of

NOx from all sources at the faci,lity, including all sources that are exempt under

3745-110-03 of the Administrative Code."

(8)(2): There is no "paragraph (K)" in 110-03.

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA acknowledges Honda's initial comment; however, the Ohio EPA

will maintain the current language as written.

Reference to paragraphs (J) and (K) will be corrected to reflect paragraphs (I)

and (J) respectively.

Comment:

3745-110-02:

(A): Revise and add: "Unless exempted in paragraph I of this Rule, the

requirements of this chapter shall apply ...

(A)(1 )(b): For clarity's sake, Honda recommends the paragraph be reconfigured

as follows:

(a) ... ; and

(i) The stationary source is ... internal combustion engines; or

(ii) The source is located at an affected facility.

(A)(2): For clarity's sake, Honda recommends the paragraph be reconfigured as

follows:

(a) The source is a new or modified source for which a PTI is obtained after
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

1/1/07; and

(i) The stationary source is ... internal combustion engines; or

(ii) The source is located at an affected facility.

Ohio EPA Response:

7

The Ohio EPA will make the suggested amendment ofincluding the phrase

"Unless exempted in paragraph J of this rulen

. Paragraph "In will be cited in lieu

ofparagraph "I" due to other revisions to the proposed rule that subsequently

required renumbering. The Ohio EPA acknowledges the remaining suggestions,

but will keep the .curren( language in th,e propose.d rules as written.

Comment:

3745-110-03:

(B): There are no "paragraphs (J) and (K)" in 110-03.

Ohio EPA Response:

Agree. Reference to paragraphs (J) and (K) will be corrected.

4. Commenter: The Ohio Steel Group

Comment

The Proposed Rule Does Not Account for Boilers That Burn Multiple Fuels.

The proposed rule establishes boiler emissions limits that depend on the type of fuel

burned. Specifically, it establishes categories for boilers that burn "Gas Only,"

"Distillate Oil," "Residual Oil" and "Coal" and sets varied limits accordingly. While

these limits may be clear when applied to boilers that burn only one fuel, they are

inadequate in more complex operational scenarios. Many industrial boilers burn one

primary fuel type, but use another in response to availability, cost and process

needs. For example, a boiler might primarily bum distillate oil, but rely on coal when

oil supplies run low (or vice versa). Under the current standards, it would be difficult

to identify the proper standard since both the 0.12 Ib/MMBtu standard for "distillate

oil" and the 0.15 Ib/MMBtu standard for "coal" appear to be applicable.

Nor can this problem be solved by deeming each standard to apply when its

respective fuel-type is in use. Many boilers fire mixed fuels to achieve desired

operating results. For example, a boiler might fire a combination of fuel types in

different amounts. The proposed rule cannot be cleanly applied to such real-world
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 8

operations. Perhaps the most significant problems would arise when conducting

performance testing to confirm compliance. The proposed rule simply provides that

owners "shall demonstrate compliance" "by performing emissions tests...." OAG §

3745-1 0-05(A)(1). If varied operating modes exist, the parameters for such tests are

unclear. For example, what fuel mix would be used during the test runs? What

compliance standard would apply?

The most efficient solution is to simplify the proposed emissions limits into one,

unified standard. The Ohio Steel Group proposes a uniform emissions standard of

0.15 Ib/MMBtu for all boilers regardless of fuel type used. This approach is

consistent with the acknowledgement in OAG § 3745-11 0-03(H)(1 )(h)(xvi) that "fuel

switching" is an appropriate RAGT alternative. As the rules now stand, they strongly

discourage switching to lower NOx fuels because such changes would trigger more

stringent limitations and, therefore, functionally discourage fuel-switching as a

compliance option. For example, operators would have no incentive to switch from

burning residual oil to distillate oil because the applicable limit would decrease,

offsetting any regulatory benefit for the NOx reductions achieved. In contrast, a

uniform 0.15 Ib/MMBtu standard for all boilers will enable entities to make

economically prudent fuel switching decisions as part of their NOx RAGT

compliance strategy. Steel mills would be encouraged to maximize use of blast

furnace gas, which contains little or no nitrogen, and thus result in lower NOx

emissions as a way to achieve compliance.

Further, the rule should be clarified to confirm that performance testing will be

conducted under conditions and using a fuel mix that is representative of the "most

typical operating mode." Sources should not be required to conduct tests with

alternate fuels that are not currently used and where no immediate plans for such

use exist. This approach will ensure that test results better replicate real-world

conditions and more accurately assess compliance.

Ohio EPA Response:

Ohio EPA acknowledges that a boilermay use multiple fuels and/ormixed fuels (i.e.,

oil and coal) during its operation. The propose rule specifies a presumptive NOx

emission limitation for a given fuel type and boilertype. In cases where mixed fuels

are employed the NOx emission limit for the least stringent fuel within the mix would

apply.

In addition, revisions to OAG rule 3745-110-05 (compliance methods) have been

revised to more clearly specify the conditions for compliance demonstrations.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

COMMENT

9

SOURCES WITH MULTIPLE RACT UNITS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AVERAGE

EMISSIONS.

Ohio EPA should provide the maximum degree of flexibility to owners who must

meet NOx RACT obligations for multiple units. One valuable tool is emissions

averaging, which promises to retain the full environmental benefit of the proposed

rule while reducing compliance costs. Essentially, averaging allows large facilities to

substantially reduce emissions at one, or a few, sources rather than making smaller

changes at many sources. For example, one SCR project - although not

economically viable as RACT - might be an efficient way to achieve emissions

reductions sufficient to offset the application of RACT controls at several sources.

The adoption of similar approaches in recent federal regulations (e.g., the Boiler

MACT rules) confirms that emissions averaging will not erode the environmental

benefit of the proposed rule. Rather, facilities with multiple NOx RACT sources

would emit (at most) the same amount of NOx that is permissible under their

individual RACT limits. The only distinction is that the individual sources would be

able to internally allocate NOx emission reductions in a more cost-effective manner.

Such an averaging program can be efficiently implemented by multiplying the NOx

RACT emissions limit for each source by source heat input and then dividing by total

heat input to establish a facility-wide average RACT emissions limit. For example,

assume a facility with the following three sources:

Source RACT Limit MMBtu I hr

Distillate Oil 0.12 250 Boiler

Coal Boiler

0.15 300

Reheat 0.14 (from RACT

Furnace Engineering 550

Study)

The net average NOx emissions rate for these sources would be calculated as

follows:

(0.12 * 250) + (0.15 * 300) + (0.14 * 550) = 0.1321bl MMBtu

1100

The facility could then measure compliance by conducting a performance test of

each of the three sources and using an identical calculation to confirm that net

average emissions remain below that ratio.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

Ohio EPA Response:

10

Ohio EPA agrees. The proposed NOx RACT rules have been revised to include a

NOx emissions averaging plan.

COMMENT

NOx LIMITS SHOULD ONLY ApPLY DURING THE OZONE SEASON

The emissions limits established in the proposed rule should only apply during the

ozone season. Multiple other regulatory programs (e.g. NOx SIP call, CAIR Ozone

Season) recognize that ozone formation requires the presence of sunlight and heat

at levels that only exist during the period between May 1st and September 30th .

There is no legal or practical justification for ozone nonattainment NOx regulation at

other times of the year, and no reason to require that sources meet year-round limits

under this program.

Ohio EPA Response:

The NOx RACT rules are intended to apply year round (annually). This is needed

not only to reduce ozone formation, but aid in reducing particulate matter with a

diameter of 2.5 microns and less (i.e., PM 2.5 emissions).

COMMENT

RACT ENGINEERING STUDY REFINEMENTS.

Ohio Steel Group strongly supports Ohio EPA's decision to permit owners to

conduct a RACT engineering study where the owner believes that existing limits are

either infeasible or economically unreasonable. OAC § 3745-11 0-03(H). This

provision properly recognizes the potential for operational differences within similar

categories of sources.

While the option to conduct a RACT engineering study option is beneficial, the

proposed engineering study process still requires refinement. As currently written,

sources must prepare "a detailed discussion of the technical feasibility of employing

each" of nineteen alternate RACT control measures. Only those measures that are

expressly "not applicable" are excluded. This approach would greatly slow the

ability to prepare RACT studies and would impose significant, analytical costs.

Instead of being able to focus on the measures most likely to cause significant, costeffective emissions reductions, sources will also be required to divert resources to

analyze measures that are technically "applicable" but either plainly insufficient or

inefficient. To resolve this problem, Ohio Steel Group proposes a "preliminary

ranking" of potential RACT control measures followed by a "detailed" feasibility
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 11

discussion of the five most promising alternatives. Those alternatives deemed

"feasible" after such study would then be assessed for control efficiency and costeffectiveness. Adoption of this narrower approach would allow operators to better

focus on realistic alternatives while accelerating the RAGT study process.

Additionally, the proposed rule should allow sources to assess RAGT control

measures that are not on the current list. Operators of complex facilities typically

have substantial expertise that may lead to new potential control options or unique

adaptations of existing options. Where such alternatives exist, it would be

counterproductive to limit RAGT assessment to a closed list. The rule should be

flexible enough to take advantage of the regulated community's expertise by

allowing the assessment of "such other RAGT alternatives as are proposed by the

owner or operator."

Finally, the emissions data requirements in OAG § 3745-11 0-03(H)(1 )(g) require

both clarification and adjustment. As an initial matter, it is unclear what data is

requested. For instance, subsection (g)(1) requests: "Average daily NOx emissions

(pounds per day of operation) based upon the highest average daily production rate

for each of the three full calendar years preceding the effective date ofthis rule...."

It is unclear whether this rule requires: (1) the submission of one daily average

number based upon 1095 days of operation, (2) the submission of three one-day

averages based on independent 365-day periods, or (3) the submission of a single

peak NOx emissions estimate based on the single day of "highest" "production rate

during the past three years." Also, the phrase "highest average daily production

rate" is ambiguous since averages constitute a combination of both high and low

production periods. We suggest the inclusion of model submissions for each

subsection of OAG § 3745-11 0-03(H)(1 )(g) to avoid confusion.

Presuming appropriate clarification, the emissions measures chosen are still

inappropriate for application to steel mills. Each measure is derived from either .

"daily production rate" or "annual production rate." However, NOx emissions are

only indirectly related to steel production. In most instances, NOx emissions are

much more closely linked to fuel use; this is particularly true when multiple fuels may

be used at a single unit. While steel production and fuel use are positively

correlated, they are not inseparable. Mills strive to use consistently less fuel while

more efficiently producing ever-larger amounts of steel. As a result, any

extrapolation of historic production data to current, more efficient operations

promises to overestimate NOx emissions. This bias can be dramatically reduced by

linking the emissions data submissions to the much more direct NOx surrogate of

actual fuel use.

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA agrees that the RACTstudy requirement should be flexible to allow

"such other RACTstudies as are proposed by the owner or operator" and, as such,
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

will revise the proposed rule to include this option.

12

As for the proposal to develop a preliminary ranking of potential RACT control

altematives (i.e., the five most promising alternatives), the Ohio EPA feels the

parameters as specified in the proposed rule language are needed in order to fulfill

the NOx RACT study.

Regarding clarification for the emissions data required in OAC rule 3745-110-

03(1)(1)(g) (i.e., the average daily NOx emissions, in Ibs/day). This section of the

rule requests the average daily NOx emissions for a particular calendar year and,

what the maximum NOx emissions were for a single day ofthat same calendaryear.

This information is needed for a 3-year period.

COMMENT

EXPANSION OF THE 25 TPY EXCLUSION.

While the exemption of small sources is critical to successful implementation of this

rule, the proposed exclusion threshold is too stringent to strike an efficient balance.

The proposed rule exempts "any source other than an asphalt plant, boiler, gas

turbine or internal combustion engine that has the potential to emit less than twentyfive tons per year of NOx." OAe § 3745-110-03(1)(14). Two revisions are

warranted. First, the exclusion should be linked to actual, rather than potential,

emissions in order to prevent uneven results and unnecessary administrative

expense. Many sources have the potential to emit greater than 25 tons per year of

NOx, but have never and will never approach that potential. For example, batch

processing operations may emit relatively high levels of NOx for a short period, but

remain unable to sustain those levels because downtime between batches is

necessary. For purposes of "potential to emit" calculations, facilities should not be

required to use the default assumption of 8760 hours/year when that assumption is

unrealistic. Using the proposed standard, some sources that actually emit relatively

little NOx would be needlessly scrutinized while others with much greater actual

emissions would not. Tying the exemption to actual emissions will eliminate the

need to assess and install costly controls at sources with nominal emissions while

establishing a clear link between real-world emissions and regulatory scrutiny.1

Second, regardless ofwhether the exemption is driven by potential to emit or actual

emissions, there is no reason to automatically prevent "asphalt plants, boilers, gas

turbines or internal combustion engines" from qualifying. The 25 TPY threshold

exemption should be an exemption without any limit based on type of source. The

NOx emitted from the specified sources is no different than NOx emitted from other

I Alternately, ifthe potential to emit metric is retained, then a significantly higher limit should be adopted to lessen

the administrative burden of compliance and prevent the rule from applying to sources that only emit trivial amounts

ofNOx.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 13

sources, and will have no different environmental impact. Rather, the establishment

of a threshold exemption for NOx RACT controls reflects the practical conclusion

that sources with emissions below a certain magnitude do not warrant the effort and

expense of RACT controls. This rationale is equally applicable for all source types

and should be consistently applied whether or not a source fits within "asphalt

plants, boilers, gas turbines or internal combustion engines."

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA recognizes there are emissions units that posses certain "physical"

limitations where the assumption of applying 8,760 hours/year for determining

potential to emit would not apply. The proposed NOx RACT rules are intended to

regulate major sources of NOx emissions (i.e., boilers, stationary intemal

combustion engines, and stationary combustion turbines). The Ohio EPA

recognizes emissions ofNOx from small sources, but their contribution to the overall

reduction ofNOx emissions would be minimal, and NOx emission controls for these

small sources are not considered to be cost effective to warrant their regulation.

COMMENT

TIMING CONCERNS.

Ohio Steel Group members are extremely concerned about the timeframes

proposed in the draft rule. Section 3745-11 0-05(A)(1) would require either

certification of compliance or application for a permit modification "by not later than

December 1, 2006...." Even if this rule were finalized today, that would leave

insufficient time for large, complex facilities (like steel mills) to: (1) make the

threshold determination of whether each source is subject to NOx RACT

requirements, (2) establish a NOx emissions profile comparing emissions to

proposed RACT obligations, and (3) develop the requisite ."program" to "bring [each]

source into compliance." Complex sources need one year for an appropriate

analysis threshold, the preparation of amendment applications and the submission

of compliance programs. Accordingly, we request that this section be changed to

require certification or submission "by no laterthan twelve months afterthe effective

date of this rule For complex sources with multiple RACT-affected units"

Also, six months is insufficient to allow for the submission of "complete RACT

engineering studies" pursuant to Section 3745-110-04(A)(2). That deadline is

particularly problematic for large sources where multiple units are likely to trigger

RACT study obligations. The proposed rule recognizes the need for additional time

and permits the Director to establish alternate schedules on a case-by-case basis.

While that flexibility is important and should remain available, without further revision

the proposed rule will guarantee needless administrative effort as every complex

source seeks an individual extension. To prevent the inevitable flood of extension

requests, the Ohio Steel Group proposes that the rule provide an automatic six-
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 14

month extension to any source with more than one unit subject to the RACT

engineering study requirement.

The timing provision in OAC § 3745-11 0-04(A)(1)(b) is circular. It requires that

applications for permit amendments be submitted "as expeditiously as practicable,

but in no event later than the date specified in paragraph (A)(1)(b) of this rule." In

other words, the provision cross-references itself for the relevant deadline, and

never sets a final compliance date.

Finally, similar to existing MACT and Title V obligations, the proposed rule should

allow compliance testing to be scheduled within six months after the final

compliance date to install control equipment. This additional period is necessary to

properly schedule stack testing events for sources with multiple NOx RACT units.

Ohio EPA Response:

Regarding the proposed certification for compliance date ofDecember 1, 2006, the

Ohio EPA agrees this date is to early considering the current draft stage of the

proposed rule. Thus, Ohio EPA will revise the compliance certification date to

January 1, 2008.

With regard to the request for a "six-month extension"to any source with more than

one unit subject to a RAGT study, the Ohio EPA feels the proposed six month time

period is sufficient to complete a RAGT study for multiple units.

With regard to proposed OAG rule 3745-110-04, the citation will be corrected to

reference OAG rule 3745-110-04(8) and not (A)(1)(b).

With regard for "compliance testing to be scheduled with six months after the final

compliance date" a facility will have the next two years to (assuming the NOx RAGT

rules are issued final by May 1, 2007) to install any necessary control equipment

and schedule stack testing for emission sources.

COMMENT

RACT CANNOT ApPLY BEYOND THE DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT AREA.

The Ohio Steel Group seeks clarification that the proposed rule is not intended to

apply beyond the eight-county Cleveland-Akron nonattainment area. Section 3745-

110-02(A)(1) clearly applies only to sources within the nonattainment counties.

However, Section 3745-11 0-02(A)(2) does not contain an express geographic

restriction and suggests applicability "for any new or modified source issued a

Permit to Install after January 1,2007." The Clean Air Act directly links the use of

RACT controls to nonattainment areas (see CM § 172(c)(1», and does not grant

the authority to establish RACT controls beyond such areas. The expansion of this
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 15

nonattainment-area rule from eight to eighty-eight counties would also cause

substantial administrative, implementation and budgeting problems for Ohio EPA,

which would only be exacerbated by the very short timeframes proposed. Similarly,

sources statewide would suffer from assessment and control costs that bear no

direct link to achieving attainment status in northeast Ohio. To ensure compliance

with the Clean Air Act and to avoid imposing unwarranted costs and administrative

burdens, an express geographic limit should be inserted into Section 3745-110-

02(A)(2).

Ohio EPA Response:

The proposed rule is intended to establish RACT for existing sources in the eightcounty Cleveland-Akron non-attainment area and statewide for all new sources.

Any n"ew or modified source should be able to meet, at a minimum, the same

performance levels as an existing emission source. Also, statewide applicability is

needed to establish a floor for best available technology (BAT) pursuant to Senate

Bil/265.

COMMENT

REQUEST FOR MODELING AND COST INFORMATION

The Ohio Steel Group requests that Ohio EPA disclose: (1) any assessment ofwhat

it believes to constitute the threshold for "cost-effective" NOx reductions in RACT

decision-making, and (2) all modeling used to evaluate the anticipated ozone-level

impacts of the proposed rule. The information made available to date indicates that

only minimal ambient ozone reductions will occur, which reductions appear

insufficient to justify the imposition of any substantial cost in installing RACT

controls. The requested information will allow the regulated community to further

assess whether any RACT control can be deemed "cost-effective" in the existing

environmental context.

Ohio EPA Response:

Employment of "reasonably available control technology" (RACT) is required by

the Clean AirAct (CAA) for areas classified as non-attainment for the eight-hour

ozone standard. As such, Ohio EPA is drafting rules to regulate major stationary

sources ofNOx emissions. The Ohio EPA researched several technical

documents, including Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) white

papers and best available retrofit technology (BART) engineering analysis in

determining feasibility ofNOx emission controls and their associated costeffectiveness values. These documents are public records for your viewing and,

in addition, are available via the World Wide Web.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

5. Commenter: The Ohio Environmental Council

COMMENT

§3745-110-03

16

OEC recognizes a possible typographical error in paragraphs (B), (C), and (D)

that refer to paragraphs (J) and (K) of the rule. The rule package obtained

through the Agency website does not contain a paragraph (K) nor (J) for this rule

or any other rule under the proposed chapter.

OEC supports the requirement in paragraph (H) that provides that operators who

claim the controls are not applicable or feasible must provide d~tailed RACT

studies. However, there is issue with the fact that determination of whether a

source would then qualify after such demonstration is left to the discretion of the

Director. Will this be in the Director's complete discretion or will there be

guidance documents available as to the analysis of this decision.

With concern to paragraph (H)(3) when a definition of RACT for a source is

approved and is therefore no longer subject to the emissions limits of 3745-110-

03, when will such a definition be presented in some fashion to the public or

interested parties? Would this occur before presentation to USEPA?

Also, as for the list of sources in paragraph (I) that these rules do not apply, will

there be rules for such sources, or if not, what is the justification for the

exemption.

Generally speaking, OEC would also recommend providing language stating that

if an owner/operator violates any part of this rule, that the enforcement provisions

under Ohio Revised Code §3704.06 apply and shall be enforced.

Ohio EPA Response:

Regarding reference to paragraphs (J) and (K) the Ohio EPA agrees. Reference

to paragraphs (J) and (K) will be corrected to reflect paragraphs (I) and (J)

respectively.

Approval ofRAGT studies will be at the Director's discretion and involve

evaluating the RAGT application for completeness and technical adequacy. Final

analysis will be based on sound engineering judgment.

Any approval of a RAGT study by Ohio EPA will be submitted to U.S. EPA as a

revision to the current SIP. If approved by U.S. EPA, then the revision will be

incorporated (as a draft action) into the Federal Registrar for public comment.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 17

The proposed NOx RAGT rules are intended to target major sources ofNOx

emissions. Those NOx emission sources that are exempt from the proposed

NOx RAGT rules consist of smaller NOx emitters and any add-on emission

controls would not be cost-effective.

COMMENT

§3745-110-05

OEC would like clarification of whether the compliance demonstration documents

under this section will be made available for the community.

Ohio EPA Response:

Yes. This documentation is a public record that can be requested from the

Agency's legal section.

6. Commenter: The Ohio Chemistry Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber

of Commerce, and The Ohio Manufacturers' Association

COMMENT

Need for Operational Flexibility

The NOx RACT rules, as proposed, will affect a large segment of Ohio industry.

As a result, it is vital that the rules provide operational flexibility and that they do

not unreasonably seek to impose one-size-fits-all requirements on the diverse

array of sources that will be subject to these rules.

RACT is not defined in the Ohio Air Pollution Control Act or in Ohio's

Administrative Code. US EPA defines RACT in 40 CFR 51.100(0) as:

devices, systems, process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques

that are reasonably available taking into account:

(1) The necessity of imposing such controls in order to attain and

maintain a national ambient air quality standard;

(2) The social, environmental, and economic impact of such

controls; and

(3) Alternative means of providing for attainment and maintenance

of such standard. (This provision defines RACT for the purposes of
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 18

§ 51.341(b) only.) [40 CFR 51.341(b) addresses requests for 18-

month extensions, which must show that attainment of the

secondary standards will require emission reductions exceeding

those which can be achieved through the application of reasonably

available control technology.]

There is nothing in the definition of RACT that precludes a flexible, multi-unit

approach to establishing RACT. Such an approach would be consistent with the

intent of the federal Clean Air Act and the amendments to Ohio's Air Pollution

Control Act made by Sub. S.B. 153 (1993), which encourage operational

flexibility and economic efficiency in achieving air quality goals. See, e.g., ORC §

3704.03(V)(giving the Director authority to "provide for emissions trading,

marketable permits, auctions of emission rights, and economic incentives that

would reduce the cost or increase the efficiency of achieving a specified level of

environmental protection."); see also ORC § 3704.036(H) and (K) and ORC §

3704.18.

Source owner/operators should be provided the option of achieving targeted NOx

RACT emission reductions in the most cost-effective manner, such as averaging

of NOx emissions from two or more emission units at a facility, rather than being

required to meet unit-by-unit control obligations when equivalent emission

reductions can be achieved at a lower cost. See, for example, US EPA's

approval of Ohio EPA's multi-unit emissions averaging approach to meet PM

RACT requirements, 48 Fed. Reg. 50530 (Nov. 2,1983).

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA agrees the rules need to be both technically and economically

feasible for the regulated community and should provide operational flexibility in

order to demonstrate compliance with the rules. To this end, the Ohio EPA will

amend the proposed rules, in part, by including an emissions averaging plan as

an option for compliance.

COMMENT

Definitions - OAC 3745-110-01

The definition of "potential to emit" in OAC 3745-110-01 (B)(3) appears to have

been mis-drafted. It states that potential to emit is "the maximum capacity of a

facility or stationary source to emit an organic compound or VOC...." (Emphasis

added). The definition also goes on to reference what limitations can be taken

into account in establishing PTE, noting that federally enforceable and legally and

practically enforceable state limits can be taken into consideration "except as

otherwise provided in rule 3745-21-11." There is no reason for referring to OC or

VOC emissions or OAC Chapter 3745-21 for purposes of a PTE definition for
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 19

NOx RACT rules. We suggest that Ohio EPA replace the references to "OC,"

"VOC," and "OAC Chapter 3745-21" with references to "NOx," as necessary, in

order that this definition make sense as used in proposed OAC Chapter 3745-

110.

Ohio EPA Response

Agree. For the purpose of this proposed rule the definition of"potential to emit"

will be revised to reflect NOx and not VOG.

COMMENT

Applicability - OAC 3745-110-02

The rule synopsis that accompanied this proposal explains that the proposed

rules are intended to "have specific NOx emission limitation for boilers,

combustion turbines, and stationary internal combustion engines. In addition, the

owner/operators of significant sources that are not included in one of the

aforementioned categories will be required to submit a reasonably available

control technology (RACT) study for such sources...." (Emphasis added). Thus,

the synopsis implies that the rule will only apply to boilers and other combustion

sources and to "significant" other sources of NOx. However, the proposed rule

does not define what is a "significant source" that is not a boiler or combustion

source and establishes very broad applicability.

According to OAC 3745-110-02, the proposed rules apply to boilers, combustion

turbines and stationary internal combustion engines, as well as any "source that

is located at a facility that emits or has the potential to emit a total of more than

one hundred tons per year of NOx from all sources at that facility, including all

sources that are exempt under rule 3745-110-03 of the Administrative Code."

Given Ohio's definition of "air contaminant source" which is similar to US EPA's

definition of an "emissions unit" but very dissimilar from US EPA's definition of

"stationary source," and considering the synopsis statement about NOx RACT

applying to "significant sources," it is not entirely clear whether Ohio EPA intends

to regulate all NOx emissions units at facilities with NOx PTE of 100 tons or

more, or whether the intent is to regulate only emissions units that themselves

have the potential to emit more than 100 tons of NOx. Assuming the former,

when the exemptions in OAC 3745-110-03(1) are taken into account, the practical

effect of this rule is that virtually all emissions units with greater than 25 tons per

year of potential NOx emissions are subject to NOx RACT when located at

facilities with the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of NOx.

Commenters question why NOx RACT should apply to a 26 ton NOx emission

unit located at a 100-ton NOx facility, but not to similarly-sized or larger units at

smaller facilities, or to stand-alone units that emit NOx. Also, Commenters

question the rationale for establishing the NOx RACT applicability threshold at 25
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

tons of NOx and not some higher number.

20

In addition, the Commenters question the expansion of NOx RACT requirements

beyond the Cleveland-Akron ozone non-attainment area to all new or modified

sources statewide. New major sources and major modifications will be subject to

best available control technology ("BACT') or lowest achievable emission rate

("LAER") requirements as a result of PSD or nonattainment new source review,

making NOx RACT unnecessary for these sources of primary concern.

In light of the foregoing, Commenters believe that the proposal and the

accompanying synopsis have not demonstrated that Ohio EPA has evaluated

"[t]he necessity of imposing such controls in order to attain and maintain a

national ambient air quality standard;" or "[t]he social, environmental, and

economic impact of such controls," as the definition of RACT requires..

Ohio EPA Response

The proposed NOx RACT rules are intended to target major sources of NOx

emissions. Those NOx emission sources that are exempt from the proposed

NOx RACT rules consist of smaller NOx emitters and any add-on emission

controls for these sources would not be cost-effective.

State-wide applicability for new or modified sources is included because these

sources should be able, at a minimum, meet or exceed the performance

standards expected for existing units.

COMMENT

RACT requirements and emission limits - OAC 3745-110-03

Mid-size. Large and Very Large Boilers

The proposed rule establishes numerical emission limits for five fuels and five

types of mid-size, large and very large boilers, as well as for stationary

combustion turbines and stationary internal combustion engines. The proposed

emission limits for each fuel and boiler type combination are the same for the

mid-size, large and very large boilers. Commenters maintain that it is

unreasonable to subject such different boilers to the same emission limits and

technology requirement. We question the rationale for defining and establishing

separate categories if, ultimately, each category is subject to identical emission

limits.

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA recognizes your concern over the boiler classification format.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 21

However, the agency believes this format to be the appropriate format in drafting

this rule.

COMMENT

Startup, Shutdown. Malfunction and Low Load

Proposed OAC 3745-110-03 establishes emission limits for a variety of source

categories and states that compliance with those emission limits shall be based

on either a periodic, representative one-hour average of three Reference Method

stack test runs or a twenty-four hour calendar day average of CEM data.

However, the proposed emission limits and compliance demonstration methods

fail to give consideration to the inherent variability in NOx emissions, which

depend on a variety of factors, including the conditions under.which an emissions

unit and its associated control equipment operate. An emissions unit that

operates at high load under steady-state conditions will perform differently than a

unit during startup, shutdown, malfunction or low load conditions, or a unit that

experiences frequent load swings. At a minimum, the proposed rules should

exclude periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction or low load from the conditions

under which the NOx RACT emission limits are applicable.

US EPA has previously recognized that it is unreasonable to require compliance

with NOx limits during such periods. In fact, US EPA amended its NSPS

regulations to explicitly preclude applicability during such periods. In so doing,

US EPA stated, "[d]emonstration of compliance during periods of startup and

shutdown is not appropriate when using the short-term 3-hour [stack] test." See

54 Fed. Reg. 51820 (Dec. 18, 1989). The same concerns U.S. EPA has

articulated for startup, shutdown, and malfunction conditions in the context of

periodic Reference Method stack tests apply equally to CEM data, especially

when linked to short compliance averaging times such as 24 hours.

Consequently, we encourage Ohio EPA to expressly exclude periods of startup,

shutdown, malfunction and low load from the circumstances or operating

conditions under which the NOx RACT emission limits are applicable.

Commenters also question the use of a such a short (24-hour calendar day)

averaging period for CEM data compliance evaluations. First, we do not believe

that the proposed rule defines with sufficient clarity how such a 24-hour calendar

day average is to be computed. Second, a 24-hour averaging period is too short

to account for the inherent variability in well-designed and maintained NOx

control equipment. Commenters point out that NOx limits in NSPS rules

applicable to the same source categories as these proposed rules provide for a

30-day rolling average for determining compliance with the NOx emission limits

and encourage Ohio EPA to adopt a similar averaging time for use of CEMs.

See 40 CFR 60.44a and 60.44b
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

Ohio EPA Response

22

The Ohio EPA acknowledges that there are operating conditions that are not

representative of the normal operating conditions for boilers and, as such,

compliance testing should exclude. Therefore, Ohio EPA will revise the

proposed OAG rule 3745-110-05(8) to exclude, for the purpose of compliance

demonstrations, periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction or low load conditions.

In addition, the Ohio EPA is revising the proposed rule to allow a compliance

demonstration with the NOx emission limitations to be based on a 30-day rolling

average, during the non-ozone season (i.e., October 1 to Apri/30).

COMMENT

Selective Catalytic Reduction

While the proposed rules do not dictate how emission limits are to be met, the

synopsis that accompanies the rules identifies how the proposed emission limits

were established. For many of the limits, the only control technology identified as

being capable of meeting the proposed numerical emission limits is selective

catalytic reduction, or SCR. However, SCR is not an appropriate technology for

many combustion sources and its use carries a number of inherent risks.

First, we do not believe that SCR is an appropriate technology for mid-size and

large boilers, or for non-utility boilers, where reduced or variable loads and lower

capacity factors can affect the performance and efficacy of SCR. Because most

industrial boilers do not operate at base load conditions and must swing load to

meet process steam requirements on an ongoing basis, SCR is not an effective

control option. In order to be effective, SCR requires operation within a specific

temperature range and must be located at a fixed point in the stack. Because

steam demand and corresponding boiler load fluctuate, it is generally not

possible to find a stack location where the catalyst can operate effectively across

the range of operating conditions. Retrofit SCR installations are even more

complex because economizers placed in exhaust ducts to recover heat may

need to be moved or installed to get flue gas temperatures to the proper range

for SCR. Space availability, costs to build economizers, increased pressure

drops and other issues that can arise make SCR retrofits complicated and

unreasonable as RACT.

The issue of SCR was discussed in US EPA's recent NSPS Subpart Da, Db and

Dc rule revisions. There, commenters had argued that US EPA's proposed NOx

limits for various combustion sources were not sufficiently stringent, noting that

the NOx emission limits in the proposed rule were above the levels being

achieved by recent SCR installations. US EPA responded by saying:
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 23

EPA disagrees that the amended NSPS are inappropriate. EPA

acknowledges that boiler types and control configurations are technically

capable of achieving lower NOx emissions. EPA has concluded that with

advanced combustion controls, coal-fired electric utility steam-generating

units are able to achieve a NOx emissions rate of 1.0 Ib/MWh (0.11

Ib/MMBtu). The incremental cost of requiring SCR for reduction to 0.7

Ib/MWh (0.08 Ib/MMBtu) is approximately $ 5,000 per ton. The final NOx

standard is based on the best demonstrated technology taking into

account costs. other environmental impacts. and additional energy

requirements. Requiring SCR in addition to advanced combustion

controls not only increases costs and decreases the net efficiency of the

unit, but leads to ammonia emissions and catalyst disposal concerns.

States and BACT permitting process are still capable of requiring

additional controls as appropriate.

71 Fed. Reg. 9866, 9869-9870 (Feb. 27, 2006) (Emphasis added).

Thus, only a few months ago, US EPA acknowledged that, while SCR can be

used to achieve lower NOx emission rates, the costs of SCR and its resulting

environmental concerns made SCR unreasonable as "best demonstrated

technology" for NSPS purposes. SCR is often rejected as best available control

technology, or BACT, for these same reasons. Where SCR is not widely

accepted as best available control technology, it is inherently unreasonable to

require SCR as reasonably available control technology - a lesser technology

standard.

Additionally, as US EPA noted in the NSPS rulemaking cited above, the use of

SCR typically requires the use of ammonia, which raises safety concerns and

may result in releases of ammonia to the atmosphere. The fact that most

industrial boiler applications are located within or close to population centers is

further reason for avoiding unnecessary mandates to use large amounts of

ammonia in urban areas.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Commenters urge Ohio EPA to recognize that the size of an

emissions unit and its duty cycle should be considered in prescribing NOx RACT

requirements. Ohio EPA's proposed NOx RACT emission limits have not been

adequately justified and do not comport with the definition of RACT, which

requires consideration of the need for controls and the social, economic and

environmental impact of such controls. We encourage Ohio EPA to adopt a

more reasonable and more flexible approach to imposing NOx RACT

requirements, and to reconsider the proposal to extend NOx RACT to new

sources outside the Cleveland-Akron nonattainment area. The rules should not
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 24

dictate the installation of one-size-fits-all control technology but should allow

emissions averaging and other operational flexibility mechanisms, which will

allow facilities to achieve the same, if not greater, NOx emission reductions than

this proposal seeks in a more cost-effective manner.

Ohio EPA Response:

The presumptive control of employing an SCR is just an example of one type of a

NOx emission control that may be employed. Any NOx emission control or

combination of controls may be employed at the facilities discretion in or to

achieve the applicable NOx emission limit.

To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some of the presumptive NOx emission limits

for boilers and combustion turbines to a figure that is more representative of a

RACT standard. In addition, emissions averaging will be included in the revised

version ofthis rule as an option for compliance with the presumptive NOx

emission limits.

Ohio EPA realizes that there may be technical and economic feasibility issues

with some of these units. This is why, in accordance with proposed OAC rule

3745-110-03(H), an affected facility will have the option of conducting a RACT

study to determine if the applicable limit is technically feasible and/or

economically unreasonable (i.e., not cost effective).

7. Commenter: Chester Willcox & Saxbe LLP on behalf of its client, American

Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. ("AMP-Qhio") and AMP-Qhio's

affected member communities and projects.

Comment

The draft NOx RACT Rules contain requirements that unfairly burden public

entities like AMP-Ohio's members. Unlike private industry, public entities must

make all significant decisions via a public process which may include a

recommendation process, cost justification, public meetings, and votes. At the

end of any such process, the citizens of each community must bear the cost of

any proposed actions.

The draft NOx RACT Rules will require AMP-Ohio and its member communities

to commit significant financial resources in order to meet the mandates of the

rules. Since AMP-Ohio and its member communities are responsible for only a

slight fraction of overall NOx emissions in Northern Ohio, the compliance costs to

the public entities are not reasonable and will do little to assist Ohio EPA met its

regional reduction goals.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

Ohio EPA Response:

25

The proposed NOx RACT rules are intended, in part, to regulate NOx emissions

from existing stationary sources of NOx emissions located in the eight-county

non-attainment area of Cleveland/Akron, Ohio. Specifically, these eight counties

have been designated "moderate non-attainment" for ozone by U.S. EPA, and

thus, RACT implementation is required. The cost effectiveness of several NOx

emission control technologies was evaluated. To this end, the proposed NOx

emission limits may be achieved with control technologies that are considered to

be both technologically and economically feasible by this rule.

Comment

The emission limits set forth in draft O.A.G. 3745-110-03 are too stringent and do

not fully consider the costs and feasibility of reaching such limits at existing

sources. In addition, Ohio EPA has not provided a technical basis to

demonstrate that such stringent limits are necessary to meet federal NOx

standards.

Ohio EPA Response:

Cost analysis ofNOx emission controls were evaluated for several optional NOx

emission controls. Ohio EPA also realizes that the initial NOx emission

standards, while restrictive, are achievable. Certainly older emission units cannot

achieve the same level ofperformance that new emission units can achieve.

To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some of the presumptive NOx emission limits

for boilers and combustion turbines to a figure that is more representative of a

RACT standard. In addition, emissions averaging will be included in the revised

version of this rule as an option for compliance with the presumptive NOx .

emission limits.

In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there may be technical and economic

feasibility issues with some ofthese units. This is why, in accordance with

proposed OAC rule 3745-110-03(H), an affected facility will have the option of

conducting a RACT study to determine if the applicable limit is technically

feasible and/or economically unreasonable (i.e., not cost effective).

Comment

Draft O.A.G. 3745-110-04 requires a compliance timeframe that is unreasonable.

Specifically, the rule requires sources to certify compliance by December 1,

2006 or submit a Permit to Operate application by that date. In addition. any

required RAGT engineering study must be completed no later than six months

after the effectiveness date of the final NOx RAGT Rules. Final compliance must
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 26

be achieved by the end of 2008. If add-on control equipment becomes

necessary, this timeframe is not sufficient to turnaround such a significant

project, especially for public entities.

Ohio EPA Response:

The compliance certification date will be revised from December 1, 2006 to

January 1, 2008. RAGT studies are to be completed no later than six months

after the effective date of this rule, which should be sufficient time to complete a

RAGT study. This would allow a facility over a year to implement the approved

RAGT in order to meet the compliance date of January 1, 2009.

8. Commenter: Chester Willcox &Saxbe LLP on behalf of its clients, the

Shelly Company, Shelly Materials and Allied Corporation

(collectively "Shelly")

Comment

The definition of an "affected source" in draft a.A.C. 3745-110-01 cross

references draft a.A.c. 3745-110-03(K). This cross reference is in error, and

Shelly submits that the correct reference should be to draft a.A.C. 3745-110-

03(1).

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA agrees. The correction will be made.

Comment

The definition of "potential to emit" in draft a.A.c. 3745-110-01 addresses the

emissions of organic compounds and VOC. Since this proposed rulemaking is

for NOx emissions control. Shelly submits that this potential to emit definition

should reference Nax emission rather than organic compounds and vac.

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA agrees. The definition will be amended to specify reference to

NOx emissions.

9. Commenter: First Energy

Comment
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 27

Peaking Unit: FE believes the definition of "Peaking unit" at 3745-110-01

(8)(29) is too restrictive by limiting the term to electric generating units operating

at a capacity factor during a generation period which includes our highest

electrical demand (April through September) of less than 10%. We are currently

evaluating the impact of such a restrictive value and will propose a different

approach during the formal rulemaking process. FE does believe however that

the regulated community needs a 3-year average to avoid triggering NOx RACT

due to an unusual year where demand is unusually high or other units are

unexpectedly off-line.

Ohio EPA Response:

The Ohio EPA acknowledges First Energy's conce(n and understands that

specific comments regarding this matter will be submitted by First Energy to Ohio

EPA during the proposed rule public comment period.

Comment

Applicability: "Electric Generating Units" are specifically excluded from the

definition of "Industrial boilers" found under 3745-110-01; however, the portion of

applicability following the word "or" in both (a) and (b) of 3745-110-02(A)(1)

appears to include all sources at facilities "that emit or has the potential to emit a

total of more than one hundred tons per year of NOx... ". FE requests the

regulation clearly exclude EGUs that will be regulated under additional

regulations implementing CAIR in Ohio.

Ohio EPA Response:

The NOx RACT rules are not intended to regulate electrical generating units

(EGU's). This category of boilers will be regulated by the Clean Air Interstate

Rules (CAIR).

So there is no confusion with this issue, Ohio EPA will revise the proposed NOx

RACT rules to specifically exclude electrical generating units (EGU's) from the

requirements of this rule. However, this will not preclude the Ohio EPA from

amending this exclusion in any future rulemaking.

Comment

Applicability: 3745-110-02 (A)(2) as drafted would apply statewide; but, it would

appear that the regulation of new sources should cover the same geographic

area as 3745-110-02 (A)(I). New sources in Ohio are well controlled by already

existing regulatory programs.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

Ohio EPA Response:

28

The regulation ofnew sources will apply statewide. Any new source should

meet, at a minimum, the same performance standards as an existing source

located in the non-attainment areas.

Comment

Boiler Emission Limitations: The emission limitations established for existing

midsize, large and very large boilers combusting oil and coal fuel types are overly

stringent. Owners and operators will be faced with having to retrofit Selective

Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technologies or fuel switch to natural gas in order to

meet these requirements. SCR technologies have not been widely demonstrated

for industrial boilers in these three classes. In addition the price of natural gas

remains high and the future availability of natural gas is uncertain and may not be

a compliance alternative.

Ohio EPA Response:

The presumptive control ofemploying an SCR is just an example ofone type of a

NOx emission control that may be employed. Any NOx emission control or

combination of controls may be employed at the facilities discretion in order to

achieve the applicable NOx emission limit.

Ohio EPA also realizes that the initial NOx emission standards, while restrictive,

are achievable. Certainly older emission units cannot achieve the same level of

performance that new emission units can achieve.

To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some of the presumptive NOx emission limits

for boilers and combustion turbines to a figure that is more representative of a ..

RACT standard. In addition, emissions averaging will be included in the revised

version ofthis rule as an option for compliance with the presumptive NOx

emission limits.

In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there may be technical and economic

feasibility issues with some ofthese units. In accordance with proposed OAC

rule 3745-110-03(H), an affected facility will have the option of conducting a

RACT study to determine if the applicable limit is technically feasible and/or

economically unreasonable (i.e., not cost effective).

Comment

Stationary Combustion Turbines: The new NSPS (40 CFR 60 Subpart KKKK)

promulgated by U.S. EPA on July 6,2006, imposes a 15 ppm limit averaged over

a 4 hour period on new stationary combustion turbines. Therefore, we suggest
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 29

the 9.0 ppm in the proposed rule be changed to match the 15 ppm in the new

NSPS. When operating on CEMs, a start-up/shut-down provision should be

included along with a minimum of four non-start-up and shut-down hours for the

24-hour calendar day to be a valid period since combustion turbines often

operate at much less than the 24-hour calendar averaging time mentioned in the

rule at 3745-110-03 (G).

Ohio EPA Response:

The NOx emission limits for this source category will be revised. The intent here

will be to have any new source comply with the NSPS as promulgated on July 6,

2006 and existing sources located in the eight-county non-attainment area

comply with the presumptive NOx emission limitations, which have been revised,

or, in the alternative, conduct a RAeT study.

Comment

RACT Study Information Dates: FE would like some confirmation of the years

for which information is required. In several locations, such as 3745-110-03

(H)(1 )(g)(i), the request is for information from the three years preceding the

effective date of the rule. However, 3745-110-03 (H)(1 )(g)(iii) asks for information

from three specific years, 1990-1992.

Ohio EPA Response:

This section ofthe rule will be revised to be consistent with OAe rule 3745-110-

03(H)(1)(g)(i). That is to say the reference to years 1990 thru 1992 will be

deleted and replace with the language "three years preceding the effective date

of the rule."

Comment

Compliance Deadlines: FE believes there is a typo at 3745-110-04 (A) (1) (b)

where the regulation states a unit will come into compliance no later than "the

date specified in paragraph (A)(I)(b) of this rule" as there are no dates in the

paragraph.

Compliance Deadlines: FE is concerned that permit applications must be

submitted by December 1, 2006 and that the application must include a

compliance plan designed to bring one's units into compliance by January 1,

2009. As of today there is less than four months time to submit the package,

there will be even less available time when the rules are finally promulgated. First

Energy Corp. believes there should be at least a six-month period from the

promulgation of the final rules before the packages are due.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

Ohio EPA Response:

30

Agree. The reference will be corrected and correctly cite paragraph (B) of this

rule (i.e., January 1, 2009). In addition, Ohio EPA will revise the permit

application submittal date ofDecember 1, 2006 to a new proposed date of

January 1, 2008.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary

10. Commenter: Cleveland Thermal, LLC

Technical FeasibilitvlReasonability Issues

31

Post-combustion control via selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and similar technology

for industrial boilers is not a fully ''proven'' technology, meaning that a process design is

not currently in place that effectively reduces emissions for industrial boilers and their

typical operating platfonn. SCR technology has been proven successful in predictably

reducing emissions from base load power stations where pulverized coal combustion in

larger boilers is utilized and where flue gas temperature in the exhaust can be maintained

at a steady state and above the minimum threshold where catalytic reaction can be

sustained. However, taking the same emissions control device in SCR and applying it to

industrial stoker-fIred boilers is not suitable for the following technical reasons:

1) Dynamic Load Changes and Combustion Control

Cleveland Thermal boilers fluctuate heat input based on the thermal demands of

cUstomers that draw directly from the boiler output at the plant. Steam demand is

cyclical on a seasonal basis where the difference between Winter and Summer can

be as much as a 5 to I ratio. In addition, steam demand is cyclical on a

daily/hourly basis where loads can swing up or down as much a 3 to I ratio. As a

result, combustion control is also variant and exhaust gas temperature is far from

constant.

As documented by many sources, emissions control within stoker-ftred boilers is

highly influenced by the amount of excess oxygen present and amount of heat

released from the stoker bed. NOx control in stoker boilers has historically been

best accomplished through elimination of air in-leakage sources, over-ftre air

addition, flue gas recirculation, and natural gas co-ftring. Application ofpostcombustion controls, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), has been quite limited and an insignifIcant

amount ofliterature and test results exist to validate its application.

2) Suitability of SCR and NOx Control Level

There are many technical requirements associated with satisfactory performance

of SCR systems, aside from their use on stoker-fired boilers. Such requirements

include the necessity to maintain an exhaust gas temperature greater than the

dead-band associated with the catalyst reaction, concerns with catalyst ash

plugging, and influence ofload changes (and exhaust gas volumes and

constituency). Given the CT system configuration and operating platfonn, SCR is

not believed to be a prudent control technology. In addition, the level of

emissions of 0.15 Ib/MMBtu is not technically viable to mandate on cycling load

stoker boilers.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 32

3) Ammonia Storage and Handling

An SCR designed for several hundred thousand CFM will require the storage of

significant quantities of ammonia (aqueous, anhydrous or urea-based). While

there is an established protocol regarding risk management for storage ofthis

substance, a significant part of downtown Cleveland would have to be involved in

the evacuation planning and response in the event of a large scale release. The

likely litmus test is whether the incremental benefit ofSCR control technology

over conventional NOx. control technologies noted earlier outweigh the potential

concerns caused by implementation ofpublic notification and evacuation

procedures. In addition, addition oflarge quantities oftoxic substance near a

large population may also introduce mandatory security measures from the

Department ofHomeland Security.

4) Effect of Drift Excursions on Public Health Concerns and Downtown Air Intakes

As noted in Item #2, and regardless ofthe efficiency of any SCR, there will nearly

always be ammonia "slip" or discharge stream that will be present in the overall

stack exhaust gas and which may turn into ground level ammonia concentrations

in neighboring urban areas. lbis slip is difficult to control even with state ofthe

art controls particularly when the boiler exhaust gas flow rate varies. The gas

would then permeate the air in the surrounding area leading to a reasonable

concerns regarding public health in downtown Cleveland. This is significantly

different situation due to the location ofour plant then is faced by a large power

plant employing SCR technology.

Economic Reasonability Issues

Even if SCR technology was a more proven and technically feasible pollution control

device, there are significant economic issues that make the application ofthis technology

at Cleveland Thermal unreasonable. During the development ofthe draft RACT

standards, industry benchmarking was utilized to address the economic re.asonability of

implementing new standards. However, Cleveland Thermal believes that benchmarking

does not sufficiently address the significant additional capital expense to install an SCR

on our particular site. We are providing the following issues as reasoning behind our

statement that SCR technology would exceed the economic reasonability standard for

Cleveland Thermal:

1) No Gas Infrastructure to Plant

Currently, the Canal Road Plant does not have a natural gas infrastructure so

conversion ofboilers to gas firing or implementation of combustion control

technologies such as natural gas co-firing is not currently possible without first

installing a new medium pressure gas main. In addition, the price for natural gas

as a fuel source has increased significantly in the last year and is projected to

remain significantly higher than Coal on a cost per MMBTU basis. (see Item 2

below).
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 33

2) Competitiveness ofBusiness / Net Impact on Air Quality

The acquisition ofsignificant post·combustion pollution control equipment, its

associated operations and maintenance costs, and impacts on unit efficiency are

all economic barriers which would reduce the competitiveness ofCT in the

marketplace. The scale effects ofsuch costs on CT, as opposed to similar RACT

additions on larger power/steam generators, would make a more energy efficient

energy provider less competitive in the marketplace. This additional economic

impairment to CT cost ofproduction that would, in effect, displace additional

emissions to another local source. This scenario would be a net loss to the

environment, the community and causing further deterioration ofthe Cleveland

airshed.

Maintaining CT as a viable business affords point source NOx control, whereas

an economically disadvantaged district energy provider will be displaced by

individual boilers that will not be tested for NOx emissions nor operated by a

highly trained operational staff.

3) Space for SCR and Related Equipment

The Canal Street Plant is landlocked by the railroad, public right ofway and an

active electrical substation. According to our engineering firm,the SCR and

related equipment (tanks, additional fans, ductwork, processing skid and electrical

equipment) will take more space than is currently available on the site. As a

result, any such addition would likely require CT to make physical changes to the

current plant configuration at a prohibitive capital cost

Additional RACT Comments

• The operational limit for emergency units should be modified to a cap oftotal run

hours for a facility times the number ofqualifying emissions units. TIris rule

change will encourage the mQre efficient units to run on an emergency/peaking

basis instead of a cap on individual units regardless of emissions performance.

The classification of unit status (peaking/emergency) should not require a permit

modification ifthe units are maintained at the set operating standards. This

maintains operating flexibility for the business yet still assures compliance.

• Mandating unilateral implementation ofselective catalytic reduction on all stokerfired boilers is simply not practical technically for NOx reduction, let alone for

economic reasons. Even ifsuch were practical, and for implementation of any

major modifications, having such requirements fully implemented by January 1,

2009 would be difficult in today's capital equipment purchase marketplace.
OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 34

Cleveland Thermal has been making capital investments to improve the ambient air

quality, however the proposed RACT rules would impose requirements that are both

technically and economically infeasible for Cleveland Thermal. CT will collect current

NOx emissions data and will alternatively consider proven improvements to reduce NOx

(such as through a BACT study of control technologies and operational procedures to

lower NOx output from our stoker-fired boilers).

Ohio EPA Response:

The presumptive control of employing an SCR is just an example of one type ofa

NOx emission control that may be employed. Any NOx emission control or

combination of controls may be employed at the facilities discretion to achieve

the applicable NOx emission limit. .. .

Ohio EPA also realizes that the initial NOx emission standards, while restrictive,

are achievable. Certainly older emission units cannot achieve the same level of

performance that new emission units can achieve.

To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some of the presumptive NOx emission limits

for boilers and combustion turbines to a figure that is more representative ofa

RACT standard. In addition, emissions averaging will be included in the revised

version ofthis rule as an option for compliance with the presumptive NOx

emission limits.

In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there may be technical and economic

feasibility issues with some of these units. In accordance with proposed OAC

rule 3745-110-03(H), an affected facility will have the option of conducting a

RACT study to determine if the applicable limit is technically feasible and/or

economically unreasonable (i.e., not cost effective).
CJiIEa\ Division of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

Proposed Rule Language Comment Period

Rule: OAC rules 3745-110-01,110-02,110-03,110-04, and 110-05; NOx

RACT

Agency Contact for this Package

Division Contact: Alan Harness, DAPC, 644-4838, alan.harness@epa.state.oh.us

Ohio EPA provided a 3p-day comment period which ended on June 8, 2007 and hel.d a

public hearing on June 8, 2007. This-document summarizes the comments and

questions received at the public hearing and/or during the associated comment period.

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.

General/Overall Concerns

Comment 1:

NOx RACT Should Be Implemented In Phases, and Only As Necessary to

Reach Attainment.

NOx RACT should not be implemented if the Northeast Ohio area can model

attainment without these NOx reductions. Ohio EPA and LADCO are completing

an upgrade to the regional emissions inventory being used in the modeling of

ozone concentrations in each non-attainment area in the State of Ohio and

throughout the LADCO region using 2005 as the Base Year (Base M) and 2009

as the Projection Year (Round 5). Ohio EPA is also changing the Base Year for

the Ozone Monitored Design Concentrations from 2002 to 2005 to reflect the

reductions in ozone concentrations that have occurred throughout the state since

2000.

These are major changes from the original data used in the ozone modeling

results for Ohio's State Implementation Plan for the a-hour ozone standard and

the pending changes are expected to provide an updated understanding of what
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 2 of40

additional changes may be needed (if any) to bring Northeast Ohio into

attainment with the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

While we recognize that Ohio EPA is obligated to submit its SIP and the NOx

RACT rules to U.S. EPA this summer, the rules should anticipate the revised

modeling results and continuing improvement in ambient air quality trends by

implementing the NOx RACT rule in phases that may be suspended if the

modeling or 3-year ambient air monitoring data demonstrates that further control

is unnecessary to attain the applicable standard. Phase I should focus on the

boilers, combustion turbines and engines subject to OAC rule 3745-110-03

subparts (A) to (F), subject to the expanded exemptions discussed below. The

other affected sources subject to Subpart (I) should be implemented as Phase II,

but only if needed to achieve attainment. Phase II are the affected sources that

must submit a NOx RACT Study to determine if any NOx controls are costeffective. If the new modeling results indicate that additional NOx controls are

not required to achieve attainment, then Phase II could be suspended to avoid

the cost burden associated with the NOx RACT Studies and controls. To

facilitate this phased approach, Ohio EPA should set later deadlines in the rule

for the NOx RACT Studies (e.g., January 1, 2010), with compliance due by May

1,2011 (the latest date for compliance currently in the rule). Then, if the updated

inventory, revised ozone modeling, or the 3-year ambient air quality data indicate

that Phase II NOx RACT is not required, Ohio EPA will be able to suspend the

program before sources have invested significantly in the NOx RACT

Engineering Studies or controls. This phased approach is encouraged and is

consistent with U.S. EPA's Clean Data Policy which enables reduced regulatory

requirements for areas that attain the standards, but have not yet been

redesignated as attainment. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders &

Dempsey L.L.P. on behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)

Response 1:

Clean Air Act, Section 182(f) requires the implementation of reasonably available

control technology for major sources of oxides of nitrogen in Subpart 2

nonattainment areas classified moderate or above unless a showing that the

absence of such controls would result in greater air quality benefit. All air quality

modeling to date indicates that oxides of nitrogen do contribute significantly to

elevated ozone in the Cleveland-Akron nonattainment area and that the control

of oxides of nitrogen would be beneficial.

Both air quality monitoring and modeling continue to indicate that additional

controls will be necessary to attain the eight-hour ozone standard in this area. In

addition, states are required to implement such measures that are reasonable to

attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, which includes the

implementation of all required RACT controls plus any additional controls

deemed to be reasonable. Ohio EPA believes that the proposed emission

limitations are required, reasonable and necessary.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Comment 2:

The NOx RACT Rules Should Only Apply During Ozone Season.

Page 3 of40

In interested-party comments, OSG requested that the Proposed Rule's

emissions limits only apply during the ozone season, consistent with numerous

other NOx regulatory programs designed to address ozone non-attainment. Ohio

EPA responded that annual application was needed to "aid in reducing

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns and less." While we appreciate

the clarification of Ohio EPA's reasoning, we still believe that it is premature to

restrict annual NOx emissions during RACT rulemaking in order to prospectively

address distinct PM2.5 concerns.

Monitored PM2.5levels have been steadily decreasing in Northe~st Ohio during

the last six years. The annual average ambient PM2.5air data for 2006 for

Cleveland Area Sites meet the 15 ug/m3 ambient air quality standard,

recognizing that attainment is based on a three-year annual average. This is

before implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. First Energy reports that

NOx and S02 emissions from its Ohio and Pennsylvania facilities will be reduced

by 50% from 2005 levels to comply with CAlR. This includes selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) NOx control on its Eastlake power plant, which will

significantly reduce a primary source of ambient PM2.5. Also, Ford has

announced the closing of the Ford Casting Plant in 2009, which will eliminate

over 1,000 tons per year of PM2.5 precursors from the regional inventory. Given

these local developments and the implementation of new emissions standards

for mobile sources, we expect to meet ambient fine particulate levels in this

region without NOx RACT.

If annualizing NOx RACT is not necessary to meet PM2.5ambient air quality

standards, then Ohio EPA should recalculate whether it has the authority to

impose the additional economic burdens associated with NOx RACT rules.

Including annual NOx limits in the face of changing monitoring data would

unnecessarily limit Ohio EPA's flexibility to propose and adopt rules that properly

reflect current PM2.5 conditions. In contrast, it would take only minimal effort to

expand an ozone-season NOx RACT program to apply annually should the

Agency later decide that year-round NOx controls are temporarily needed for

PM2.5attainment. That shift could be achieved by simply providing (in a single

sentence) that NOx RACT sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas are subject to

annual limitations. Such a separate approach would also have the benefit of

simplifying a return to appropriate seasonal NOx RACT controls after PM2.5

attainment has been achieved. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders &

Dempsey LLP on behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 2:

Page 4 of40

The Cleveland-Akron area is considered to be in nonattainment for both PM2.5

and the eight-hour ozone. The attainment date for both pollutants is 2010.

Modeling analyses in support of the state implementation plan must demonstrate

that required controls can achieve attainment air quality by 2009 in order to claim

that the standards will be achieved by April (PM2.5) and June (ozone) 2010.

The current monitored design value for PM2.5 (2004-2006 air quality data) is

17.07 ug/m3~ The current monitored design value for ozone (2005-2007, so far)

is 86 ppb. Current photochemical modeling which evaluates both ozone and

PM2.5 together in a 'one atmosphere' approach indicates that additional controls

will be necessary to achieve both standards by the attainment dates. NOx RACT

is currently being assumeo as a required year-round control in the regional

photochemical modeling.

The emission limits being proposed differ significantly from those originally

included in the draft rules released for interested party review. The identified

levels of control are based on emission rates consistent with combustion controls

which are anticipated to be continuous reductions. It is not anticipated that post

combustion control options with seasonal control (e.g., SCR, SNCR) will be

required to achieve compliance with the proposed emission limits.

Comment 3:

RACT is a non-attainment area requirement and does not apply to

attainment areas.

Commenters continue to object to Ohio EPA's inclusion of NOx RACT

requirements for new sources statewide, without regard to the attainment status

of the area in which the source is located. NOx RACT is a requirement of

Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act applicable to major sources and certain

other sources located in non-attainment areas. There is no legal basis under the

Clean Air Act for applying NOx RACT requirements to sources in attainment

areas. If Ohio EPA wishes to impose these limits as generally applicable NOx

limits, we believe OAC Chapter 3745-14 would be a more appropriate location for

such limits. Indeed, in response to comments on the interested party draft of this

rule, Ohio EPA indicated that "statewide applicability is needed to establish a

floor for best available technology (BAT) pursuant to Senate Bill 265." This

further illustrates that the proposed statewide emission limit for new sources is

not being imposed as RACT but for other purposes. Accordingly, we request that

Ohio EPA reconsider the proposal to impose the NOx RACT limits for new

sources on a statewide basis.

(Kathy Milenkovski; on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of commerce, the Ohio

Chemistry Technology Council, and the Ohio Manufacturer's Association)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 3:

Page 50'40

The Ohio EPA acknowledges your concern. However, Ohio EPA maintains its

position to implement RACT as best available technology (BAT) on a statewide

basis in both non-attainment and attainment areas. As reiterated in the

interested party comment response:

The proposed rule is intended to establish RACT for existing sources in the eightcounty Cleveland-Akron non-attainment area and statewide for all new sources.

Any new or modified source should be able to meet, at a minimum, the same

performance levels as an existing emission source. Also, statewide applicabili~

is needed to establish a floor for BAT pursuant to Senate Bill 265 of the 126

legislature.

Comment 4:

OSG Supports Several Changes Made to the Proposed Rule.

Finally, the OSG offers its strong support for four important changes made by

Ohio EPA in response to interested-party comments: (1) creation of an

emissions averaging program, (2) establishment of new numeric NOx RACT

limits that are much more reasonable than those initially proposed, (3)

confirmation that sources burning mixed fuels will be subject to the "NOx

emission limit for the least stringent fuel within the mix," and (4) the increased

RACT Study flexibility created by allowing the proposal of other alternatives.

These changes are critically important steps toward ensuring that the Proposed

Rule achieves the intended environmental benefits at the minimum necessary

cost and with a minimum of administrative effort.

(Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP; on behalf of the

Ohio Steel Group)

Response 4:

The Ohio EPA acknowledges and thanks you for your comment.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Comment 5:

Summary ofcmo concerns with the proposed rule

Page 60'40

crno considers it very important to comment on Ohio EPA's draft NOx RACT rules for

the Cleveland!Akron metropolitan area, because the rule as drafted will adversely affect

crno's Cleveland-area members and could set a far-reaching precedent affecting CIBO

members nationwide. The proposed rule establishes NOli emission limits that are likely

beyond the achievement capability ofsome midsize boilers, large boilers and very large

boilers (as defined by the draft rules) that burn solid fuel (and in some cases, other fuels

as well). The proposed NOx standards are not achievable by cost-effective postcombustion NOx controls and should be excluded from consideration under any

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rulemaking. In addition, the rule

imposes undue costs (both in time and money) on facilities to conduct required

engineering analyses to demonstrate that the emission limits are not achievable through

specified combustion-related and post-eombustion technologies. This adds to the cost

burden imposed on affected companies by this rulemaking.

The proposed schedule for rebuttal activities should also be closely examined. For

sources unable to achieve the target emission rate, the draft rule imposes a six-month

deadline to submit a complete engineering analysis. This analysis must evaluate the

technical feasibility of a list ofspecific NOli reduction technologies -- combustion-related

and post-combustion. Many of CIBO's members have undertaken similar studies to

evaluate the control tcchnology options available for compliance with the provisions of

the Industrial Boiler MACT (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDDDD). In practice, these studies

have taken from six to twelve months to fully evaluate the range of teclmologically

feasible options, with the cost ofthe engineering studies often in excess of $250,000.

Both the timeframe and additional cost to facilities of this provision in the rule impose

additional unjustifiable burdens on sources.

(Robert D. Bessette, Council of Industrial Boilers (CIBO»

Response 5:

In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there may be technical and economic

feasibility issues with some of these units. In accordance with proposed OAC

rule 3745-110-03(H), an affected facility will have the option of conducting a

RACT study to determine if the applicable limit is technically feasible and/or

economically unreasonable (Le., not cost-effective).

The emission limits being proposed differ significantly from those originally

included in the draft rules released for interested party review. The identified

-levels of control are based on emission rates consistent with combustion controls

which are anticipated to be continuous reductions. It is not anticipated that post

combustion control options with seasonal control (e.g., SCR, SNCR) will be
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 70f40

required to achieve compliance with the proposed emission limits. In addition, an

emission averaging protocol is included as an option for compliance with the

presumptive NOx emission limits.

RACT submittal deadlines and compliance deadlines have also been revised to

reflect a more feasible schedule.

Comment 6:

RecommeDdations

The emission limits proposed in the NOx RACT Rules for the Cleveland!Akron, Ohio

Metropolitan Area do not implement the purpose of RACT, satisfy the criteria for

determining RACT, and cannot be economically or technically justified as RAeT for the

ICI Sector. In addition, compliance requirements should be limited to lUUlUaJ tune-ups

for small and medium size boilers, regardless offuel type.

CIBO developed a NOli RACT Guidance Document illustrating many of the issues

discussed in these comments, including boiler and fuel diversity (see Attachment B). The

appendix to the Guidance includes a range ofemission targets that may be appropriate for

consideration by Ohio in developing its RACT rules. In addition, EPA provided some

guidance to states related to appropriate considerations for BART when finalizing its

guidance for Best Available Retrofit Technology. 70 Fed. Reg. 39104 (July 6, 2005).

Although each facility and its operating constraints must be relied on for site-specific

evaluation, these sources may provide some structure to guide Ohio as it further

contemplates this rule.

Once data is updated regarding leI technology applicability, emISSIon reduction

potential, and true cost for boilers with <250 MMBtulhr design heat input, it will be

possible to identify a potential reasonable emission reduction target that is also feasible.

In any case, CIBO believes that no ICI facility should be burdened with an emission

reduction cost that exceeds the relative level ofthe cost burden imposed on utility boilers.

elBa appreciates this opportunity to comment and offers to help in any way with

development of RACT regulations for the Cleveland!Akron Area. If you have any

questions or need additional infonnation, please contact me.

(Robert D. Bessette, Council of Industrial Boilers (CIBO»

Response 6:

The Ohio EPA recognizes your concerns and suggested recommendations.

The small boiler category requires only annual tune-ups, since this category of

emission units represents the lower end of the total NOx emissions emitted and

additional emission control options may not be cost-effective. However, the use

of combustion controls for larger boilers (i.e., medium, large and very large
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 80f40

categories) is both cost-effective and technically feasible (thus, meeting the

definition of RAGT), and enhanced emission controls are necessary since these

categories of emission units represent a larger source of NOx emissions.

In addition, the option of a RAGT study is available for sources regulated by this

rule which cannot comply with the presumptive NOx emission limitations.

Specific Comments

Rule 3745-110-01, "Definitions"

Comment 7:

The definition of "Affected source" in proposed OAG rule 3745-110-01 cross

references draft OAe rule 3745-110-03(K). This cross reference is an error as

OAG rule 3745-110-03(K) does not exist. Flexible believes that the crossreference should be OAG rule 3745-110-03(J). (April R. Bott; Chester,

Willcox, and Saxbe LLP on behalf of Flexible Pavements of Ohio)

Response 7:

The Ohio EPA agrees. This was a typographical error and will be corrected.

Comment 8:

"Capacity Factor" Should Be Based Upon Capacity Over the Entire Control

Period.

The definition of "capacity factor" requires refinement. That term is currently

defined to mean "either the ratio of gross actual output to the gross rated output

or the ratio of actual heat input to potential heat input for the period between

April first and October thirty-first ofany calendar year, expressed as a

percentage." 3745-110-01 (8)(6). There is no apparent reason to set capacity

factors based on operations between April and October. If Ohio EPA retains the

current annual structure of the proposed rules, we request that this definition be

altered to include year-round data. Similarly, if this rule is revised to apply only

during the ozone season, the capacity factor should be based on May 1 through

September 30. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.

on behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)

Response 8:

The Ohio EPA agrees. The definition of capacity factor will be revised to specify

operations on a yearly basis.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Comment 9:

Page 90f40

Proposed OAC rule 3745-110-01 (8)(30), the definition of "potential to emit,"

continues to contain an erroneous reference to OAC Chapter 3745-21. Please

delete this reference. (Kathy Milenkovski; on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of

commerce, the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council, and the Ohio

Manufacturer's Association)

Response 9:

Ohio EPA agrees. The reference to OAC rule 3745-21-11 as cited in this

definition will be deleted.

Comment 10:

(BX3) Auxili4ry Boiler: FE suggests the following additional language be added to the current proposed

language. After the words ''ten percent," place a semicolon then add "and. (a) any boiler at a nuclear

electrical generating facility that produces steam or steam for producing electrical power for (he facility

during either emergency periods or atypical extended periods of nuclear plant outage:'

FE is concerned for nuclear plant safety and operation ifthe auxiliary boilers at a nuclear facility were

required to meet the ten percent requirement during either an emergency or an atypically long outage at

the facility.

(B)(4) Blnck start unit: FE suggests that the following be added to the defInition: "or that are operated

to test reliability or for maintenance:'

(B)(6) Capacity Factor; FE agrees with OEPA that capacity factor for NO, RAeT purposes should be

dermed using the period April fIrst through October thirty-first.

(B)(29) Peaking Unit: FE supports the definition for peaking unit as defined in the proposed rules.

(Robert E. Williams II, First Energy)

Response 10:

The Ohio EPA acknowledges your comment and will make the suggested

revisions to the definitions for "auxiliary boiler" and for "black start unit."

Since the NOx RACT rules are based on a yearly basis, the definition of capacity

factor has been revised to specify operations on a yearly basis.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Rule 3745-110-02, Applicability

Comment 11:

Page 100'40

Flexible requests that Ohio EPA confirm that synthetic minor PTls, state-only

PTls, PTOs and/or FESOP permits can be used to exempt an existing source in

the eight county non-attainment area from the requirements of OAC Chapter

3745-110 if any such air permit contains a physical or operational limitation on

the capacity of the source to emit under 100 tpy of NOx annually. Specifically,

any source/facility, as identified in OAC rule 3745-110-02(A)(1)(a), that has

limitation on NOx emissions, via a valid air permit, to under 100 tpy is not subject

to the p~oposed NOx RACT rules in concert with the definition of "potential to

emit" found in proposed rule 3745-110-01(B)(30). (April R. Bott; Chester,

Willcox, and Saxbe LLP on behalf of Flexible Pavements of Ohio)

Response 11:

A new exemption has been added to this rule (paragraph (J)(19)) for an

emissions unit operating under a valid air permit and subject to BACT or LAER

standards.

Facilities operating under a FESOP or synthetic minor permit may not

necessarily have a RACT level of control and thus may still be subject to the NOx

RACT requirements.

Comment 12:

OAC rule 3745-11 0-02(A)(2) appears to expand the requirements of the

proposed NOx RACT rules beyond the eight county ozone non-attainment area

(Le., the rules propose state-wide applicability) for new and modified NOx

sources. Ohio EPA does not have the legal latitude and authority t9 develop

statewide RACT requirements in an attempt to address ozone non-attainment in

specific areas. See Clean Air Act Section 172. In addition, such state-wide

applicability places unreasonable regulatory and financial burdens on sources

and facilities that will have no beneficial ozone reduction results, either direct or

indirect, on the eight counties in ozone non-attainment. Flexible is not aware of

any models prepared by Ohio EPA, LADCO, USEPA or others that demonstrate

that reductions of NOx emissions in southern Ohio counties, Scioto County for

example, will result in any ozone reduction benefits in Cleveland/Akron. Since

Ohio EPA lacks a technical and scientific basis for requiring statewide NOx

RACT rules, such statewide applicability is not reasonable or lawful.

(April R. Bott; Chester, Willcox, and Saxbe LLP on behalf of Flexible

Pavements of Ohio)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 12:

Page 110'40

The proposed rule is intended to establish RACT for existing sources in the eightcounty Cleveland-Akron non-attainment area and statewide for all new sources.

Any new or modified source should be able to meet, at a minimum, the same

performance levels as an existing emission source. Also, statewide applicability

is needed to establish a floor for best available technology (BAT) pursuant to

Senate Bill 265 of the 126th legislature.

Comment 13:

Proposed OAC rule 3745-11 0-02(A)(2)(b) applies to any new or modified source.

"Modified" is not defined in this rule nor is the term defined in proposed OAC rule

3745-110-02(A)(2)(b). Flexible recommends that Ohio EPA define "modification"

in concert with the definition of "major modification" found in OAC rule 3745-31-

01. Such definition is consistent with Ohio EPA's stated goal for proposed NOx

RACT rules. See, Ohio EPA summary of responses to Chapter 3745-110

Interested Parties Rule Package ("Employment of RACT is required by the CAA

for areas classified as non-attainment for the eight-hour ozone standard. As

such Ohio EPA is drafting rules to regulate major stationary sources of NOx

emissions), p. 15, emphasis added. (April R. Bott; Chester, Willcox, and

Saxbe LLP on behalf of Flexible Pavements of Ohio)

Response 13:

Paragraph (A) of this rule (definitions) incorporates by reference the definitions of

OAC rule 3745-15-01 and provides a definition for a modification. The specific

definition for modification is as follows:

"Modification" means any physical change in, or change in the method of

operation of, an existing source or a new source that increases the amount of

any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any

air pollutant not previously emitted from the same location.

Comment 14:

(A)(l)(a) Existing Sources: FE objects to the phrase in the proposed rule that reads "including all

sources that are exempt under role 3745-11()..()3 ofthe Administrative Code:" FE believes this phrase

ought to be deleted from the proposed role because it negates several exemptions written into the

proposed rules elsewhere.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 12 of40

It makes little sense to exempt sources at 3745-110-03 (1) only to reinclude them at another place in the

proposed rules. All of these sources would be exempted ifthey stood alone or were at nonmajor NO.

facilities. The intent to remove smaller sources from the NO, RAcr rules is circumvented by the

proposed language at 3745-110-02 (A)(l)(a). As a practical mauer, the proposed language cancels the

exemption ofother sources listed under 3745-11Q.Q3 (1). For example, the very definition of black start

or start-up units co-locates these units at electric utility power plants. facilities that are certainly major

NO. emitters. In addition. the exemption for CAIR and NO. SIP call units would also become void since

they are also listed at 3745-110-03 (I).

(Robert E. Williams II, First Energy)

Response 14:

To clarify this portion of the rule; exempt sources are not regulated and the last

phrase in paragraph (A)(1 )(a) of this rule is referring to the potential to emit, and

not to which sources are regulated..

Comment 15:

We ask for clarification on applicability of the rules to both existing and new

sources. With regard to existing sources, we ask that you change the language

in OAG rule 3745-11 0-02(A)(1)(a) to clarify that the rule only applies to a facility

that emits or has the potential to emit a total of more than one hundred tons per

year of NOx emissions from all sources at the facility. As the language in the

proposed rule reads, this is unclear. The current language seems to imply that

these regulations can be applicable to a source even if it is not located at a

facility that emits or has the potential to emit a total of more than one hundred

tons per year of NOx emissions from all sources at the facility. In particular, the

word "or" between the first and second clause in OAG rule 3745-110-02(A)(1)(a)

leads to this confusion. (Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion Resources Services,

Inc.)

Response 15:

The language in this section of the rule specifies the applicability for existing

"affected" sources in the eight county non-attainment area, and is intended to

regulate major sources of NOx emissions (i.e., sources with the potential to emit

100 tons or more of NOx emissions from all affected sources at a facility).

Comment 16:

This letter provides the City of Painesville's comments on Ohio EPA's proposed NOx RACT

rules set forth in OAC Chapter 3745-110. Painesville seeks clarification regarding the applicability of

NOx RACT to the boilers at its Municipal Electric Plant in Lake County. The rule defines the universe of

regulated boilers through the core term "industrial boiler," which means "a steam generating unit that

generates steam to supply power and/or heat to an industrial, institutional, or commercial operation" but

expressly "does not incbule boilers thll/ SI!1'J1t! e/ectricfll generating units and cogeneration facilities."

OAC rule 3745-110-o1(B)(15) (emphasis added). From that definition, the rule then identifies several

size categories of "industrial boilers" and sets numeric limits for those categories.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 130'40

While that language plainly shows Ohio EPA's intention to exclude the Painesville Municipal

Electric Plant from the numeric limits as "boilers that serve electrical generating units," the language in

OAC rule 3745-110-02(A)(I)(a) could be interpreted to bring these electric generating boilers back into

the rule from a different angle. Under that subsection, sources "located at a facility that emits or has the

potential to emit a total of more than one hundred tons per year of NOx from all sources at that facility"

are also regulated as existing sources under this rule. These units would not be subject to numeric NOx

limits but they would be subject to the NOx RACT Study requirements in OAC rule 3745-110-03(1). If

Ohio EPA intended to exempt electric generating boilers from the NOx RACT Study requirement, the

current language that excludes boilers that serve electric generating units should be moved from the

definition ofindustrial boiler to the list ofexemptions from the rule in OAC rule 3745-110-03(1).

An exemption from the NOx RACT rule for the Painesville Municipal Electric Plant would be

consistent with existing regulatory systems. The acid rain rules, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the

NOx Budget Trading Rule exclude boilers that serve electric generators with nameplate capacity of 25

megawatts or less on the basis that controlling these smaller units would not be cost effective. Ohio can

do the same in the NOx RACT rule; establish a minimum size for a source category that approximates the

cost-effectiveness threshold so that smaller sources do not need to go through the NOx RACT Study

process only to confirm that no controls are cost effective. In rules that address electric gcneratmg umts,

it is common to excuse units that serve electric generators with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less

based on the presumption that controlling these smaller sources will not be cost-effective. See Mb 40

CFR n.6(bXl) (Acid Rain Program) and OAC rule 3745-14-01(C) (NOx Budget Trading Program). We

ask that Ohio EPA consider using this well-established size threshold in the list of NOx RACT

exemptions in OAC rule 3745-110-03(1).

(Rita C. McMahon, City Manager, City of Painesville)

Response 16:

To clarify this portion of the rule, exempt sources are not regUlated and the last

phrase in paragraph (A)(1 )(a) of this rule is referring to the potential to emit, and

not to which sources are regulated.

Rule 3745-110-03, "RACT requirements and/or limitations for emissions of

NOx from stationary sources"

Comment 17:

The RACT Engineering Study requirements set forth in proposed OAC rule 3745-

110-03(1) are unreasonable, overly burdensome and too costly. In addition,

these requirements reach beyond Ohio EPA's regulatory authority. Specifically,

draft OAC rule 3745-110-03(1)(1)(h) requires an evaluation of the technical

feasibility of installing at least nineteen (19) types of NOx control. Thus, these

requirements illegally transform the RACT analysis into a BACT/LAER analysis

for existing sources. Such a backdoor approach to BACT/LAER is not

appropriate under the guise of a RACT standard (Le., reasonably available vs.

best available or lowest available). (April R. Bott; Chester, Willcox, and Saxbe

LLP on behalf of Flexible Pavements of Ohio)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 17:

Page 140'40

Ohio EPA's regulatory authority to impose RACT requirements comes from the

Clean Air Act. Specifically, the Clean Air Act, Section 182(f) requires the

implementation of reasonably available control technology for major sources of

oxides of nitrogen in Subpart 2 nonattainment areas classified moderate or

above unless a showing that the absence of such controls would result in greater

air quality benefit. The RACT study is an option facilities may use in lieu of

complying with the presumptive NOx emission limitations. The RACT study

covers a wide range of emission control options that need to be evaluated in

order to determine which control options meet the definition of a RACT (Le., costeffective and technically feasible). The RACT study should clearly demonstrate

to Ohio EPA which emission controls are feasible and which is not. Only those

control options that meet the definition of RACT pursuant to the RACT study·

would be considered for implementation.

Comment 18:

OAC rule 3745-110-03(J) exempts numerous sources from the requirements of

the NOx RACT rules, including sources with the potential to emit less than

twenty-five tons (25) per year of NOx. See, proposed OAC rule 3745-110-

03(J)(15). As set forth above, Ohio EPA has stated that the purpose of the NOx

RACT rules is to regulate NOx emissions from "major" sources. Therefore, Ohio

EPA should not seek to apply onerous and complex RACT requirements on

small sources with "actual" rather than "potential" NOx emissions of less than

twenty-five (25) tons per year. Flexible requests that Ohio EPA modify the

language of OAC rule 3745-110-03(J)(15) to reflect this exemption for actual

emissions. (April R. Bott; Chester, Willcox, and Saxbe LLP on behalf of

Flexible Pavements of Ohio)

Response 18:

Ohio EPA will recognize those affected sources that, even though their potential

to emit may be greater than 25 ton/year of NOx emissions, have via a permit

restriction, actual permitted NOx emissions of 25 tons/year or less. Specifically,

a new exemption (OAC rule 3745-110-03(J)(16)) will be added to this rule to

recognize any such permit restriction.

Comment 19:

The 25 TPY Exemption Should Be Based on Actual Emissions.

OSG appreciates the Agency's clarification that the exemption in 3745-110-

03(J)(14) for "any source other than an asphalt plant, boiler, gas turbine or

internal combustion engine that has the potential to emit less than twenty-five

tons per year of NOx" can be flexibly applied to emissions units possessing
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 150'40

physical limitations that render the presumption of 8,760 hours of operation

inapplicable. However, as noted in OSG's interested-party comments, we still

believe the exclusion should be linked to actual emissions. This 25 TPY

exemption exists because it is not cost-effective to install NOx RACT controls (or

to conduct a NOx RACT Study) when the emissions control benefit cannot

exceed 25 TPY NOx. That conclusion is equally applicable to sources that

actually emit less than 25 TPY of NOx - regardless of their potential to emit.

Any other result would entail needless analysis and administrative effort for

phantom emissions. For example, a source with the potential to emit 50 TPY of

NOx that consistently operates at 40% of capacity (20 TPY) would trigger a

costly RACT Study, which would almost certainly conclude that the cost to

control less than 20 TPY of NOx is too high to be cost-effective. Establishing an

exemption tied to demonstrated actual emissions will resolve this problem,

reduce the administrative burden of this rule, and retain the same environmental

benefits. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey L..L.P. on

behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)

Response 19:

Ohio EPA will recognize those affected sources that, even though their potential

to emit may be greater than 25 ton/year of NOx emissions, they have via a permit

restriction, actual permitted NOx emissions of 25 tons/year or less. Specifically,

a new exemption (OAC rule 3745-110-03(J)(16)) will be added to this rule to

recognize any such permit restriction.

Comment 20:

Sources That Primarily Burn Blast Furnace Gas Should Be Exempt.

Section 3745-110-03(J)(10) exempts "any CO Boiler" from the proposed NOx

RACT limits. Units that burn primarily blast furnace gas should be similarly

exempted from NOx RACT limits because CO is also the source of BTUs in blast

furnace gas. That result can be readily achieved by adding an express

exemption to subsection (J) for "sources that primarily burn blast furnace gas."

Alternately, Ohio EPA could define the phrase "CO Boiler" to include all sources

that "primarily burn CO, whether from blast furnace gas or any other source."

Such an exception will promote the environmentally beneficial use of this low

NOx alternative to natural gas. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders &

Dempsey L.L.P. on behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)

Response 20:

Ohio EPA believes that sources burning blast furnace gas should be included in

the rule. Sources burning blast furnace gas contribute to NOx emissions that will

be needed for attainment demonstration. In addition, Ohio EPA is not aware of

any other states that have exempted this fuel source.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Comment 21:

Page 16 of40

The 25 TPY Exemption Should Apply to Boilers. Turbines. Engines and

Asphalt Plants.

At the interested-party stage, OSG commented:

[R]egardless of whether the [25 TPY] exemption is driven by potential

to emit or actual emissions; there is no reason to automatically

prevent "asphalt plants, boilers, gas turbines or internal combustion

engines" from qualifying. The 25 TPY threshold exemption should be

an exemption without any limit based on type of source. The NOx

emitted from the specified sources is no different than NOx emitted

from other sources, and will have no different environmental impact.

Rather, the establishment of a threshold exemption for NOx RACT

controls reflects the practical conclusion that sources with emissions

below a certain magnitude do not warrant the effort and expense of

RACT controls. This rationale is equally applicable for all source

types. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey

L.L.P. on behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)

Response 21:

Boilers, gas turbines and internal combustion engines all have their specific NOx

emission limitations as specified within the context of this' rule that are considered

to meet the definition of RACT (cost-effective and technically feasible). Ohio

EPA recognizes the existence of NOx emissions from smaller sources, but NOx

emission controls for these small sources are not considered to be cost-effective.

Comment 22:

The Proposed Exemptions Should Cover All NOx RACT Obligations.

As currently structured, 3745-110-03(J) exempts seventeen categories of

sources from "the requirements of paragraphs (A) to (F), and (I)" of that rule.

Those sections contain all of the proposed numeric NOx limits and the alternate

requirement for RACT Studies. The sections that are omitted from that exclusion

language - (G) and (H) - do not have any apparent continued relevance in the

absence of emissions limits. Subsection (G) contains testing parameters for

"emissions limits specified in paragraphs (A) to (F) or pursuant to paragraph (I)."

Subsection (H) similarly contains emissions averaging instructions, which

supplant "the applicable emission Iimit(s) specified in paragraphs (A) to (F)...or

established in accordance with paragraph (I)...." Thus, absent express

emissions limits, subsections (G) and (H) have no purpose. Since the exclusions

in subsection (J) preclude emissions limits for exempt sources, that exemption

should extend to all of 3745-110-03 - including (G) and (H). To accomplish this,
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 17 of40

OSG proposes that the lead-in text to subjection (J) be amended to read: "The

requirements efpaFagFap"s fA) te fF), alul (I) of this rule shall not apply to

the following sources."

(Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. on behalf of The

Ohio Steel Group)

Response 22:

The Ohio EPA understands the commenters concern. However, the agency

needs to identify the portions of the rule that do not apply. The reference to

paragraph (I) "NOx RACT studies for stationary sources" shall be removed from

this phrase since the sources listed in this part of the rule may be subject to a

NOx RACT study.

Paragraph (J) of this rule shall now read as follows: "The requirements of

paragraphs (A) to (F) of this rule shall not apply to the following sources:"

Comment 23:

The "Auxiliary" Exemption Should Applv to All Auxiliary Units. Not Just

Boilers.

The Proposed Rule currently exempts "any auxiliary boiler" from the primary NOx

RACT requirements (3745-110-03(J)(9)). The term "auxiliary boiler" is defined to

mean "a boiler that produces steam and operates at a capacity factor of less than

ten percent." This exemption appropriately recognizes that sources which

operate at less than ten percent of their capacity are not candidates for costeffective NOx RACT controls. That rationale is not limited to boilers. Instead, it

extends to all units that operate at a "capacity factor of less than ten percent."

We request that this exemption be extended to include all auxiliary sources, not

just boilers. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. on

behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)

Response 23:

The Ohio EPA has added a new exemption (OAC rule 3745-110-03(J)(20)) to

recognize those emission units that operate at a reduced capacity factor.

Comment 24:

NOx RACT Rules should not be used to supplement or augment NSPS for

new sources and should not be more stringent than BART.

If a new source is subject to federal New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS), those NSPS standards should suffice to regulate NOx emissions. In

comparing the proposed NOx RACT limits for combustion turbines with the

Subpart KKKK NSPS emission limits, virtually all of the limits are consistent.
Rule Package: OAG rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 18 of40

However, certain proposed NOx RACT limits, like those for modified or

reconstructed units greater than 3.5 megawatts and less than 50 megawatts, are

more stringent than the corresponding NSPS standards. RACT, as Reasonably

Available Control Technology, should not be more stringent than New Source

Performance Standards, which reflect the "best demonstrated technology." We

urge Ohio EPA to revise the proposed limits to make them consistent with an no

more stringent than the applicable NSPS.

In addition, we believe that the numerical expression of RACT should be

consistent with the intended RACT technology and should be no more stringent

than BART - best available retrofit technology. Good combustion control is

representative of RACT; post-combustion controls such as SCR are beyond

RACT. We believe the agency intended to establish RACT limits commensurate

with good combustion controls on large boilers, and we urge Ohio EPA to ensure

that the numerical expression of RACT in. the proposed rules does not exceed

that which can be achieved through good combustion controls, and does not

exceed the level of performance deemed consistent with BART. Further, it

should be noted that EPA's BART guidance are for units that are 10 times the

size of the majority of industrial units to be regulated in Ohio's RACT rulemaking.

As such, while EPA has determined presumptive cost-effectiveness controls for

these huge units in virtually all instances do not justify post-combustion controls,

the numerical limits for coal-fired boilers established by U.S. EPA for BART will

certainly not be cost-effective for the boiler sizes being regulated in these rules.

Further, while OEPA has chosen to subcategorize boilers based on size for

RACT, what is considered reasonable for very large boilers over 250 MMBtu/hr

will certainly not be reasonable for smaller boilers, which will not be able to costeffectively employ those same controls to achieve much smaller reductions.

Therefore, we suggest that boilers smaller than 250 MMBtu/hr should have

higher RACT limits than boilers greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, if RACT

considerations are being properly applied. Thus, while we appreciate that OEPA

has revised their proposed RACT limits, we believe that further revisions are

needed to meet the intent. Otherwise, most facilities are likely to have to conduct

costly and time-consuming individual RACT assessments.

(Kathy Milenkovski; on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of commerce, the Ohio

Chemistry Technology Council, and the Ohio Manufacturer's Association)

Response 24:

The Ohio EPA acknowledges your concern regarding the proposed NOx

emission limitations. However, the NOx emission limitations specified in the

proposed rule for combustion turbines are consistent with the NSPS for modified

and reconstructed units in Subpart KKKK. It may be possible the commenter is

confusing new unit levels with existing source "RACT'.

The NOx emission limitations specified in the proposed rule have been revised

from the previous draft rule. The NOx emission limits in the proposed rule were

raised slightly and are achievable without the use of post-combustion controls.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 19 of 40

The revised NOx emission limits for these units, regardless of unit size, are

achievable through combustion technology, and from a technological and cost

effectiveness standpoint meet the definition of RACT.

Comment 25:

Proposed rules should provide additional exemptions and waivers.

Commenters believe that NOx RACT engineering studies should not be required

for NOx sources that have received BACT or LAER permits within the last 5

years. Given that NOx BACT or LAER should be at least as restrictive as NOx

RACT, the additional effort and expense needed to conduct a RACT study is

unjustified. We propose adding such an exemption to proposed OAC rule 3745-

110-03(J).

Similarly, the proposed rules should contain a provision giving the Director

discretion to waive NOx RACT requirements where such a waiver makes sense.

For instance, it would be a waste of resources to require a NOx RACT study or

the implementation of additional and costly NOx RACT controls for a facility that

has announced it will shut down and cease operations in the immediate future. A

simple provision giving the Director discretion to exempt sources from NOx

RACT for such reasons should also be added to OAC rule 3745-110-03(J).

(Kathy Milenkovski; on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of commerce, the Ohio

Chemistry Technology Council, and the Ohio Manufacturer's Association)

Response 25:

A new exemption has been added to this rule (paragraph (J)(19)) for an

emissions unit operating under a valid air permit and subject to BACT or LAER

standards.

Regarding matters of potential emissions unit closure or facility closure, this

would be handled outside the context of the NOx RACT rule. Compliance with

the NOx RACT rules for such instances would be, in part, a function of the

operational time of the source after the compliance deadline and would be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Notification of any such closure should be

made to the appropriate Ohio EPA field office to evaluate the particular case in

hand.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23. 2007

Comment 26:

Page 200'40

(E) Stationary Combustion Turbines: FE appreciates the fact that the draft rules have been changed

significantly from the interested party draft; however. FE is still concerned that certain limits.

particularly those for modified or reconstructed units of less than 50 MW but greater than 3.5 MW. still

exceed the current NSPS for combustion turbines. Subpart KKKK. RACT, being reasonably available

control technology. should be no more restrictive than the corresponding NSPS limits.

(0) (Methods 0/demon.ftrating compIiana)

(1) FE believes it may be clearer to change the wording ofthis proposed rule to read in part. "The

average ofthree one-hour stack rest runs..."

(2) FE believes that the use of a 30-day rolling average when using CEMs should notjust be limited to

the period October first through April thirtieth but should extend throughout the whole year.

(1) Sources to which the rules do not apply: See the earlier comment underApplicability.

(Robert E. Williams II, First Energy)

Response 26:

Regarding the commenters concern for stationary combustion turbines, the NOx

emission limitations specified in the proposed rule for combustion turbines are

consistent with the NSPS for modified and reconstructed units in Subpart KKKK.

It may be possible you are confusing new unit levels with existing source

"RACT".

Regarding the commenters question for methods of demonstrating compliance,

paragraph (G)(1) of this rule has been revised pursuant to your suggestion.

Regarding the commenters comment for 3D-day rolling average calculations, use

of the 3D-day rolling average is acceptable for periods outside the ozone season.

However, due to potential severity of pollution formation during the ozone season

a daily NOx emissions compliance demonstration is needed to ensure on-going

compliance.

Comment 27:

In our Title V Permit we have two small boilers and a mid-size boiler that are

permitted to bum natural gas and/or number two fuel oil. A few years ago we

burned fuel oil in one of the small boilers for a short duration as a result of the

high natural gas costs. The proposed rule 3745-110-03 requires mid-sized boiler

to be stack tested. My question is must we conduct stack testing for each fuel

even if the fuel oil is used for a short duration during the winter months under

emergency conditions? (Greg Taylor, Lubrizol Corporation)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 27:

Page 21 of40

As mentioned in the comment you are permitted to burn both natural gas and

number two fuel oil. Even though you may use only one of the fuel types for a

short duration presently, there is nothing (unless otherwise specified in your

permit) to prevent the facility from using number two fuel oil on a more frequent

basis. As such, testing would be required for each fuel type used for the boiler

in order to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitation.

Comments 28:

We ask that you consider raising the 200 and 500 horsepower thresholds for

affected existing ICE. Retrofit controls for existing engines this small are very

expensive. In the NOx SIP call Phase II, EPA used approximately 2400 HP as

their threshold. (Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion Reso·urces Services, Inc.)

Response 28:

Ohio EPA is familiar with the analysis provided by U.S. EPA's NOx SIP call

Phase 2. While the NOx SIP call does not specifically cite 2,400 hp as a cut-off,

it does use 16.8 grams/bhp-hr as a suggested emission factor. Ohio EPA

believes those engines with a 2,000 hp and greater rating can apply NOx

emission controls that are economically and technically feasible, thus meeting

the definition of RACT. Therefore, Ohio EPA will revise the horsepower

threshold for these engines to 2,000 horsepower.

Comment 29:

We ask that you replace the reference to "gaseous fuels" with "natural gas" in

OAC rule 3745-110-03(F)(1) and (2) for stationary ICE unless there are

stationary ICE that run on gaseous fuels other than natural gas. The same

comment was proposed and accepted for OAC rule 3745-110-03(E) for

Stationary Combustion Turbines. (Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion Resources

Services, Inc.)

Response 29:

The term gaseous fuel will remain. We realize that most of the time these

engines utilize only natural gas for fuel, but on occasion may have the need for

use of other gaseous fuel types. Thus, allowing for some operational flexibility.

Comment 30:

NOx Control Levels for IC Engines and Turbines.

Columbia supports the proposed NOx control levels for IC engines (3.0 g/bhp-hr)

and small turbines (42 ppmvd). These levels were justified by USEPA in the
Rule Package: GAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 22 0(40

NOx SIP Call Phase II rule development as RACT level control for this equipment

and are typically achievable for both new and existing IC engines and small

turbines. The NOx SIP Call Phase II control requirements were established in

the 2001 to 2004 timeframe and control requirements began May 1, 2007, thus

reflecting a fairly current review of technology by USEPA.

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 30:

The Ohio EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

Comment 31:

Default IC Engine Size for RACT

3745-11 0-03(F)(1), (2), (3) and (4) list a horsepower (HP) size applicability

threshold for stationary IC engines at 200 HP. In 3745-11 0-03(J)(3) IC engines

less than 500 HP are exempted. This creates a conflict in applicable size.

Columbia supports an IC Engine exemption level of 2400 HP. This corresponds

to the engine size USEPA established for RACT controls in the NOx SIP Call

Phase II rule. Control feasibility was not justified by USEPA below this level. For

example, Medina Compressor Station, which is potentially affected by the draft

rule, includes three IC engines each rated at 1100 HP (greater than the 200 HP

or 500 HP level proposed in the rule). Preliminary cost estimations for Medina

were made by Ingenuity, a nationally recognized leader in NOx control

equipment installation for IC engines. These estimates for control to 3.0 g/bhp-hr

were approximately $1,627,000 per engine. Expected actual NOx reductions are

approximately 8 tons per year per engine, resulting in over $20,000 per ton of

NOx removed using a 10 year amortization and over $60,000 per ton using a 3

year amortization. These cost effectiveness numbers exceed RACT guidelines

by a considerable amount. Although other states have established cut-off levels

below 2400 HP, typically utilization and/or emission thresholds are included and

typically coupled with RACT study and averaging provisions that in effect exempt

smaller IC engines.

Columbia supports the utilization of the federal USEPA guideline in the NOx SIP

Call Phase II rule of 2400 HP as the size applicability threshold and thus

suggests changing Sections 3745-110-03(F)(1), (2), (3) and (4) and 3745-110-

03(J)(3) to reflect 2400 HP. If this approach is not acceptable to Ohio EPA,

alternative language that incorporates the typical low utilization of IC engines in

pipeline applications should be incorporated coupled with a 100 tpy source-wide

threshold. For example the IC engines at Medina have operated below 25%

utilization in all of the past 10 years and the majority of the Columbia IC engines

operate below 50% across the system. The result is minimal actual NOx

reductions for the cost required to achieve 3.0g/bhp-hr. Columbia would

appreciate the opportunity to provide additional input in rule language related to
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 230'40

utilization if the 2400 HP size applicability threshold is not incorporated. (Kelly R.

Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 31:

While the NOx SIP call does not specifically cite 2,400 hp as a cut-off, it does use

16.8 grams/bhp-hr as a suggested emission factor. Ohio EPA believes those

engines with a 2,000 hp and greater rating can apply NOx emission controls that

economically and technically feasible, thus meeting the definition of RACT.

Therefore, Ohio EPA will revise the horsepower threshold for these engines to

2,000 horsepower.

Comment 32:

Emission Averaging Programs - RACT Limits.

The language in 3745-110-03(H)(1)(a) implies that a RACT emission limit needs

to be specified for each source involved in the emission averaging program. This

could potentially imply that each source in the averaging program must apply

RACT, whereas, reductions may be gained from sources not applicable to the

RACT rule under 3745-110-02. Columbia suggests:

(a) Specify the RACT emission limit for each affected source in 3745-

110-02 involved in the emission averaging program;

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 32:

The Ohio EPA will revise the language in this rule to read as suggested in the

comment.

Comment 33:

Emission Averaging Programs - Schedule.

The language in 3745-110-03(H)(1 )(d) implies that the owner or operator comply

with the proposed emission limits in 3745-110-04. Section 3745-110-04

establishes the compliance deadlines, and Section 3745-110-03 establishes the

emission limits. This should be corrected. Columbia suggests the following

language and assumes that the intent is to establish deadlines. The emission

limits are already established in this section of the rule, whereas the deadline has

not been established.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 24 0'40

(d) Achieve compliance with the proposod amissioR !!FRits compliance

deadlines in accordance with rule 3745-110-04 of the Administrative

Code.

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 33:

The Ohio EPA will revise the language in OAC rule 3745-110-03(H)(1)(d) as

follows:

"Achieve compliance with the proposed emission limits in accordance with the

compliance deadlines in rule 3745-110-04 of the Administrative Code."

Comment 34:

Emission Averaging Programs - Allowed Reductions.

Columbia suggests that language be added in 3745-110-03(H) to better clarify

those reductions that would be allowed under the emissions averaging program.

(1) An owner or operator of a source which is subject to this chapter may

propose an emission averaging program in lieu of the applicable emission

limit(s) specified in paragraphs (A) to (F) ofthis rule or established in

accordance with paragraph (I) of this rule. Both affected sources under

3745-110-02 and non-affected sources are allowed to be utilized in

the averaging program, to the extent that reductions are real,

quantifiable and enforceable and are in excess ofany State or

Federal requirements. Any proposed emission averaging program shall

comply with all ofthe following requirements:

(e) Reductions allowed under the emission averaging program

are those reductions that are real, quantifiable and

enforceable and are in excess ofany State or Federal

requirements. For purposes ofdetermining the reduction,

the actual emissions, in tons per year, from all sources

included in the averaging program are subtracted from the

lesser of the actual annual average emissions in tons per

year for the three years prior to when the actual reduction

occurred or the allowable emissions. Shutdowns are

creditable only to the extent that the owner or operator can

demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe director that the

shutdown did not correspond to load-shifting or other

activity which resulted in or could result in an equivalent or

greater emission increase and that the reduction accounts

for any increase in NOx emissions from other sources as a

result ofthe shutdown.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 25 of40

(f) Owners or operators must submit a report to the Ohio EPA

by March 31 demonstrating that the equivalent reduction

requirement in 3745-110-03(H)(1)(c) has been achieved for

the previous year.

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 34:

The revised language as suggested above, with some minor revisions, will be

added to this rule.

Comment 35:

RACT Studies for Stationary Sources - Average daily NOx emissions.

Section 3745-110-03(1)(1 )(g)(i) states that the emissions data for each affected

source be reported using the average daily NOx emissions based upon the

highest average daily production rate. Columbia suggests the following language

change:

(i) Average daily NOx emissions (pounds per day of operation) based

upon tRe highest average daily prochJotion Fate for eaoh of three full

calendar years preceding the effective date ofthis rule or any other year

that may be more representative ofthe highest average daily emissions;

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 35:

To more clearly specify what information is being requested,·an explanation of

the methodology has been provided via a comment box within this section of the

rule. No further revision to the rule will be made.

Comment 36:

RACT Studies for Stationary Sources - Maximum daily NOx emissions.

Section 3745-110-03(1)(1 )(g)(ii) seems irrelevant for an emissions averaging

program. Columbia suggests this specific condition be struck from rule.

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 36:

This section of the rule requests NOx emission information for the NOx RAGT

study. Specifically, what were the maximum daily NOx emissions from an

affected source from each of the previous three calendar years preceding the
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 260f40

effective date of this rule. From these three values obtained from the three

previous years, the highest of the three values shall be the maximum daily figure

Ohio EPA is looking for. No further revision to the rule will be made.

This information, along with the average daily NOx emissions and the annual

NOx emissions are needed in order to evaluate the potential NOx emissions from

an affected source.

Comment 37:

RACT Studies for Stationary Sources - Annual NOx emissions.

Section 3745-110-03(1}(1}(g}(iii} states that the "actual" annual NOx emissions

data for each affected source be reported using the highest annual production

rate. Columbia suggests the folloWing language change:

(iii) Annual NOx emissions (tons per year) based upon the J::IigRost

annual actual production rate for each of the three full calendar

years preceding the effective date of this rule or any other year that

may be more representative of the annual production rate;

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 37:

This section of the rule is requesting which year, of the three years being

evaluated, had the highest annual production rate (converted to tons per year of

NOx emissions). No further revision to the rule will be made.

Comment 38:

Unit replacement should be recognized as a NOx RACT study Alternative.

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) suggest that a new

subsection (5) to OAC rule 3745-110-03(1} be included in the rule that expressly

excuses units being replaced from the NOx RACT study requirements. As

currently drafted, the NOx RACT rule requires a NOx RACT study even for units

scheduled for replacement regardless of the replacement schedule. A RACT

study focused on units that will be replaced soon after the certification deadline

would only create administrative burdens (for both the regulated entity and the

agency) with no corresponding environmental benefit. The replacement units are

subject to new permit requirements, which include applicable state of the art

emission rate obligations. A NOx RACT study would be redundant and

unnecessary for both the existing units and the replacement units.

(Erwin J. Odeal, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 38:

Page 27 of 40

Typically, a NOx RACT study would not be required for a new emissions unit

installation since such a source would be subject to new source review (NSR)

standards.

The compliance deadlines in this rule target existing emission units. Should a

total replacement be necessary (i.e., a new emissions unit) then compliance

deadlines and emissions testing will be specified in the facility's permit to install

(PTI) and permit to operate (PTO).

If you are considering operating an emissions unit afterthe proposed RACT

study deadline and/or compliance deadlines, then notification of any such

proposed closure (of an existing emissions unit) should be made to the

appropriate Ohio EPA field office to evaluate the particular case in hand.

Compliance with the NOx RACT rules for such instances would be, in part, a

function of the operational time of the source after any compliance deadline(s)

and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Comment 39:

Post-eOmbustiOB controls are Dot appropriate for all boners

Unlike boilers operated by traditional electric utilities, most leI boilers do not operate at

base-load conditions. Many post-combustion controls, including SCR, are not

appropriate technology choices for ICI boilers that do not operate at base loaded.

conditions, because it is not possible to find an optimum location in the flue gas path that

provides necessary operating conditions, such as consistent temperature points for

operation of SCR. In addition, because most industrial boilers must swing loads to meet

process stearn requirements on an ongoing basis, SCR should not be the basis for RACT

for new industrial boiler installations using any fuel.

Further, ammonia is a hazardous substance requiring special precautions during handling,

and emergency preparedness planning in the event of an unplanned release. The

alternative, urea., requires significantly more volume (on an equivalent basis) in order to

sustain the reaction within the SCR. Whatever the reagent, many ICI facilities may not

be equipped to handle this added burden. In addition, because of the load-following

nature of leI boilers, there is the possibility of excess ammonia slip from the SC~

increasing overall annual operating costs and causing potential operational and

environmental impacts. The differences between leI and utility boilers are further

discussed in the elBO publication "Differences Between Industrial and Utility Boilers"

(Attachment A).
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 28 of40

CIBO recognizes that some commenters may disregard the concerns expressed above and

argue that, cost aside, solid-fuel fired industrial boilers can achieve outlet emission rates

less than 0.30 IbsIMMBtu. In response to that argwnent, CIBO reminds decision-makers

of a point that cannot be stressed enough: in order to ensure continuous compliance, the

design outlet emission rate must be less than the regulatory limit. In part for tbatrcason,

RACf analysis under the Clean Air Act includes feasibility in the evaluation of

appropriate technology.

(Robert D. Bessette, Council of Industrial Boilers (CIBO»

Response 39:

The NOx emissions limits have been revised since the interested party review

and reflect an emission rate that should be achievable through combustion

technology (low NOx burners or low NOx burners in conjunction with over-fired

air or flue gas recirculation, as applicable). In addition, a RACT study may be

used as an alternative to complying with the presumptive NOx emission

limitations.

Comment 40:

Many post-combustion controls are Dot economically feasible for all boilen

Economic feasibility is specific to each boiler, project and site. The total cost of an leI

pollution control project can be many times that of a utility boiler project in terms of

dollars per ton of NOx removed, or as given in the past projections used for regulation

development. The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and other Regional Planning

Organizations (RP0s) are only now beginning to look at the true costs for the leI sector

and assess the economic feasibility of various control strategies. Considering the limited

availability of current and accurate information about rei NOl{ Control installations and

the capabilities for solid fuel boilers, elBo believes the emission reduction potential in

the proposed rule may be overstated. eIBo believes wit;h a high degree..ofcertainty that

the cost projections in the proposed rule are significantly underestimated.

Balance-of-plant issues must also be ronsidered when evaluating projects of this

magnitude. In addition to the actual cost of the pollution control equipment (purchase

and installation), project costs will also include the evaluation of boiler auxiliary

equipment (fans), the interface of the pollution control equipment with boiler controls

and other monitoring necessary to ensure proper operation.

(Robert D. Bessette, Council of Industrial Boilers (CIBO»

Response 40:

The emission limits being proposed differ significantly from those originally

included in the draft rules released for interested party review. The identified

levels of control are based on emission rates consistent with combustion controls

which are anticipated to be continuous reductions. It is not anticipated that post
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 290f40

combustion control options with seasonal control (e.g., selective catalytic

reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)) will be required to

achieve compliance with the proposed emission limits. In addition, an emission

averaging protocol is included as an option for compliance with the presumptive

NOx emission limits.

Rule 3745-110-04, "Compliance deadlines"

Comment 41:

Low NOx Burners Are "Add-On" Controls.

OSG requests confirmation that sources which install low NOx burners to comply

with the proposed NOx RACT rule will receive the additional year to demonstrate

compliance provided for "add-on" controls. The proposed rule establishes a twotiered compliance deadline, providing that sources have until "May 1, 2010 if

combustion modifications are required to demonstrate compliance" and until

"May 1,2011 if add-on controls are reqUired to demonstrate compliance...."

3745-110-04(8). This distinction is apparently intended to permit the additional

time necessary to engineer, fabricate, install and test add-on controls. The

installation of low NOx burners - particUlarly at large, complex sources like those

at steel mills - evokes those same concerns. For units with multiple burners,

installing low NOx replacement burners requires significant engineering, design,

fabrication and installation time, especially for retrofit applications, similar to addon controls. The additional year should be available for any project that

demonstrates need and offers milestones. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire

Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. on behalf of The Ohio Steel Group)

Response 41:

The compliance dates in this rule have been revised. For those emission

sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate compliance with the

applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be two years

after the effective date of this rule. For those emission sources requiring add-on

controls to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations

the new compliance date will be three years after the effective date of this rule.

Low NOx burners or low NOx burners used in conjunction with over-fired air or

flue gas recirculation are considered to be combustion controls. Add-on controls

consist of any post-combustion control equipment (Le., SCR or SNCR).

The revised compliance time-frames should allow sufficient time to design and

install any required emission control equipment.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Comment 42:

Timing for NOx RACT study.

Page 300'40

The proposal provides that sources may opt to perform a NOx RACT study to

either establish alternative RACT options or to demonstrate that controls are not

cost-effective. Sources availing themselves of this option must prepare and

submit their RACT engineering studies by January 1, 2009, and must then

implement "approved" RACT by May 1, 2009, a mere 4 months later. We believe

this timeframe is unrealistic. First, there is no guarantee that the engineering

study that is submitted by January 1, 2009 will be approved. Second, the

permittee will have 4 months to implement NOx RACT only if the proposal is

approved the day it is submitted. We believe that in reality, NOx RACT studies

will not be approved by Ohio EPA in a matter of days or even weeks, which

means that companies will have significantly less than 4 months in which to

develop bids and purchase and install RACT controls. This simply is not

sufficient time. We propose that in lieu of a fixed May 1, 2009 deadline, Ohio

EPA revise OAC rule 3745-110-04(A)(2)(b) to provide that NOx RACT shall be

implemented not later than six months after approval of the proposed NOx RACT

engineering study, unless additional time is required to obtain and install

equipment. Should additional time be required, a schedule including the timing

for engineering, placement of purchase orders, completion of equipment

installation and operational "debugging" of the equipment shall be submitted to

Ohio EPA for approval, with the new compliance date being the end date of any

operational debugging period.

(Kathy Milenkovski; on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of commerce, the Ohio

Chemistry Technology Council, and the Ohio Manufacturer's Association)

Response 42:

Ohio EPA recognizes the issues with the specific document submittals and

compliance deadlines as detailed in the proposed permit. As such, revisions

have been made to this rule to reflect a more feasible schedule.

Specifically, the certification and permit application requirements in paragraph

(A)(1) of this rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be within

four months from the effective date of this rule. RACT studies, if needed, would

be submitted within one year after the effective date of this rule.

In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows:

For those emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance

date will be two years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is

submitted, two years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.
Rule Package: OAG rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 31 of40

For those emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be

three years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is submitted,

three years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

Comment 43:

(A) Certification...

(1) FE suggests that regulated community should be afforded no less than 6 months to submit a statement

of compliance under subparagraph (ll).

FE also believes that under subparagraph (b) that the submittal of an application must follow the

completion of either aRAer study under paragraph (I) or an engineering study in general. We therefore

suggest that the subparagraph should be changed at the beginning to read, ''Notify the director of the

intent 10 submit.....

Therefore. the proposed rule should require the submittal of either (a) or (b) "00 January 1,2008 or

6 months after the effective date ofthe rule, whichever is later."

An additional subparagraph should be added requiring the application to be "submitted by January I,

2009 or 18 months after the effective date of the rules, whichever is later."

(2)(a) (RACT study submittal): FE suggests that regulated community should be afforded no less than

18 months to submit a complete RACf study ifrequired. Therefore, the rule should require the submittal

"on January I, 2009 or 18 months after the effective date of the rules. whichever is later."

(2)(b) (RACf implementation): FE suggests deleting this subparagraph. It is addressed by paragraph (B),

which requires compliance with the RAer emission limits by either May 1,2010 or May 1,2011.

(Robert E. Williams II, First Energy)

Response 43:

Ohio EPA recognizes the issues with the specific document submittals and

compliance deadlines as detailed in the proposed permit. As such, revisions

have been made to this rule to reflect a more feasible schedule.

Specifically, the certification and permit application requirements (paragraph

(A)(1)) of this rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be

within four months from the effective date of this rule. RACT studies, if needed,

would be submitted within one year after the effective date of this rule.

In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows:

For those emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance

date will be two years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is

submitted, two years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 32 of40

For those emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be

three years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is submitted,

three years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

Comment 44:

Regarding the NOx RACT certification or permit application deadline per

3745-110-04 (A)(a) & (b). Considering that the proposed rule is still in a draft

stage and will not be effective for some time, the proposed date of January 1,

2008 is unreasonably early. It is expected that in order to determine compliance

with the NOx emission limits per million Btu, we would have to do stack testing.

It will take time to schedule such testing with a testing contractor and install the

necessary sampling ports on the staGk. .If the stack testing shows emissions to

be above the limits, then additional time would be required to determine a

compliance program and submit an application for a modification of the

permit-to-operate, per paragraph (b). With numerous Mid-size or larger boilers

likely requiring such testing, testing contractors may not be able to handle the

demand in time for facilities to meet the deadline.

We suggest changing the wording to require certification or permit submittal "no

later than twelve months after the effective date of this rule".

Previous commentera asked for this same wording change in 2006, but Ohio

EPA instead changed the certification deadline from December 1, 2006 to

January 1, 2008. Specifying a 12 month time period from the effective date of

the rule for certification, instead of trying to state a specific date, would make

things easier for Ohio EPA, the affected facilities, and testing contractors.

(Bob Setele, Lubrizol Corporation)

Response 44:

Paragraph (A) of proposed OAC rule 3745-110-04 is simply a notification

requirement for certification and permit application requirements to be submitted

to the Director of Ohio EPA. The RACT compliance deadlines are specified in

paragraph (B) of this rule. Thus, any stack testing would not have to be

performed by January 1, 2008.

Ohio EPA recognizes the issues with the specific document submittals and

compliance deadlines as detailed in the proposed permit. As such, revisions

have been made to this rule to reflect a more feasible schedule.

Specifically, the certification and permit application requirements in paragraph

(A)(1) of this rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be within

four months from the effective date of this rule. RACT studies, if needed, would

be submitted within one year after the effective date of this rule.
Rule Package: GAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows:

Page 33 of 40

For those emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance

date will be two years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is

submitted, two years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

For those emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be

three years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is submitted,

three years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

Comment 45:

Compliance Deadlines - Certification and Permit Application

Requirements.

Section 3745-11 0-04(A)(1) states that by not la~er than January 1, 2008 the

owner or operator certify in writing that any source subject to 3745-11 0-03(A)

through (F) is in compliance with all the requirements of 3745-110-03. Section

3745-110-04(A)(1) further goes on to outline elements that appear to be more

related to the approach for compliance and permit application submittal. In

addition, Section 3745-11 0-04(8) outlines the actual RACT compliance

deadlines. It appears that Section 3745-110-04(A)(1) is intended for the owner

or operator to establish the approach for control and permit application submittal,

and actual compliance deadlines are covered in Section 3745-110-04(8). Also,

due to the timing of the rule, January 1, 2008 is likely an impossible deadline for

control installation and is an extremely tight timeframe for companies to

determine approach and submit permit applications. As such, Columbia

suggests the following language:

(1) By not later than January 1, 20OB~ any owner or operator ofa source

subject to paragraphs (A) to (F) ofrule 3745-110-03 ofthe

Administrative Code and which is not subject to paragraph (A)(2) of

this rule shall either:

(a) Certify in writing to the director that such source i8-wil/ be in

compliance with all requirements ofrule 3745-110-03 of the

Administrative Code per the schedule outlined in 3745-110-

04(8). Such certification shall include: ...

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 45:

Page 34 of40

The Ohio EPA thanks the commenter for their suggested revisions to this portion

of the rule. However, the original wording as written in the proposed rule will

remain, for the most part, unchanged.

Ohio EPA recognizes the issues with the specific document submittals and

compliance deadlines as detailed in the proposed permit. As such, revisions

have been made to this rule to reflect a more feasible schedule.

Specifically, the certification and permit application requirements in paragraph

(A)(1) of this rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be within

four months from the effective date of this rule. RACT studies, if needed, would

be submitted within one year after the effective date of this. rule.

In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows:

For those emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance

date will be two years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is

submitted, two years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

For those emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be

three years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is submitted,

three years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

Comment 46:

Compliance Deadlines - RACT Study.

Section 3745-110-04(A)(2)(a) established that the complete RACT study be

submitted by January 1, 2009. Section 3745-110-04(A)(2)(b) requires

implementation of the approved RACT not later than May 1, 2009. Ohio EPA

and USEPA are both required to approve the RACT study. A four-month window

would be impossible to gain approval and implement RACT. Owners or

operators are likely going to wait until approval to spend any amount of

significant capital dollars to be assured that the approach is acceptable. In

addition, the default RACT requirements under Section 3745-110-04(8) are

required to be implemented by May 1, 2010 or May 1, 2011. This Section also

seems to incorporate the RACT study results, thus creating a conflict in rule

language. Columbia suggests the following language changes:

3745-110-04(A)

(2) Any owner or operator ofa source subject to paragraph (I) ofrule

3745-110-03 of the Administrative Code shalH
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 35 of 40

fa}-S-§.ubmit a complete RACT engineering study by not later than

January 1, 2009.

(8) SRa!! lmplemeRt IRe 8fJI3FOved RACTROi Jater tRaR May 1, 2009,

I:JRJess iRe dk:estor 8fJPmves of aR alternative sGf:le€H:JJe for

impJemeRliRg iRe RACT.

3745-110-04(8)

(B) RACT compliance deadline.

Any owner or operator ofa source that is subject to the requirements

ofrule 3745-110-03 of the Administrative Code, including any source

for which the director approves a definition of RACT pursuant to

paragraph (I) ofrule 3745-110-03 ofthe Administrative Code and has

not approved an alternative schedule for implementing the RACT,

shall achieve and demonstrate compliance ...

(Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)

Response 46:

The Ohio EPA has revised paragraphs (A)(2) and (8) of this rule pursuant to the

commenters suggestion. The RACT engineering study submittal deadline has

been revised to reflect submittal of this document "no later than one year after

the effective date of this rule."

Comment 47:

The timeframe outlined in proposed OAC rule 3745-110-4(A)(2) may not

allow Ohio EPA sufficient time to adequately review detailed RACT

engineering studies for sources subject to paragraph (I) of proposed rule

3745-110-03.

Proposed OAC rule 3745-11-04(A)(2) requires any owner or operator of a source

subject to paragraph (I) of rule 3745-11-03 to (a) submit a complete RACT

engineering study by not later than January 1, 2009 and (b) implement the

approved RACT by not later than May 1, 2009 unless the director approves an

alternate schedule for implementing the RACT. This proposed timeline implies

that Ohio EPA will be able to provide adequate review of engineering RACT

studies and either grant or deny approval within four months in order that

affected facilities be able to implement the approved RACT by the deadline. It is

the opinion of MCCo that this may not be a reasonable amount of time to allow

for Agency review and approval of the expected number of complex RACT

engineering study submissions. (Todd Gadawski, The Medical Center

Company)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 47:

Page 36 of 40

Ohio EPA recognizes the issues with the specific document submittals and

compliance deadlines as detailed in the proposed permit. As such, revisions

have been made to this rule to reflect a more feasible schedule.

Specifically, the certification and permit application requirements in paragraph

(A)(1) of this rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be within

four months from the effective date of this rule. RACT studies, if needed, would

be submitted within one year after the effective date of this rule.

In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows:

For those emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance

date will be two years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is

submitted, two years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

For those emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be

three years after the effective date of this rule or if a RACT study is submitted,

three years after approval of the RACT study by the Director.

Comment 48:

The NEORSD also recommends that the total replacement of an existing air

emission unit to comply with the proposed NOx RACT rule receive additional

time to demonstrate compliance. The proposed rule establishes a two-tiered

compliance deadline, providing that sources have until "May 1, 2010 if

combustion modifications are required to demonstrate compliance" and until

"May 1,2011, if add-on controls are required to demonstrate compliance ..."

3745-110-04(8). This distinction is apparently intended to permit the additional

time necessary to engineer, fabricate, install and test add-on controls. However,

the rule fails to consider the possibility that total replacement may be necessary

or economically desirable. The installation of an entirely new unit will require far

more time and effort than combustion modifications or add-on controls.

Accordingly, additional time should be afforded, on a case-by-case basis, for the

installation of more efficient replacement units to satisfy NOx RACT.

(Erwin J. Odeal, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District)

Response 48:

The compliance deadlines in this rule target existing emissions units. Should a

total replacement be necessary (Le., a new emissions unit) then compliance

deadlines and emissions testing will be specified in the facility's permit to install

(PTI) and permit to operate (PTO).
Rule Package: OAe rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 370'40

If you are considering operating an emissions unit afterthe proposed RACT

study deadline and/or compliance deadlines, then notification of any such

proposed closure (of an existing emissions unit) should be made to the

appropriate Ohio EPA field office to evaluate the particular case in hand.

Compliance with the NOx RACT rules for such instances would be, in part, a

function of the operational time of the source after any compliance deadline(s)

and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Rule 3745-110-05, "Compliance Methods"

Comment 49:

Safety Concerns Support a Different Perf~rmance T~~ting Standard.

While we appreciate Ohio EPA's confirmation that sources may perform

compliance demonstrations under circumstances that are "representative of the

normal operating modes" in 3745-11 0-05(C), one further compliance

demonstration clarification is necessary. Section 3745-110-05(0) provides that

boiler emissions testing "shall be performed while the affected boiler is operating

at or as close as possible to one hundred percent load." This standard must be

flexible enough for sources to account for the safety concerns that often

accompany running sources - and particularly older ones - at their upper limits.

Such exceptional operations can create dangerous operating and testing

conditions and further pose a risk of damaging equipment. OSG believes that a

safer, more appropriate approach is to require emissions testing at the "highest

typical operating load" for each boiler at issue as that will ensure safe,

representative testing.

(Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. on behalf of The

Ohio Steel Group)

Response 49:

The language in OAC rule 3745-110-05(0) has been revised to read "... while

the affected boiler is operating at or as close as possible to its maximum

pennitted operating capacity."

Comment 50:

The proposed NOx RACT part 3745-110-05 (0) requires that the boiler be tested

while operating at or as close as possible to one hundred percent load. Our

steam boiler operators say they can only operate close to 100% load on cold

winter days. This greatly restricts when the boiler can be tested. Also, since we

can not predict in advance what the ambient temperature will be on any given

day months in the future, this makes scheduling such testing impractical. In

addition we have safety concems regarding people being on the stack to perform
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007 Page 380f40

testing during icy winter conditions. Our testing contractor also tells us that his

people can not work outdoors if the temperature is in the single digits or below.

We suggest changing the wording to allow compliance testing while the affected

boiler is operating at "its normal operating rate, but not less than 50% of its rated

capacity". (Bob Setele, Lubrizol Corporation)

Response 50:

The Ohio EPA recognizes that ambient conditions affect boiler load. Therefore,

language in OAC rule 3745-110-05(0) will be revised to read "... while the

affected boiler is operating at or as close as possible to its maximum permitted

operating capacity."

Comment 51:

Averaging time for NOx emission limits.

The current proposal requires sources subject to the NOx RACT limits to

evaluate compliance on a 24-hour basis during the ozone season, and on a

rolling 30-day average from October 1 to April 30. We believe that having two

different standards applicable at different times of the year would result in undue

confusion. Indeed, how would compliance with a 3D-day rolling average be

determined during October? Would the first day of October be averaged with the

preceding 29 days in September, even though September is not part of the 30-

day averaging period? Or would the first day of October be averaged with 29

zero's? Our recommendation is that a single standard apply year round. That

standard should allow facilities to determine compliance with the NOx RACT

limits in a manner that is consistent with the way the source is operated. For

some sources, determining compliance on a 30-day rolling average makes the

most sense. For others, such as sources where monthly records of fuel use are

the basis for the emission calculation, a calendar monthly average may be

preferable. In any event, the final rule should allow flexibility in identifying the

compliance method that makes the most sense.

(Kathy Milenkovski; on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of commerce, the Ohio

Chemistry Technology Council, and the Ohio Manufacturer's Association)

Response 51 :

Due to potential severity of pollution formation during the ozone season a daily

(24-hour hour basis) NOx emissions compliance demonstration is needed to

ensure on-going compliance. The 30-day rolling average is acceptable for

periods of time outside the ozone season (October 1 to April 30).

Starting October 1, compliance shall be determined based upon a 3D-day rolling

average. This would be calculated by averaging with the preceding 29 days (i.e.

in this case the preceding 29 days in September).
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Comment 52:

Page 390'40

(0), (E), and (F): (Compl~ demonstrations): These paragraphs require the compliance

demonstrations to be conducted while "operating at or close as possible to one hundred percent load" and

in the case of combustion turbines and internal combustion engines also at "one hundred percent speed."

FE believes this language can be confusing, particularly when trying to track two parameters. FE

believes the language should be simplified by eliminating the confusing language mentioned above and

replacing it with language long used in previous permits. "The test(s) sball be conducted with the

emissions unit at or near maximum capacity."

(Robert E. Williams II, First Energy)

Response 52:

The language in OAC rule 3745-110-05(0), (E), and (F) will be revised to read

"... while the affected boiler (combustion turbine or internal combustion engine,

as applicable) is operating at or as close as possible to its maximum permitted

operating capacity."

Comment 53:

We ask that you add flexibility to OAC rule 3745-110-05, the compliance

methods portion of the rule. With regard to affected stationary combustion

turbines, we ask that you change the language to recognize our industry's

dependence on pipeline pressures to achieve 100% load. Specifically we ask

that you change the language for OAC rule 3745-11 0-05(E) to read as follows:

"For paragraph (E) of rule 3745-110-03 of the Administrative Code, compliance

demonstrations shall be performed while the affected stationary combustion

turbine is operating at 75 percent or greater load depending on pipeline

conditions." (Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion Resources Services, Inc.)

Response 53:

The language in OAC rule 3745-110-05(E) has been revised to read "... while the

affected stationary combustion turbine is operating at or as close as possible to

its maximum permitted operating capacity."

Comment 54:

With regard to affected stationary ICE, we ask that you change the language to

address available pipeline pressures. Engine and turbine loading is limited to the

available pipeline pressure; therefore, Dominion can only load and test the

engine based on the pipeline's pressure. Specifically we ask that you change the

language for OAC rule 3745-110-05(F) to read: "For paragraph (F) of rule 3745-

110-03 of the Administrative Code, compliance demonstrations shall be

performed while the affected internal combustion engine is operating at

maximum available operating conditions." (Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion

Resources Services, Inc.)
Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05

Response to Comments

August 23, 2007

Response 54:

Page 400(40

The Ohio EPA recognizes that pipeline pressures affect internal combustion

engine load. Therefore, language in this rule will be revised to read"... while the

affected internal combustion engine is operating at or as close as possible to its

maximum permitted operating capacity."

Comment 55:

Proposed OAC rule 3734-110-05 does not indicate the frequency of onqoing

compliance demonstrations.

The owner or operator of a source that is subject to the requirements of rule

3745-110-03 may choose to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable

emissions limit as stated in paragraph (G) of the rule via either stack testing or

installation and operation of a NOx continuous emissions monitoring system. For

those sources that choose to demonstrate compliance through a stack test, rule

3745-110-05 does not indicate the frequency of future tests. MCCo proposes

that ongoing compliance demonstrations be required at five-year intervals.

(Todd Gadawski, The Medical Center Company)

Response 55:

The rule will not contain a specific time interval for future stack tests. The

frequency of future stack testing requirements will be specified in the facility's

operating permit.

End of Response to Comments
Division

airIEm

of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

Proposed Rule Language Comment Period

Rule: OAC rules 3745-110-01,110-02,110-03,110-04, and 110-05; NOx

RACT

Agency Contact for this Package

Division Contact: Alan Harness, DAPC, 644-4838, alan.harness@epa.state.oh.us

Ohio EPA provided a 30 day comment period which ended on June 8, 2007 and held a

public hearing on June 8,2007. This document summarizes the comments and

questions received at the public hearing and/or during the associated comment period.

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

Rule 3745-110-02, Applicability

Comment 1:

Ohio EPA received a verbal comment asking the agency how the term "modified

source" would be defined in OAC rule 3745-110-02.

(Mr. Robert Brubaker, verbal comment)

Response 1:

Upon further review Ohio EPA agrees there may be some confusion with this

term and as such has revised this rule. Specifically, paragraph (A)(2) of this rule

was revised to now read "New or modified sources, as defined in rule 3745-31-01

of the Administrative Code."

End of Response to Comments