515 Wyoming Avenue, Cincinnati , Ohio 45215 TEL:[513]8 61

- 4001 FAX: [513]761

- 4988

www.sierrac lub.org/oh



## LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT UKEILEY

433 CHESTNUT STREET BEREA, KY 40403 TEL: (859) 986

- 5402 FAX: (859) 986

- 1299

RUKEILEY@IGC.ORG

VIA E

- MAIL ONLY

July 26 , 2005

John Mooney United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 mooney.john@epa.gov

Re: Comments on Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R05

- OAR

- 2005

- OH

- 0002

Dear Mr. Mooney:

On behalf of the Sierra Club and its Ohio Chapter, Buckeye Environmental Network, Ohio Citizen Action, ECO: E nvironmental Community Organization, and Citizens Against Pollution, Inc., I am writing in support of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s ( EPA ) proposal to disapprove Ohio’s requested

revis i ons to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) th at provide for use of continuous opacity monitoring data but allow more exceedances of the general opacity limit in cases where an eligible large coal fired boiler opts to use these data for determining compliance. We incorporate by reference herein the r easons EPA stated for its proposed disapproval. Please note these comments due on address the other SIP changes that were proposed in the same Federal Register notice. In further support of EPA’s disapproval of Ohio’s we state the following.

EPA mention s that Ohio has continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) data showing numerous sources complying with the current opacity limit for numerous quarters. In fact, EPA possesses additional information showing coal

- fired power plants can and do comply with 20% opacity limits on a continuous basis. The Hayden Plant in Colorado is a prime example. Hayden had no opacity violations for the whole of 2004. EPA should have the Hayden Title V annual compliance certification documenting the lack of opacity exceed ances and we incorporate by reference this annual compliance515 Wyoming Avenue, Cincinnati , Ohio 45215 TEL:[513]8 61

- 4001 FAX: [513]761

- 4988

www.sierrac lub.org/oh

certification. Hayden was subject to an opacity enforcement action in the 1990s and it would seem that this enforcement action was the motivation for Hayden to comply with its opacity limit.

It is clear that motivation, rather than a technical or economic limitation is what keeps some sources from continuously complying with their opacity limits. Many coal

fired power plants in Ohio have particulate matter control devices based on 1960s desi gns which are 30 or 40 years old. Replacement of these particulate matter control devices with new control devices of modern design and appropriately sized will allow sources to continuously comply with their opacity limits.

In addition, many coal

- fire d power plants use fuel oil or diesel fuel for start up and flame stabilization. However, several recently permitted proposed facility, such as the Prairie State Generating Station in Illinois, are proposed to use natural gas for startup

and flame stabili zation. Use of natural gas rather than fuel oil or diesel fuel will help in ensuring that sources continuously comply with their opacity limits, as well as have added tangential benefits such as decreasing U.S. dependency on foreign oil. It may also

actu al be cheaper in terms of operating costs.

Furthermore, any argument that the use of COMS for monitoring results in a stricter opacity emission limit is unfounded. EPA has required coal

- fired power plants to use COMS for over a quarter of century. In r equiring COMS, EPA noted that COMS could be used for compliance determinations. Furthermore, as the EPA and several courts have noted, the use of COMS as a monitoring device does increase the stringency of the emission limitation. The analogy EPA and the courts have used is a radar gun and the speed limit. The fact that the police may start to use a radar gun to enforce a speed limit where historically the police have not used a radar gun does not change the speed

limit.

In addition, it is important to note that some power plants which Ohio’s proposed revision would affect are in particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5) nonattainment areas such as Stuart Station in Adams County. Therefore, this relaxation of the opacity emission limitations would contribute to NAAQS

violations.

EPA has noted in its most recent Criteria Document for PM 2.5 that there is little or no evidence that there is a safe ambient level of PM 2.5, in terms of population level effects on pu blic health. Thus, a relaxation of the opacity limitation would increase the risk of public health impacts, even in attainment areas. These public health impacts include premature mortality. As EPA has repeatedly noted in the PM 2.5 NAAQS setting

and th e so called Clean Air Interstate Rule, there are also significant economic consequences from PM 2.5 emissions.515 Wyoming Avenue, Cincinnati , Ohio 45215 TEL:[513]8 61

- 4001 FAX: [513]761

- 4988

www.sierrac lub.org/oh

In addition, as EPA has noted some mercury is bound to particulate matter

emissions from coal

- fired power plants. Relaxing the opacity stand ard would also risk increased releases of mercury, resulting in increased ambient mercury levels including mercury levels in water bodies. This includes water bodies that are mercury “impaired”

under the Clean Water Act.

Theref ore, we request that EPA approve the provisions that create COMS as the reference method for opacity but disapprove the provisions that provides sources that use COMS with expanded exemptions from those limits. To the extent EPA cannot approval part and disapproval part of these provisions, we request that EPA disapproval this whole provision. We note that that COMS are still required for coal

- fired power plants with heat inputs above 250 mmBtu/hour and that the credible evidence rule still allows COMS

data to be used in enforcem ent actions of alleged opacity limit violations. We also request that EPA put a clear explanation of this disapproval in the Code of Federal Regulations and on the EPA web page containing the Ohio SIP, rather than simply using incorporation by reference, so that there is not confusion on this issue in the future. In any event, the CAM rule will require the use of COMS for monitoring comp liance with the opacity limits.

Sincerely,

Robert Ukeiley

Counsel for Sierra Club

Marilyn Wall, Conservation Chair Ohio Chapter Sierra Club Marilyn.wall@ohio.sierraclub.org

Teresa Mills Buckeye Environmental Network

Millstb@aol.com

Karen Arnett

ECO: Environmental Community Organization

Karen.arnett@env

- comm.org

Citizens Against Pollution INC. Paul Stinson, President

405 Roush Lane
Cheshire Oh 45620

Sandy Buchanan515 Wyoming Avenue, Cincinnati , Ohio 45215 TEL:[513]8 61

- 4001 FAX: [513]761

- 4988

www.sierrac lub.org/oh

Ohio Citizen Action sbuchanan@ohiocitizen.org