# 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) 345-85563 

### 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) 345-85561 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) 345-85565



### 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
\ 

### 14 I ! 

### 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FRALEY, COOPER & 

### ASSOCIATES (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740). 345-85561
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.

. YYVr " h>

# ~.lE::llJwsh

# ill 

# mB**-~~A.** MARSH, RPR

FRALEY, COOPER & 

### ASSOCIATES (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556InRe: 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 submitted3: 19 S Summit2:16 '1 "; ., 

### T ; T 6:1,1 f taken 1:6,84:19 

### i takiog2:8 ; testify5:3 j testimony3: 18 

### I;

3:22,25 Tbank2:8 5:6 through 1:42:12 

## j time2:8 3:20 5:2 j

5:3 I 

# , today2:7,103:13

3:14,18,195:6 

# I Town 1:12 

# I transcribed6: 11 

### I transcript 1:6 6:8 true 6:8 t turned 5:5

__**--lU~** __ unti14:17

want

# 3:~: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 purpose2:9
questions4:5,6

same 3:18 Sarah4:13 see4:17 Session2:1 sheet3:24 slgn3:9 signed 3:23 Sixth 1:13 source2:20 sources 2: 18 speakers4: 1 specifically2: 14 SS6:3 State 1:10 6:3 statements3:19 statewide2: 19 stationary2: 18 stenographic

6:11 stenotype 6: 11 Street 1:13 R6:1 RE 1:3 receive 3:17 received 3:6,12 Recess4:19 record 3:7,11,17

3:214:4,7,17 5:2 regarding2: 11 registered 1:94:9

6:6 registration 3:24 regulate2: 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 Rule2:23 rules 1:3 2:11,12

2:19,22,233:5 S R 

### o moderate2: 13 modified2:20 Morniog2:1 must3:12

part3:6,21 pass 3:254:10,12

4:15 permit2:20 3:20 person2:10 persons3:3 Pollution 3:1 Portage2: 16 possible4:7 present3:4,22 presiding2:6 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 name2:4 3:24 names4:8 new2:11,193:5 nobody5:3 nonattainment

2:13 Notary 1:9 notes 6:11 Nox2:17

OAC 1:32:12 obtain2:10 obtained 2:25 off4:17 offer4:3 Office2:25 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 Okay4:16 opportunity4:3 oral3:4,6,18,22 order3:23 over2:6

M L G

made3:8 manager2:5 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 Medina2:15 metropolitan

2:14 Geauga2:15 given 3:18 go 3:25 4:8,10,16

5:1,4 Greg4:11

Included3:11 insta112:20 Interest2:6 interested 2: 10

3:3 involvement2:5 issued 2:20 I

J H Harness 2:25

3:14 Harrigan4:14,15**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 Joint2:22 June 1:11 2:1

3:13 5:8 6:13 just3:10

Lake 2:15 late4:17 located2: 13 Lorain2:15 DATED 6:13 day 1:11 5:66:13 decision 3:8 director3:7 Division 3:1 during4:2

F6:1 med2:223:14 final3:8 Floor 1:13 folks 3:23 4:8 5:4 foregoing 6:7 Fouche4:11,12 FRANKLIN6:4 Friday 2:15:8 from2: 10,17

6:11 F E6:I,1 eight2: 13 emissions2: 17 end5:5 ensure4:6 entitied3:3 Environmental 1:1,7,126:10 EPA2:93:8,12

4:2,2 EPA's 2:6,11,24

3:1 existing2: 18 e-mailed 3:14 E 4:45:5 Committee2:23 complete 6:8 concerning3:5 concluded5:9 Conference I: 13 consideration

3:18 considered3:7

3:20 contacting 2:25 Control3:1 Copies2:23 correct6:8 counties2:13,16 COUNTY6:4 cross-examinat..•

4:1 Cuyahoga2: 15 D able4:5 accurate4:7 addition 2:19 after2:203:19 agaio4:9 Agency 1:1,8,12

2:236:10 ahead 3:254:8

4:105:1,4 Air3:1 Alan2:25 3:14 alan.hamesS@•••

3:16 aod!or3:4 answer4:5 anybody4: 17 apply2:12,19 area 2:14 arriva14: 18 arrived 5:3 Ashtabula2: 15 attend 2:8 3:3 available2:24 A-L-A-N3: 15 a.m 1:11 2:25:2

5:8

C A

B back5:2 before 1:1,6,8 2:9

3:8 6:9 began3:10 business 3:13

C 6:1,1 ea1l3:244:8 caUing3:23 Center2:6 Central2:24 certify 6:7 circumstances

3:20 citizens4:3 clarifying4:6 Cleveland!Akron

2:14 close3:13 5:4 Columbus 1: 13 combustion2: 18 coming5:6 commencing 1:10 comment4: 10 conunenter4:6 comments 2: 10

3:5,6,12,13,17 Fraley, Cooper& Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-855682:13:13 5:8 8th 1:11 In Re: ProposedOAe Rules 3745-110-01 through 3745-110-05 Page2



# " 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 ofAir 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 ofAmerica 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. ChesterWillcox

### &Saxbe LLP on behalfof its clients, the

- 

### 7 Shelly Company, Shelly Materialsand 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 membercommunities and projects.



### 9 First Energy 

### 10 Cleveland Thermal, LLCOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 ofthe 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 eitherthe 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 ofthe 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 lowertemperatures 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 controlsOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 ofthe less hazardous urea system. Although section 112(R) ofthe Clean AirAct 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 highlytoxic 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 forthe 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 ofthe 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 applicableOAC 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 ofthe 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 carryflue gas to an SCR located on the roof and then backto 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 forthe 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 forthe additional pressure drop across the SCR reactor and significantly longer duct run. Forthe 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) ifyou have any questions regarding these comments.


### Ohio EPA 

### Response:
The presumptive NOx emission controlofemploying an SCR isjustan example ofa emission controlmethodologythatmaybe used. AnyNOxemission control orcombination ofcontrols maybe employedto achieve the applicable NOx emission limitation. Ohio EPA also realizes that the initialNOxemission standards, while restrictive, are achievable. Certainlyolderemission units cannot achieve the same levelofperformance thatnewemission units can achieve. To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some of the presumptive NOxemission limits forboilers andcombustion turbines to 

### a figure thatis more representative of

### a RACTstandard. In addition, emissions averaging willbe includedin the revised version of this rule 

### as an option forcompliance with the presumptive NOx emission limits. In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there maybe technicalandeconomic feasibilityissues with some ofthese units. In accordance with proposed OAC rule 

### 3745-11 0-03(H), an affectedfacility willhave the option ofconducting

### a RACTstudyto determine ifthe applicable limitis technicallyfeasible and/or economicallyunreasonable (i.e., notcost effective).OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 orderto 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 thatanynewsource operating in the state of Ohio should meet, at

### a minimum, the applicable NOxemission standards 

### as requiredby existing sources operating in the 8-countynon-attainmentarea. 

### 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 underthe 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) willbe amended to include CO boilers.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary



### 3. Commenter: Honda ofAmerica Mfg., Inc. Comment: 

### 3745-110-01 : 6



### (8)(1): Honda wonders if it would be easierto 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 NOxfrom all sources at the faci,lity, including all sources that are exempt under 3745-110-03 ofthe Administrative Code." (8)(2): There is no "paragraph (K)" in 110-03. Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA acknowledges Honda's initialcomment; however, the Ohio EPA willmaintain the currentlanguage 

### as written. Reference to paragraphs 

### (J) and (K) willbe correctedto reflectparagraphs (I) and (J) respectively. 

### Comment: 

### 3745-110-02: (A): Revise and add: "Unless exempted in paragraph I ofthis Rule, the requirements ofthis 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 afterOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 willmake the suggestedamendmentofincluding the phrase "Unless exemptedin paragraph 

### J of this rulen

. Paragraph "In willbe citedin lieu ofparagraph "I"due to otherrevisions to the proposedrule thatsubsequently requiredrenumbering. The Ohio EPA acknowledges the remaining suggestions, but willkeep the.curren(language in th,e propose.drules 

### as written. 

### Comment:
3745-110-03: (B): There are no "paragraphs (J) and (K)" in 110-03. 

### Ohio EPA Response: Agree. Reference toparagraphs 

### (J) and (K) willbe corrected. 

### 4. Commenter: The Ohio Steel Group Comment The Proposed Rule Does Not Account for Boilers That Burn Multiple Fuels.
The proposed rule establishes boileremissions limitsthat depend on the type offuel 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 complexoperational scenarios. Manyindustrial boilers burn one primary fuel type, but use another in response to availability, cost and process needs. Forexample, a boilermight primarily bum distillate oil, but rely on coal when oil supplies run low (orvice versa). Underthe current standards, itwould be difficult to identifythe properstandard 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-worldOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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). Ifvaried operating modes exist, the parametersforsuch 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 consistentwith the acknowledgement in OAG 

### § 3745-11 0-03(H)(1 )(h)(xvi) that "fuel switching" is an appropriate RAGTalternative. As the rules nowstand, theystrongly discourage switching to lowerNOxfuels because such changes would trigger more stringent limitations and, therefore, functionally discourage fuel-switching as a compliance option. Forexample, 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 mixthat is representative ofthe "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 boilermayusemultiple fuelsand/ormixedfuels (i.e., oilandcoal) during its operation. The propose rule specifies 

### a presumptive NOx emissionlimitation for

### a given fueltype andboilertype. In cases where mixedfuels are employedthe NOxemission limitforthe leaststringentfuel within the mixwould apply. In addition, revisions to OAG rule 3745-110-05 (compliance methods) have been revised to more clearlyspecifythe conditions forcompliance demonstrations.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 ofthe proposed rule while reducing compliance costs. Essentially, averaging allows largefacilitiesto substantially reduce emissions atone, orafew, sources ratherthan 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 internallyallocate NOxemission reductions in a more cost-effective manner.

Such an averaging program can be efficiently implemented by multiplying the NOx RACT emissions limitforeach source by source heat inputand then dividing bytotal heat inputto 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 InterestedParties Responsive Summary

Ohio EPA Response: 10

Ohio EPA agrees. The proposedNOxRACTrules have been revisedto include

### a NOxemissions averagingplan. COMMENT NOx LIMITS SHOULD ONLYApPLY 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 ofsunlightand heat at levels that only exist during the period between May 1st and September 30th

. There is no legal orpracticaljustification forozone nonattainment NOx regulation at othertimes ofthe year, and no reason to requirethatsources meetyear-round limits underthis program. Ohio EPA Response: The NOxRACTrules are intended to applyyearround (annually). This is needed not only to reduce ozone formation, butaidin reducing particulate matter with 

### a diameterof

### 2.5 microns andless (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 RACTengineering studywhere the ownerbelieves that existing limits are either infeasible or economically unreasonable. OAC 

### § 3745-11 0-03(H). This provision properly recognizes the potential foroperational 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 currentlywritten, sources must prepare "a detailed discussion ofthe technical feasibility ofemploying each" of nineteen alternate RACTcontrol measures. Onlythose measures thatare expressly "not applicable" are excluded. This approach would greatly slow the ability to prepare RACT studies and would impose significant, analytical costs. Instead ofbeing ableto focus on the measures most likelyto 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" feasibilityOAC 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 ofthis 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. Forinstance, subsection (g)(1) requests: "Average dailyNOxemissions (pounds perdayofoperation) based upon the highestaverage dailyproduction rate for each ofthe three full calendaryears 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 ofa single peak NOxemissions estimate based on the single dayof"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 tofuel use; this is particularlytrue when multiplefuels 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 NOxemissions. 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 RACTstudyrequirementshouldbe flexible to allow "such otherRACTstudies

### as areproposedbythe owneroroperator" and, 

### as such,OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary willrevise the proposedrule to include this option. 12



### As for the proposal to develop 

### a preliminary ranking ofpotential RACT control altematives (i.e., the five most promising alternatives), the Ohio EPA feels the parameters

### as specifiedin theproposedrule language are neededin orderto fulfill the NOxRACTstudy. Regarding clarification for the emissions data required in OAC rule 3745-110- 03(1)(1)(g) (i.e., the average dailyNOx emissions, in Ibs/day). This section ofthe rule requests the average dailyNOxemissions for

### a particularcalendaryearand, whatthe maximum NOxemissions were for

### a single dayofthatsame calendar year. This information is neededfor

### a 3-yearperiod.

COMMENT

EXPANSION OF THE 25TPY EXCLUSION. While the exemption ofsmall sources is critical to successful implementation ofthis rule, the proposed exclusion threshold is too stringentto 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 lessthan 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 greaterthan 25 tons peryearof NOx, but have never and will never approach that potential. For example, batch processing operations may emit relatively high levels of NOxfora 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 of8760 hours/yearwhen thatassumption is unrealistic. Using the proposed standard, some sources thatactuallyemit 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 ofwhetherthe exemption is driven by potential to emitoractual 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 ofsource. The NOxemitted from the specified sources is no differentthan NOxemitted from other

I Alternately, ifthe potential to emitmetric is retained, then a significantly higherlimit should be adoptedto lessen the administrativeburden ofcompliance andpreventthe rule from applying to sources that only emittrivial amounts ofNOx.OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 13
sources, and will have no differentenvironmental impact. Rather, the establishment of a threshold exemption for NOx RACT controls reflects the practical conclusion thatsourceswith emissions below a certain magnitude do notwarrantthe effortand 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 thatposses certain "physical" limitations where the assumption ofapplying 8,760 hours/year for determining potentialto emit wouldnotapply. The proposedNOxRACTrules are intendedto regulate major sources of NOx emissions (i.e., boilers, stationary intemal combustion engines, and stationary combustion turbines). The Ohio EPA recognizes emissionsofNOxfrom smallsources, buttheircontribution to the overall reduction ofNOxemissions wouldbe minimal, andNOxemission controls forthese smallsources are notconsideredto be cost effective to warrant theirregulation.

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 laterthan 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 RACTobligations, and (3) developthe requisite ."program" to "bring [each] source into compliance." Complex sources need one year for an appropriate analysis threshold, the preparation ofamendment applications and the submission of compliance programs. Accordingly, we request that this section be changed to require certification orsubmission "by no laterthan twelve months afterthe effective date ofthis 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 RACTstudyobligations. The proposed rule recognizes the need foradditional time and permits the Directorto establish alternate schedules on a case-by-case basis. Whilethatflexibility is importantand should remain available, withoutfurther revision the proposed rule will guarantee needless administrative effort as every complex source seeks an individual extension. To preventthe inevitable flood ofextension requests, the Ohio Steel Group proposes that the rule provide an automatic six-OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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) ofthis rule." In other words, the provision cross-references itself for the relevant deadline, and never sets a final compliance date. Finally, similarto 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 necessaryto properly schedule stacktesting events for sources with multiple NOx RACT units. Ohio EPA Response: Regarding theproposedcertification forcompliance date ofDecember

### 1, 2006, the Ohio EPA agrees this date is to early considering the current draft stage ofthe proposed rule. Thus, Ohio EPA will revise the compliance certification date to January 1, 2008. With regardto the requestfor

### a "six-month extension"to anysource with more than one unitsubjectto

### a RAGTstudy, the Ohio EPA feels theproposedsix month time periodis sufficientto complete 

### a RAGTstudyformultiple units. With regard to proposed OAG rule 3745-110-04, the citation will be corrected to reference OAG rule 3745-110-04(8) andnot (A)(1)(b). With regard for "compliance testing to be scheduled with sixmonths afterthe final compliance date"

### a facilitywillhave the nexttwoyears to (assuming the NOxRAGT rules are issued final byMay 

### 1, 2007) to installanynecessarycontrol equipment andschedule stacktesting foremission sources.
COMMENT

RACT CANNOT ApPLY BEYOND THE DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENTAREA. The Ohio Steel Group seeks clarification that the proposed rule is not intended to apply beyond the eight-county Cleveland-Akron nonattainmentarea. 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 afterJanuary 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 authorityto establish RACT controls beyond such areas. The expansion ofthisOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 bythe veryshorttimeframes proposed. Similarly, sources statewide would suffer from assessment and control costs that bear no direct linkto achieving attainment status in northeast Ohio. To ensure compliance with the Clean AirAct 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 proposedrule is intendedto establish RACTforexistingsources in the eightcounty Cleveland-Akron non-attainment area and statewide forall new sources. Any n"ew or modified source should be able to meet, at 

### a minimum, the same performance levels

### as an existingemission source. Also, statewide applicabilityis neededto establish

### a floorforbestavailable technology(BA T) pursuantto Senate 

### Bil/265.

COMMENT
REQUEST FOR MODELING AND COST INFORMATION The Ohio Steel Group requests that Ohio EPAdisclose: (1) anyassessmentofwhat 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 ofthe proposed rule. The information made availableto 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: Employmentof "reasonablyavailable control technology"(RACT) is requiredby the CleanAirAct(CAA) forareas classifiedas non-attainmentforthe eight-hour ozone standard. As such, Ohio EPA is drafting rules to regulate majorstationary sources ofNOxemissions. The Ohio EPA researchedseveraltechnical documents, including Lake Michigan AirDirectors Consortium (LADCO) white papers andbestavailable retrofit technology (BART) engineering analysis in determining feasibilityofNOxemission controls andtheir associatedcosteffectiveness values. These documents arepublic records foryourviewing and, in addition, are available via the World Wide Web.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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) ofthe rule. The rule package obtained through the Agency website does not contain a paragraph (K) nor 

### (J) for this rule or any other rule underthe 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 ofwhether a source would then qualify after such demonstration is left to the discretion ofthe Director. Will this be in the Director's complete discretion orwill there be guidance documents available as to the analysis ofthis 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/operatorviolates any part ofthis 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 toparagraphs (J) and (K) willbe correctedto reflectparagraphs (I) and (J) respectively. ApprovalofRAGTstudies willbe atthe Director's discretion andinvolve evaluating the RAGTapplication forcompleteness andtechnicaladequacy. Final analysis willbe basedon soundengineeringjudgment. Anyapprovalofa RAGTstudyby Ohio EPA willbe submittedto U.S. EPA as a revision to the current SIP. 

### Ifapprovedby U.S. EPA, then the revision willbe incorporated (as 

### a draftaction) into the Federal Registrarforpublic comment.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 17 The proposedNOxRAGTrules are intended to targetmajorsources 

### ofNOx emissions. Those NOxemission sources thatare exemptfrom the proposed NOx RAGTrules consist

### ofsmallerNOxemitters andanyadd-on emission controls wouldnotbe cost-effective.

COMMENT §3745-110-05 OEC would like clarification ofwhether the compliance demonstration documents underthis section will be made available for the community. 

### Ohio EPA Response:
Yes. This documentation is 

### a public record thatcan be requested from the Agency's legalsection.



### 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 EPAdefines RACT in 40 CFR 51.100(0) as: devices, systems, process modifications, or other apparatus ortechniques that are reasonably available taking into account: (1) The necessity of imposing such controls in orderto 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 ofOAC 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 ofthe 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 ofthe federal Clean AirAct 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, ratherthan 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 needto be both technicallyandeconomically feasible forthe regulatedcommunityandshouldprovide operationalflexibilityin orderto demonstrate compliance with the rules. To this end, the Ohio EPA will amendthe proposedrules, in part, byincluding an emissions averagingplan 

### as an option forcompliance.

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 orVOC

...." (Emphasis added). The definition also goes on to reference what limitations can be taken into accountin 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 forOAC 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 orderthat this definition make sense as used in proposed OAC Chapter 3745- 110. 

### Ohio EPA 

### Response Agree. Forthe purpose 

### of thisproposedrule the definition 

### of "potential to emit" willbe revisedto reflectNOxandnot 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 ofthe 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 peryear of NOx from all sources at that facility, including all sources that are exempt under rule 3745-110-03 ofthe Administrative Code." Given Ohio's definition of "air contaminant source" which is similarto US EPA's definition of an "emissions unit" but very dissimilarfrom US EPA's definition of "stationary source," and considering the synopsis statement about NOx RACT applying to "significant sources," it is not entirely clearwhether Ohio EPA intends to regulate all NOx emissions units at facilities with NOx PTE of 100 tons or more, orwhether 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 ofthis rule is that virtually all emissions units with greaterthan 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 peryear 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, orto stand-alone units that emit NOx. Also, Commenters question the rationale for establishing the NOx RACT applicability threshold at 25OAC 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 subjectto 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 ofthe 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 orderto 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 proposedNOxRACTrules are intendedto targetmajorsources ofNOx emissions. Those NOx emission sources thatare exemptfrom the proposed NOxRACTrules consistofsmallerNOx emitters andanyadd-on emission controls forthese sources wouldnotbe cost-effective. State-wide applicabilityfornewormodifiedsources is includedbecause these sources shouldbe able, ata minimum, meetor exceedthe performance standards expectedforexisting 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 boilertype 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 yourconcern overthe boilerclassification format.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 21 However, the agencybelieves this format to be the appropriate formatin 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 ofthree Reference Method stacktest 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 offactors, 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 underwhich 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 underwhich 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 60.44bOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary Ohio EPA Response 22

The Ohio EPA acknowledges thatthere are operating conditions thatare not representative ofthe normaloperating conditions forboilers and, 

### as such, compliance testing shouldexclude. Therefore, Ohio EPA willrevise the proposed OAG rule 3745-110-05(8) to exclude, forthe purpose ofcompliance demonstrations, periods ofstartup, shutdown, malfunction orlowloadconditions. In addition, the Ohio EPA is revising the proposedrule to allow

### a compliance demonstration with the NOxemission limitations to be basedon

### a 30-dayrolling average, during the non-ozone season (i.e., October 

### 1 toApri/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 ofthe 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 technologyfor mid-size and large boilers, or for non-utility boilers, where reduced orvariable 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 orderto 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 getflue 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 boilertypes 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 ofthe 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 adequatelyjustified and do not comport with the definition of RACT, which requires consideration ofthe 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 notOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 controlofemployingan SCR isjustan example ofone type of

### a NOxemission control thatmaybe employed. AnyNOxemission controlor combination ofcontrols maybe employedatthe facilities discretion in orto achieve the applicable NOxemission limit. To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some ofthe presumptive NOxemission limits forboilers andcombustion turbines to 

### a figure thatis more representative of

### a RACTstandard. In addition, emissions averaging willbe includedin the revised version ofthis rule 

### as an option forcompliance with the presumptive NOx emission limits. Ohio EPA realizes that there maybe technicalandeconomic feasibilityissues with some ofthese units. This is why, in accordance with proposed OAC rule 3745-110-03(H), an affectedfacility willhave the option ofconducting

### a RACT studyto determine ifthe applicable limitis technicallyfeasible and/or economicallyunreasonable (i.e., notcosteffective).


### 7. Commenter: ChesterWillcox & 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, costjustification, public meetings, and votes. At the end of any such process, the citizens ofeach 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 orderto meet the mandates ofthe 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 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 

### Ohio EPA Response: 25

The proposedNOxRACTrules are intended, inpart, to regulate NOxemissions from existing stationarysources ofNOxemissions locatedin the eight-county non-attainmentarea ofCleveland/Akron, Ohio. Specifically, these eightcounties have been designated "moderate non-attainment"forozone by U.S. EPA, and thus, RACTimplementation is required. The costeffectiveness ofseveralNOx emission control technologies was evaluated. To this end, the proposedNOx emission limits maybe achieved with control technologies thatare consideredto be both technologicallyandeconomicallyfeasible bythis 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: Costanalysis ofNOxemission controls were evaluatedforseveraloptionalNOx emission controls. Ohio EPA also realizes that the initialNOxemission standards, while restrictive, are achievable. Certainlyolderemission units cannot achieve the same level of performance thatnewemission units can achieve. To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some ofthe presumptive NOx emission limits forboilers andcombustion turbines to 

### a figure thatis more representative of

### a RACTstandard. In addition, emissions averaging willbe includedin the revised version ofthis rule as an option forcompliance with the presumptive NOx

. emission limits. In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there maybe technicalandeconomic feasibilityissues with some ofthese units. This is why, in accordance with proposed OAC rule 3745-110-03(H), an affectedfacility willhave the option of conducting

### a RACTstudyto determine ifthe applicable limitis technically feasible and/oreconomicallyunreasonable (i.e., notcosteffective). 

### 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 laterthan six months afterthe effectiveness date ofthe final NOx RAGT Rules. Final compliance mustOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 26 be achieved by the end of 2008. Ifadd-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 willbe revisedfrom December 1, 2006 to January 

### 1, 2008. RAGTstudies are to be completedno laterthan sixmonths afterthe effective date of this rule, which shouldbe sufficienttime to complete 

### a RAGTstudy. This wouldallow

### a facilityover

### a yearto implement the approved RAGTin orderto meetthe compliance date ofJanuary 1, 2009. 

### 8. Commenter: ChesterWillcox 

### &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 willbe 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 ratherthan organic compounds and 

## vac. Ohio EPA 

### Response: The Ohio EPA agrees. The definition willbe amendedto specifyreference to NOxemissions. 

### 9. Commenter: First Energy CommentOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 yearwhere demand is unusually high or other units are unexpectedly off-line. Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA acknowledges FirstEnergy's conce(n andunderstands that specific comments regarding this matterwillbe submittedbyFirstEnergyto Ohio EPA during the proposedrule public commentperiod. 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 peryear of NOx

... ". FE requests the regulation clearly exclude EGUs that will be regulated under additional regulations implementing CAIR in Ohio. Ohio EPA Response: The NOxRACTrules are notintendedto regulate electricalgenerating units (EGU's). This categoryofboilers willbe regulatedbythe Clean AirInterstate Rules (CAIR). So there is no confusion with this issue, Ohio EPA willrevise the proposedNOx RACTrules to specificallyexclude electricalgenerating units (EGU's) from the requirements of this rule. However, this willnotpreclude the Ohio EPA from amending this exclusion in anyfuture rulemaking. Comment Applicability: 3745-110-02 (A)(2) as drafted would apply statewide; but, it would appearthat the regulation of new sources should coverthe same geographic area as 3745-110-02 (A)(I). New sources in Ohio are well controlled by already existing regulatory programs.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 

### Ohio EPA Response: 28

The regulation ofnewsources willapplystatewide. Anynewsource should meet, at

### a minimum, the sameperformance standards 

### as an existing source locatedin the non-attainmentareas. 

### 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 orfuel switch to natural gas in orderto 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 controlofemploying an SCR isjustan example ofone type ofa NOxemission control thatmaybe employed. AnyNOxemission controlor combination ofcontrols maybe employedatthe facilities discretion in orderto achieve the applicable NOxemission limit. Ohio EPA also realizes thatthe initialNOxemission standards, while restrictive, are achievable. Certainlyolderemission units cannotachieve the same levelof performance thatnewemission units can achieve. To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some of the presumptive NOx emission limits forboilers andcombustion turbines to a figure thatis more representative ofa

.. RACTstandard. In addition, emissions averaging willbe includedin the revised version ofthis rule 

### as an option forcompliance with the presumptive NOx emission limits. In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there maybe technicalandeconomic feasibilityissues with some ofthese units. In accordance with proposed OAC rule 

### 3745-11 0-03(H), an affectedfacility willhave the option ofconductinga RACTstudyto determine ifthe applicable limitis technicallyfeasible and/or economicallyunreasonable (i.e., notcost 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 suggestOAC 3745-110 InterestedParties 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 offour non-start-up and shut-down hours forthe 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 NOxemission limits forthis source category willbe revised. The intenthere willbe to have anynewsource comply with the NSPS 

### as promulgatedon July6, 2006 andexisting sources locatedin the eight-countynon-attainmentarea comply with the presumptive NOx emission limitations, which have been revised, or, in the alternative, conduct

### a RAeTstudy. Comment RACT Study Information Dates: FE would like some confirmation ofthe 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 ofthe 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 willbe revised to be consistent with OAe rule 3745-110- 03(H)(1)(g)(i). Thatis to 

### say the reference to

### years 1990 thru 

### 1992 willbe deletedandreplace with the language "three 

### years preceding the effective date ofthe rule." Comment Compliance Deadlines: FE believes there is a typo at 3745-110-04 (A) (1) (b) where the regulation states a unitwill come into compliance no laterthan "the date specified in paragraph (A)(I)(b) ofthis 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 oftoday 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 ofthe final rules before the packages are due.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary Ohio EPA Response: 30

Agree. The reference 

### willbe correctedandcorrectlyciteparagraph (B) 

### of this rule (i.e., January 

### 1, 2009). In addition, Ohio EPA 

### willrevise the permit application submittaldate 

### ofDecember

### 1, 2006 to 

### a newproposeddate of January 

### 1, 2008.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 

### 10. Commenter: Cleveland Thermal, LLC



### Technical FeasibilitvlReasonability Issues 31

Post-combustion control via selective catalyticreduction (SCR) and similartechnology forindustrialboilers is not a fully ''proven''technology, meaning that aprocess design is not currently inplacethat effectivelyreduces emissions for industrial boilers and their typical operatingplatfonn. SCRtechnology hasbeenproven successful 

### inpredictably reducing emissions frombaseloadpower stations where pulverized coal combustion in largerboilers is utilized and where flue gas temperature inthe exhaust canbemaintained at a steady state and above the minimum threshold where catalyticreaction canbe sustained. However, taking the same emissions control device in SCR and applying itto industrial stoker-fIredboilers is notsuitable forthe following technicalreasons: 1) Dynamic Load Changes and Combustion Control ClevelandThermal boilers fluctuate heatinputbased onthethermal demands of cUstomers that draw directly from theboileroutput at theplant. Steam demandis cyclical on a seasonalbasis where the differencebetween Winter and Summer can be as much as a 5 to I ratio. In addition, steamdemand is cyclical on a daily/hourlybasis where loads can swingup ordown as much a 3 to I ratio. As a result, combustioncontrol is also variant and exhaust gas temperatureis far from constant. As documentedby many sources, emissions control 

### within stoker-ftredboilers is highlyinfluenced by the amountofexcess oxygenpresentand amount ofheat released fromthe stokerbed. NOx control in stokerboilers has historicallybeen bestaccomplishedthrough elimination ofairin-leakage sources, over-ftre air addition, flue gas recirculation, and natural gas co-ftring. Application ofpostcombustioncontrols, such as selective catalyticreduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), hasbeen quite limited and an insignifIcant amountofliterature andtestresults existto validateits application. 

### 2) Suitability ofSCR andNOx ControlLevel There are many technical requirements associated

### with satisfactoryperformance ofSCR systems, aside from theiruse on stoker-firedboilers. Such requirements include the necessity to maintain an exhaustgas temperature greater than the dead-band associated 

### withthe catalystreaction, concerns 

### with catalyst ash plugging, and influence ofload changes (and exhaustgas volumes and constituency). Given the CT system configuration and operatingplatfonn, SCRis notbelieved to be a prudent control technology. In addition, the level of emissions of0.15 Ib/MMBtuis nottechnically viable to mandateon cycling load stokerboilers.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 32 

### 3) AmmoniaStorage and Handling An SCRdesigned for several hundred thousand CFMwill requirethe storage of significantquantities ofammonia (aqueous, anhydrous orurea-based). While there is an establishedprotocolregardingriskmanagement for storageofthis substance, a significantpart ofdowntown Clevelandwouldhave to beinvolved in the evacuationplanning andresponsein the eventofa large scalerelease. The likely litmus test is whetherthe incremental benefit ofSCRcontrol technology overconventionalNOx. control technologies noted earlieroutweighthepotential concerns causedby implementationofpublicnotification and evacuation procedures. 

### In addition, addition oflarge quantities oftoxic substance near a largepopulationmay also introduce mandatory security measures from the DepartmentofHomeland Security. 

### 4) EffectofDriftExcursions onPublicHealth Concerns andDowntown Air

### Intakes As noted inItem#2, and regardless ofthe efficiencyofany SCR, there will nearly always be ammonia "slip" or discharge stream thatwill bepresentinthe overall stackexhaust gas and which may turn into ground level ammoniaconcentrations in neighboringurban areas. lbis slip is difficultto control even with state ofthe art controls particularly when theboiler exhaust gas flow rate varies. Thegas would thenpermeatethe air 

### in the surrounding arealeading to a reasonable concerns regardingpublichealth 

### in downtown Cleveland. This is significantly different situation due to thelocation ofourplant then is faced by a largepower plantemploying SCR technology. 

### Economic ReasonabilityIssues EvenifSCRtechnology was a moreproven and technically feasible pollution control device, there are significant economic issues thatmake the application ofthis technology at ClevelandThermal unreasonable. During the development ofthe draftRACT standards, industrybenchmarkingwas utilized to address the economic re.asonability of implementing new standards. However, Cleveland Thermalbelieves thatbenchmarking does not sufficiently address the significantadditional capital expense to 

### install an SCR on ourparticularsite. We are providingthe following issues as reasoningbehind our statementthat SCRtechnology would exceedthe economic reasonability standard for ClevelandThermal: 

### 1) No Gas Infrastructure to Plant Currently, the Canal Road Plantdoes nothave a natural gas infrastructure so conversion ofboilers to gas firing orimplementation ofcombustion control technologies such as natural gas co-firing is notcurrentlypossiblewithoutfirst installing a new mediumpressure gas main. 

### In addition, theprice fornatural gas as a fuel source

### has increased significantlyin thelastyear and is projected to remain significantlyhigherthan Coal on a costperMMBTUbasis. (see Item 2 below).OAC 3745-110 Interested Parties Responsive Summary 33 

### 2) Competitiveness ofBusiness / NetImpact on Air 

### Quality The acquisition ofsignificantpost·combustionpollution control equipment, its associated operations 

### and maintenance costs, andimpacts onunit 

### efficiency are all economicbarriers whichwouldreducethe competitiveness ofCT inthe marketplace. The scaleeffects ofsuch costs on CT, as opposed to similarRACT additions onlargerpower/steamgenerators, wouldmake amore energy efficient energyproviderless competitive in 

### the marketplace. This additional economic impairmentto CT cost ofproduction thatwould, 

### in effect, displace additional emissions to anotherlocal source. This scenario wouldbe anetloss to the environment, the community and causingfurther deterioration ofthe Cleveland airshed. Maintaining CT as a viablebusiness affords point sourceNOx control, whereas an economicallydisadvantageddistrict energyproviderwillbe displacedby individual boilers that

### will notbetested forNOx emissions nor operatedby a highlytrained operational staff. 

### 3) Spacefor SCR andRelatedEquipment The Canal StreetPlantis landlockedbytherailroad, 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 onthe site. As a result, any suchaddition would likelyrequire CTto makephysical changes to the currentplantconfiguration at aprohibitive capital cost 

### AdditionalRACT Comments

• The operational limitfor emergencyunits shouldbemodified to 

### a cap oftotal run hours for a facility times the numberofqualifying emissions units. TIris rule change will encouragethe mQre efficientunits to run on an emergency/peaking basis 

### instead ofa cap on individualunits regardless ofemissions performance. The classification ofunit status (peaking/emergency) shouldnotrequire apermit modificationifthe

### units are maintained atthe setoperating standards. This maintains operatingflexibility forthebusiness yet still assures compliance.

• Mandatingunilateral implementation ofselective catalyticreductionon all stokerfiredboilers is simplynotpractical technically forNOxreduction, letalone for economicreasons. Even if

### suchwere practical, and for implementationofany majormodifications, having suchrequirements fully implementedbyJanuary 1, 2009 would be difficult in 

### today's capital equipmentpurchasemarketplace.OAC 3745-110 InterestedParties Responsive Summary 34 

### ClevelandThermalhas been making capital investments to improve the ambientair quality, howevertheproposed RACTrules would imposerequirements that areboth technicallyand economicallyinfeasible for Cleveland Thermal. CT will collect current NOx emissions data and will alternatively considerprovenimprovements to reduceNOx (such as through aBACT studyofcontrol technologies and operationalprocedures to lowerNOx outputfrom ourstoker-firedboilers).

Ohio EPA Response:
The presumptive control

### ofemployingan SCR isjustan example 

### ofone type 

### ofa NOxemission control thatmaybe employed. AnyNOx emission controlor combination 

### ofcontrols maybe employedatthe facilities discretion to achieve the applicable NOxemission limit.

.. . Ohio EPA also realizes thatthe initialNOx emission standards, while restrictive, are achievable. Certainlyolderemission units cannotachieve the same level

### of performance thatnewemission units can achieve. To this end, Ohio EPA is revising some 

### of thepresumptive NOxemission limits forboilers andcombustion turbines to

### a figure thatis more representative 

### of

### a RACTstandard. In addition, emissions averaging willbe includedin the revised version 

### ofthis rule 

### as an option forcompliance with the presumptive NOx emission limits. In summary, Ohio EPA realizes that there maybe technicalandeconomic feasibilityissues with some 

### of these units. In accordance with proposed OAC rule 3745-110-03(H), an affectedfacility willhave the option 

### ofconducting

### a RACTstudyto determine ifthe applicable limitis technicallyfeasible and/or economicallyunreasonable (i.e., notcost effective).

# CJiIEa\ Division ofAir 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 forthis 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 ofthe 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 ofthe commenterfollows 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 ifthe Northeast Ohio area can model attainmentwithout 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 Yearfor 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 forthe a-hour ozone standard and the pending changes are expected to provide an updated understanding ofwhatRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 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 qualitytrends by implementing the NOx RACT rule in phases that may be suspended ifthe 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 ifany NOx controls are costeffective. Ifthe 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 forthe 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, ifthe updated inventory, revised ozone modeling, orthe 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 ofThe Ohio Steel Group) Response 1: Clean AirAct, 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 August23, 2007 Comment 

### 2: The NOx RACT Rules Should OnlyApply 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 matterwith 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 orderto 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 ofthe 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 CAl R. 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 ofthe Ford Casting Plant in 2009, which will eliminate over 1,000 tons peryear of PM2

.5precursors 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 ofThe Ohio Steel Group)Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 

### Response 2: Page 4 of40

The Cleveland-Akron area is considered to be in nonattainment for both PM2.5 and the eight-hourozone. The attainment date for both pollutants is 2010. Modeling analyses in support ofthe state implementation plan must demonstrate that required controls can achieve attainment air quality by 2009 in orderto 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 ofthe area in which the source is located. NOx RACT is a requirement of Section 172(c)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct applicable to major sources and certain other sources located in non-attainment areas. There is no legal basis underthe Clean AirAct 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 ofthis 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 ofthe 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 August23, 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 ofthe 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 August23, 2007



### Comment 5: Summary of

## cmo 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, otherfuels 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 imposedon affected companies bythis 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 ofa 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 ofteclmologically feasible options, with the costofthe engineering studies often in excess of$250,000.
Both the timeframe and additional cost to facilities ofthis provision in the rule impose additional unjustifiableburdens 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 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 ifthe 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 beRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 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 

### cannotbe 

### economicallyortechnicallyjustified 

### as RAeT 

### for the ICI Sector. In 

### addition, compliance requirements should be 

### limited to lUUlUaJ 

### tune-ups forsmall andmedium sizeboilers, regardless offuel 

### type.

CIBO 

### developed a NOli RACT Guidance 

### Document illustrating many of the 

### issues discussed in 

### these comments, includingboiler andfuel diversity (see Attachment B). The appendix to theGuidanceincludes arangeofemissiontargets thatmay

### 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 costthat

### exceeds therelativelevel ofthecostburden

### imposedonutilityboilers. 

## elBa appreciates this 

### opportunity to comment and offers to help in any 

### way with development ofRACT regulations for the Cleveland!Akron Area. If you have any questions orneed additional infonnation, pleasecontactme. (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 ofthe 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 largeRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 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 Overthe Entire Control Period. The definition of "capacity factor" requires refinement. That term is currently defined to mean "eitherthe ratio of gross actual output to the gross rated output orthe ratio of actual heat input to potential heat input for the period 

### between AprilfirstandOctoberthirty-firstof

### anycalendaryear, 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. IfOhio EPA retains the current annual structure ofthe proposed rules, we request that this definition be altered to include year-round data. Similarly, ifthis 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 ofThe 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 August23, 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)Auxili4ryBoiler: FE suggests thefollowing additionallanguagebe addedto thecurrentproposed language. Afterthe words ''ten percent," placea semicolonthen add "and. (a) any boileratanuclear electrical generatingfacility thatproduces steamorsteam forproducingelectricalpowerfor (he facility duringeitheremergencyperiodsor atypical extendedperiods ofnuclearplantoutage:'
FE is concernedfor nuclearplant safety andoperation ifthe auxiliaryboilers at anuclearfacility were required to meetthe tenpercent requirementduringeitheranemergencyoran atypically long outage at the facility. (B)(4)Blnckstartunit: FE suggests thatthe following be addedto thedefInition: "orthat are operated to testreliability orformaintenance:' (B)(6) CapacityFactor; FE agrees withOEPAthat capacity factorforNO, RAeT purposes should be dermed using theperiodApril fIrst throughOctoberthirty-first. (B)(29) Peaking Unit: FE supportsthe definitionforpeaking unit as defined in the proposedrules. 

### (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 August23, 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 AirAct 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 August23, 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 ofthe 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) ofthis 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 orwhich results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted from the same location. 

### Comment 14: (A)(l)(a) Existing Sources: FEobjects to thephrase in the proposedrule that reads "including all sources thatareexemptunderrole 3745-11()..()3 oftheAdministrative Code:" FEbelieves this phrase oughtto be deletedfromthe proposedrole becauseit negates severalexemptions writteninto the proposedrules elsewhere.Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 12 of40

Itmakes little sense toexemptsources at 3745-110-03 (1) only toreinclude themat anotherplace in the proposedrules. All ofthese sources would beexemptediftheystoodalone orwereatnonmajorNO. facilities. Theintenttoremove smallersources fromthe NO, RAcrrules is circumvented bythe proposedlanguage at 3745-110-02 (A)(l)(a). As apracticalmauer, theproposedlanguage cancels the exemptionofother sources listed under3745-11Q.Q3 (1). Forexample, the very definition ofblackstart orstart-up units co-locates theseunits atelectricutilitypowerplants. facilities that arecertainly major NO. emitters. In addition. the exemption forCAIRandNO. SIPcall units would alsobecome void since they are also listed at 3745-110-03 (I). (Robert E. Williams II, First Energy) Response 

### 14: To clarify this portion ofthe 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 askfor clarification on applicability ofthe rules to both existing and new sources. With regard to existing sources, we askthat 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 peryear 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 ofthe 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 ofPainesville's comments on Ohio EPA's proposed NOx RACT rules set forth in OAC Chapter 3745-110. Painesville seeks clarification regarding the applicability of NOxRACTto theboilers atits MunicipalElectric Plant in LakeCounty. Therule defines theuniverse of regulated boilers through the core term "industrial boiler," which means "a steam generating unit that generates steam to supply power and/orheat to an industrial, institutional, or commercial operation" but expressly "does not incbule boilers thll/SI!1'J1t! e/ectricfllgenerating units and cogeneration facilities." OAC rule 3745-110-o1(B)(15) (emphasis added). From that definition, the rule then identifies several sizecategories of"industrialboilers" and setsnumeric limits forthose categories.Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 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 ofmore than one hundred tons peryear ofNOx 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 subjectto 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 boilerto the listofexemptions from therule inOAC 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 of25 megawatts or less on the basis that controlling these smaller units would notbe cost effective. Ohio can do the same in the NOx RACTrule; establish aminimum size for a source categorythatapproximatesthe 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 costeffective. In rules that address electric gcneratmg umts, it is common to excuse units that serve electric generators with a nameplate capacity of25 MWe or less based on the presumption that controlling these smaller sources will not be cost-effective. See Mb 40 CFR n.6(bXl) (AcidRainProgram) andOACrule 3745-14-01(C) (NOx BudgetTrading Program). We ask that Ohio EPA consider using this well-established size threshold in the list of NOx RACT exemptions inOACrule 3745-110-03(1). (Rita C. McMahon, City Manager, City of Painesville) Response 16: To clarify this portion ofthe rule, exempt sources are not regUlated and the last phrase in paragraph (A)(1 )(a) ofthis 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 illegallytransform the RACT analysis into a BACT/LAER analysis for existing sources. Such a backdoor approach to BACT/LAER is not appropriate underthe 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 August23, 2007
Response 17: Page 140'40

Ohio EPA's regulatory authority to impose RACT requirements comes from the Clean AirAct. 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) peryear of NOx. See, proposed OAC rule 3745-110- 03(J)(15). As set forth above, Ohio EPA has stated that the purpose ofthe NOx RACT rules is to regulate NOx emissions from "major" sources. Therefore, Ohio EPA should not seekto apply onerous and complex RACT requirements on small sources with "actual" rather than "potential" NOx emissions of less than twenty-five (25) tons peryear. 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 otherthan an asphalt plant, boiler, gas turbine or internal combustion engine that has the potential to emit less than twenty-five tons peryear of NOx" can be flexibly applied to emissions units possessingRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 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 

### actuallyemitless than 25 TPY of NOx

- regardless oftheir 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 ofthis rule, and retain the same environmental benefits. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders & Dempsey L..L.P. on behalf ofThe Ohio Steel Group) Response 19: Ohio EPAwill recognize those affected sources that, even though their potential to emit may be greaterthan 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 ofthis low NOx alternative to natural gas. (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders 

### & Dempsey L.L.P. on behalf ofThe 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 August23, 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 ofwhetherthe [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 notwarrant 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 ofThe Ohio Steel Group) Response 21: Boilers, gas turbines and internal combustion engines all have their specific NOx emission limitations as specified within the context ofthis' rule that are considered to meetthe definition of RACT (cost-effective and technicallyfeasible). 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 CoverAll 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)" ofthat rule. Those sections contain all ofthe 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 August23, 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 shallnotapply

### to the following sources." (Douglas A. McWilliams, Squire Sanders 

### & Dempsey L.L.P. on behalf ofThe Ohio Steel Group) Response 22: The Ohio EPA understands the commenters concern. However, the agency needs to identify the portions ofthe 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 ofthe 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 oftheir 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 ofThe 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 August23, 2007 Page 18 of40 However, certain proposed NOx RACT limits, like those for modified or reconstructed units greaterthan 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 ofthe 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 notjustify post-combustion controls, the numerical limits for coal-fired boilers established by U.S. EPA for BART will certainly not be cost-effective forthe boiler sizes being regulated in these rules. Further, while OEPA has chosen to subcategorize boilers based on size for RACT, what is considered reasonable forvery 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 smallerthan 250 MMBtu/hrshould have higher RACT limits than boilers greaterthan 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: OACrules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 19 of40 The revised NOx emission limits forthese 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 orfacility closure, this would be handled outside the context ofthe NOx RACT rule. Compliance with the NOx RACT rules for such instances would be, in part, a function ofthe operational time ofthe source afterthe 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 August23. 2007 

### Comment 26: Page 200'40

(E) Stationary Combustion Turbines: FEappreciates the fact thatthedraftrules havebeenchanged significantly from the interestedparty draft; however. FEis stillconcerned thatcertain limits. particularly thoseformodified orreconstructedunits ofless than 50MWbutgreaterthan 3.5 MW. still exceed the currentNSPS forcombustion turbines. Subpart KKKK. RACT, beingreasonably available control technology. should beno more restrictive than the corresponding NSPS limits. (0) (Methods

### 0/ demon.ftratingcompIiana) (1) FEbelieves itmay beclearertochangethe wording ofthisproposedrule toread inpart. "The average ofthree one-hourstackrestruns..." (2)FEbelieves thatthe useofa30-day rollingaverage when using CEMs shouldnotjustbe limitedto the periodOctoberfirst throughApril thirtieth but shouldextendthroughoutthe whole year. (1) Sources to whichthe rulesdonotapply: See the earliercommentunderApplicability. 

### (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 ofdemonstrating compliance, paragraph (G)(1) ofthis rule has been revised pursuant to your suggestion. Regarding the commenters comment for 3D-day rolling average calculations, use ofthe 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 August23, 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 ofthe fuel types for a short duration presently, there is nothing (unless otherwise specified in your permit) to prevent the facility from using numbertwo fuel oil on a more frequent basis. As such, testing would be required for each fuel type used for the boiler in orderto demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitation. Comments 28: We ask that you consider raising the 200 and 500 horsepowerthresholds 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 forthese 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 gaseousfuels otherthan 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 ofthe 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 ControlLevels forIC 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 theRule Package: GAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Responseto Comments August23, 2007 Page 22 0(40 NOx SIP Call Phase II rule development as RACT level control forthis 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 oftechnology by USEPA. 

### (Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission) Response 30: The Ohio EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### Comment 31: 

### DefaultIC Engine Size forRACT
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 notjustified 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 (greaterthan 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 peryear per engine, resulting in over $20,000 perton of NOx removed using a 10 year amortization and over $60,000 perton 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 ofthe 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. Ifthis 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 ofthe past 10 years and the majority ofthe 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 toRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 230'40 utilization ifthe 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 horsepowerthreshold for these engines to 2,000 horsepower. 

### Comment 32: Emission Averaging Programs

- RACTLimits. 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 involvedin the emission averagingprogram; 

### (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 ofthe rule, whereas the deadline has not been established.Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 24 0'40 (d) Achieve compliance with the proposodamissioR 

### !!FRits compliance deadlines in accordance with rule 3745-110-04 ofthe 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 ofthe Administrative Code." Comment 34: 

### EmissionAveraging Programs

- AllowedReductions. 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 owneroroperatorof

### a source which is subjectto this chaptermay propose an emission averagingprogram in lieu ofthe applicable emission limit( s) specifiedinparagraphs (A) to (F) ofthis rule orestablishedin accordance with paragraph (I) ofthis rule. 

### Both affectedsources under 3745-110-02 andnon-affectedsources are allowedto 

### be utilizedin the averagingprogram, to 

### the extentthatreductions are real, quantifiable andenforceable andare in excess ofanyState or Federalrequirements. Anyproposedemission averagingprogram shall comply with allofthe following requirements: 

### (e) Reductions allowedunderthe emission averagingprogram are those reductions thatare real, quantifiable and enforceable andare in excess ofanyState orFederal requirements. Forpurposes ofdetermining the reduction, the actualemissions, in tonsperyear, from allsources includedin the averagingprogram are subtractedfrom the lesserof the actualannualaverage emissions in tonsper yearforthe threeyearspriorto 

### when the actualreduction occurredorthe allowable emissions. Shutdowns are creditable onlyto 

### the extentthatthe owneroroperatorcan demonstrate to 

### the satisfaction ofthe directorthatthe shutdown didnotcorrespondto 

### load-shifting orother activitywhich resultedin orcouldresultin

### an equivalentor greateremission increase andthatthe reduction accounts foranyincrease in NOxemissions from othersources as a 

### resultofthe shutdown.Rule Package: OACrules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 25 of40


### (f) 

### Owners oroperators mustsubmit

### a report to the Ohio EPA byMarch 

### 31 demonstrating thatthe equivalentreduction requirementin 3745-110-03(H)(1)(c) has been achievedfor thepreviousyear. 

### (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: RACTStudies forStationarySources

- Average dailyNOxemissions. 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 dailyNOxemissions (poundsperdayofoperation) based upon tRe highestaverage dailyprochJotion Fate foreaoh ofthree full calendaryearspreceding the effective date ofthis rule oranyotheryear thatmaybe more representative ofthe highestaverage dailyemissions; 

### (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 ofthe rule. No further revision to the rule will be made. 

### Comment 36: RACTStudies forStationarySources

- Maximum dailyNOxemissions. Section 3745-110-03(1)(1 )(g)(ii) seems irrelevant for an emissions averaging program. Columbia suggests this specific condition be struckfrom rule. 

### (Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission) Response 36: This section ofthe rule requests NOx emission information for the NOx RAGT study. Specifically, what were the maximum daily NOx emissions from an affected source from each ofthe previous three calendar years preceding theRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 260f40 effective date ofthis 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 orderto evaluate the potential NOx emissions from an affected source. 

### Comment 37: 

### RACT Studies forStationarySources

- AnnualNOxemissions. Section 3745-110-03(1}(1}(g}(iii} states that the "actual" annual NOx emissions data for each affectedsource be reported using the highest annual production rate. Columbia suggests the folloWing language change: (iii) AnnualNOxemissions (tonsperyear) basedupon the J::IigRost annualactualproduction rate foreach of the three full calendar yearspreceding the effective date of this rule oranyotheryearthat maybe more representative of the annualproduction rate; 

### (Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission) Response 37: This section ofthe rule is requesting which year, ofthe three years being evaluated, had the highest annual production rate (converted to tons peryear 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 ofthe replacement schedule. A RACT study focused on units that will be replaced soon afterthe 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 ofthe 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: OACrules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 

### Response 38: Page 27 of40

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). Ifyou 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 ofthe operational time ofthe source after any compliance deadline(s) and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

### Comment 39:
Post-eOmbustiOB controls are Dot appropriatefor all 

### boners
Unlike boilers operated bytraditional 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 ofSCR. 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 industrialboilerinstallations using any fuel. Further, ammonia is a hazardous substance

### requiring 

### specialprecautions 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 ofthe load-following nature of

### leI boilers, there is the possibility ofexcess 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" (AttachmentA).Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 28 of40 

### CIBO recognizes that some commenters

### maydisregardthe concerns expressed above and argue that, cost aside, solid-fuel fired 

### industrial boilers can achieve outlet emissionrates less than 0.30 IbsIMMBtu. In response tothat argwnent, CIBOreminds decision-makers ofapointthatcannotbe 

### stressed enough: in orderto ensure continuous compliance, the design outletemission ratemustbeless than the

### regulatory limit. 

### Inpartfor tbatrcason, RACf analysis under the Clean Air Act 

### includes feasibility in the 

### evaluation of 

### appropriatetechnology. (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 orflue 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: 

### Manypost-combustion controls are Doteconomicallyfeasible for all 

### boilen Economic feasibility is specific to 

### each boiler, project and site. The total cost ofan 

### leI pollution control project 

### can be many times that ofa utility boiler project in terms of dollars per 

### ton ofNOx 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 forthe 

### leI sector and assess the economic feasibility ofvarious control strategies. Consideringthe limited 

### availability ofcurrent and accurate information about 

## rei NOl{ Control installations and the capabilities for solid fuel boilers, 

## elBo believes the emission reduction potential in the proposedrule maybe overstated. 

## eIBo believes wit;h ahigh degree

..ofcertainty that 

### the cost

### projectionsintheproposedrule aresignificantlyunderestimated. Balance-of-plant issues must also be ronsidered when evaluating projects of this magnitude. In addition to 

### the actual cost ofthe pollution control equipment (purchase and installation), project costs will also include the evaluation of boiler auxiliary equipment (fans), the interface ofthe pollution control equipment with boiler controls and othermonitoringnecessaryto ensureproperoperation. (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 ofcontrol are based on emission rates consistent with combustion controls which are anticipated to be continuous reductions. It is not anticipated that postRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 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, similarto 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. Forthose emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be two years afterthe effective date ofthis rule. Forthose emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be three years afterthe effective date ofthis 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 August23, 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 orto 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 ifthe 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 ofthe 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" ofthe 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) ofthis rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPAwill be within four months from the effective date of this rule. RACT studies, if needed, would be submitted within one year afterthe effective date ofthis rule. In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows: Forthose emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be two years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, two years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director.Rule Package: OAG rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 31 of40 Forthose emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be three years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, three years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director. 

### Comment 43:

(A) Certification

... (1) FEsuggests that regulated communityshould be afforded no less than 6 months to submitastatement ofcompliance under subparagraph (ll).

FEalsobelieves thatunder subparagraph (b) thatthe submittal ofan applicationmustfollow the completionofeithera

### RAer studyunderparagraph (I) oranengineering studyingeneral. We therefore suggestthatthe subparagraph should be changed atthebeginning to read, ''Notifythe directorofthe intent 10 submit

..... Therefore. theproposedrule should require the submittal ofeither (a) or(b) "00 January 1,2008 or 6months afterthe effective date ofthe rule, whichever is later."
An additional subparagraph should be addedrequiring the application to be "submitted byJanuary I, 2009 or 18 months afterthe effective date ofthe rules, whicheveris later." (2)(a) (RACTstudy submittal): FEsuggests thatregulatedcommunity should beafforded no less than 18months to submitacompleteRACfstudyifrequired. Therefore, therule shouldrequire the submittal "onJanuary I, 2009 or 18 months aftertheeffective dateofthe rules. whicheveris later." (2)(b) (RACfimplementation): FE suggests deleting this subparagraph. Itis addressed byparagraph (B), whichrequires compliance withthe RAeremission limits byeitherMay 1,2010orMay 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)) ofthis rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPAwill be within four months from the effective date ofthis rule. RACT studies, if needed, would be submitted within one year afterthe effective date ofthis rule. In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows: Forthose emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be two years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, two years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director.Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 32 of40 

### Forthose emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be three years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, three years after approval ofthe 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 forfacilities to meet the deadline. We suggest changing the wording to require certification or permit submittal "no laterthan twelve months afterthe effective date ofthis 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 easierfor 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) ofthis 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) ofthis rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be within four months from the effective date ofthis rule. RACT studies, if needed, would be submitted within one year afterthe effective date ofthis rule.Rule Package: GAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows: Page 33 of40

Forthose 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 ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, two years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director. Forthose 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 ofthis rule or if a RACT study is submitted, three years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director. 

### Comment 45: Compliance Deadlines

- Certification andPermitApplication 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 appearto 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 operatorto 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 ofthe 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) Bynotlaterthan January 

### 1,**20OB~** anyowneroroperatorof

### a source subjectto paragraphs (A) to (F) ofrule 3745-110-03 ofthe Administrative Code and which is notsubjectto paragraph (A)(2) of this rule shalleither: (a) Certifyin writingto the directorthatsuch source i8-wil/

### be in compliance with allrequirements ofrule 3745-110-03 ofthe Administrative Code 

### perthe schedule outlinedin 3745-110- 04(8). Such certification shallinclude:

... 

### (Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission)Rule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 

### Response 45: Page 34 of40

The Ohio EPA thanks the commenterfortheir suggested revisions to this portion ofthe 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) ofthis rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be within four months from the effective date ofthis rule. RACT studies, if needed, would be submitted within one year afterthe effective date ofthis. rule. In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows: Forthose emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be two years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, two years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director. Forthose emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be three years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, three years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director. 

### Comment 46: 

### Compliance Deadlines

- RACTStudy. 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 ofthe approved RACT not laterthan 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) Anyowneroroperator

### ofa source subject to paragraph (I) 

### ofrule 3745-110-03 

### of the Administrative Code shalHRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 35 of40 fa}-S-§.ubmit

### a complete RACTengineering studybynotlaterthan January 

### 1, 2009. (8) 

### SRa!!lmplemeRtIRe 8fJI3FOvedRACTROiJatertRaR May 

### 1, 

### 2009, I:JRJess iRe dk:estor8fJPmves ofaR alternative sGf:le€H:JJe for impJemeRliRg iRe RACT. 3745-110-04(8) (B) RACTcompliance deadline. Anyowneroroperator

### ofa source thatis subjectto the requirements 

### ofrule 3745-110-03 

### of the Administrative Code, including anysource for which the directorapproves

### a definition 

### ofRACTpursuant to paragraph 

### (I) ofrule 3745-110-03 

### ofthe Administrative Code 

### andhas notapproved

### an alternative schedule forimplementing the RACT, shallachieve anddemonstrate compliance

... 

### (Kelly R. Carmichael, Columbia Gas Transmission) Response 46: The Ohio EPA has revised paragraphs (A)(2) and (8) ofthis rule pursuant to the commenters suggestion. The RACT engineering study submittal deadline has been revised to reflect submittal ofthis document "no later than one year after the effective date ofthis 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 laterthan January 1, 2009 and (b) implement the approved RACT by not laterthan May 1, 2009 unless the directorapproves 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 orderthat 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 oftime to allow for Agency review and approval ofthe 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 August23, 2007 

### Response 47: Page 36 of40

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) ofthis rule have been revised so that notification to Ohio EPA will be within four months from the effective date ofthis rule. RACT studies, if needed, would be submitted within one year afterthe effective date ofthis rule. In addition, the compliance deadlines have been revised as follows: Forthose emission sources requiring combustion modifications to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be two years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, two years after approval ofthe RACT study by the Director. Forthose emission sources requiring add-on controls to demonstrate compliance with the applicable NOx emission limitations the new compliance date will be three years afterthe effective date ofthis rule or ifa RACT study is submitted, three years after approval ofthe 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 August23, 2007 Page 370'40 Ifyou 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 ofthe operational time ofthe 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 ofthe 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 accountfor 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 ofThe 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 performRule Package: OAC rules 3745-110-01 to 110-05 Response to Comments August23, 2007 Page 380f40 testing during icy winter conditions. Ourtesting contractor also tells us that his people can not work outdoors ifthe 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 ofthe yearwould 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 ofthe 30- day averaging period? Orwould 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 mannerthat 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 offuel 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 oftime 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 August23, 2007 Comment 52: Page 390'40

(0), (E), and (F):**(Compl~** demonstrations): Theseparagraphs require thecompliance demonstrations to be conducted while "operatingatorclose as possibleto onehundredpercentload" and in the case ofcombustionturbines and internalcombustionengines also at "onehundredpercent speed." FEbelieves this languagecan be confusing, particularlywhen trying totracktwoparameters. FE believes the language should be simplified byeliminating the confusing languagementioned above and replacingit with languagelong used in previouspermits. "Thetest(s) sball beconductedwiththe emissions unit ator nearmaximumcapacity." (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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 askthat 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 ofthe 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 August23, 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 ofonqoing 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) ofthe 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 stacktest, rule 3745-110-05 does not indicate the frequency offuture 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 stacktests. The frequency offuture stack testing requirements will be specified in the facility's operating permit.



### End of Response to Comments

# airIEm 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 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 authorityto 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 commenterfollows 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