ENCLOSURE 3

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RECORD

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(e), the complete record of testimony is
located at the Department of Environmental Quality.  The department
contact to access this information is the Office of Regulatory Affairs.

As required by Section 2.1(h) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, below is
a summary of the testimony received and responses thereto.  Included is
a brief statement of the subject, the identification of the commenter,
the summary of the comment and the response (analysis and action taken).
 Each issue is discussed in light of all of the comments received that
affect that issue.  All comments have been reviewed and responses
developed based on an evaluation of the issues raised in consideration
of the overall goals and objectives of the air quality program and the
intended purpose of the document under review.

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

COMMENTER:  United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest
Service, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

TEXT:  According to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) staff analysis, “The boiler is currently equipped with an ESP
(electrostatic precipitator) and multicyclones. The ESP was installed
around 1988. The FLM (Federal Land Manager) has proposed that MW should
add a field to the ESP to increase its efficiency. Although addition of
an ESP field is economically feasible for MW, it is not technologically
feasible for the specific location of this ESP. There is physically no
real estate on which to place an additional field.”

The first step in a top-down BART analysis is a determination of which
potential control technologies are technically feasible. We could find
no submittal from MW to support DEQ’s contention that it is not
technically feasible to add a field to the ESP on the #9 power boiler.
In its March 30, 2007 submittal, MW states, “All PM10 control
technologies identified in Section 4 are considered feasible for the
coal fired No. 9 Power Boiler…Addition of new stages or fields to the
existing ESP or installation of a bag-house may provide greater than 50%
reduction of potential annual PM10 emissions.” MW then provides
analyses in both its March 30, 2007 and March 10, 2008 submittals of the
economic feasibility of adding a field. Considering that MW has not
eliminated addition of a field on the basis of technical infeasibility
(lack of space) and DEQ has determined that addition of a field is
economically feasible, the remaining factors must then be considered. As
noted in our previous comments, our analysis of the modeling results
provided by MW indicates that primary particulate is the most important
pollutant with respect to visibility impairment at JRF from this source.
We suggest that DEQ’s determination of economic feasibility combined
with our analysis of the benefits of reducing primary particulates from
this source lead toward a conclusion that addition of a field is BART.  

Furthermore, DEQ concludes that, “The permit will require a decrease
in permitted emissions consistent with the modeling, which assumed
compliance with the now-vacated Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control
Technology).” As noted in our previous comments, this is a “paper”
reduction. The PM10 emission rate in the draft permit (0.07 lb/mmBtu)
reflects reductions (from the current limit of 0.14 lb/mmBtu) that MW
has already achieved under the vacated MACT rule. We believe that real
PM10 reductions could be achieved by addition of a field to the ESP on
the #9 Power Boiler.

RESPONSE:  MW’s BART Determination Analysis including economic
analysis submitted in March 2007 provides information rendering addition
of an ESP field to be technologically feasible but economically
unfeasible.  The technical feasibility was based purely on the fact that
it is possible to add a field to an ESP.  This determination did not
consider the specific precipitator associated with #9 Power Boiler.  MW
proceeded to analyze the economic feasibility following guidance from
OAQPS and MANE-VU and determined the cost per ton to be $26,000.  MW
added that this figure was “conservative” since they had not
included site-specific costs associated with the ESP’s location.

DEQ’s engineering analysis was in error by stating that the project
would be economically feasible.

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

COMMENTER:  USDA, Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests

TEXT:  According to DEQ’s staff analysis, “The scrubber uses caustic
waste from the mill and achieves the current 45-55% SO2  reduction for
the combined boiler exhaust. MW has proposed an additional 15% SO2
reduction by adding virgin caustic to the scrubber liquid. MW is
reluctant to commit to more reduction since they are not sure of the
potential impacts of the additional virgin caustic on their wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) and consequently on their effluent. The WWTP
discharges directly to the Jackson River.”

We could find no submittal from MW to support DEQ’s contention that
the existing wastewater treatment plant is inadequate to handle
additional scrubber effluent or that the environmental impacts of
increasing scrubber effluent are so severe as to eliminate additional
SO2 reductions as an option. Even if the existing wastewater treatment
plant is inadequate to handle the additional scrubber load, MW should
have presented an analysis of the feasibility of upgrading the
wastewater treatment plant accordingly.

Finally, in addition to the comments we presented previously concerning
the costs similar industrial facilities (Georgia Pacific-Big Island, VA
and Tennessee Eastman) have committed for SO2 reduction, we wish to add
that the NewPage/Westvaco/Luke Paper Company has proposed to remove 90%
of the SO2 from a power boiler to satisfy BART at its Luke, MD paper
mill.

RESPONSE:  EPA’s guidance advises “In the case where you are
conducting a BART determination for two regulated pollutants on the same
source, if the result is two different BART technologies that do not
work well together, you could then substitute a different technology or
combination of technologies.”  However there is no clear-cut guidance
for sources that share control equipment.  In this instance, one
scrubber controls SO2 emissions from the #9 Power Boiler as well as the
#6 Power Boiler.  This existing scrubber system is further complicated
by having a second scrubber servicing the #7 and #8 Power Boilers.  The
feedstock for both scrubbers comes from a common reservoir.  Once again
DEQ has had to consider the existing equipment set-up and the physical
constraints of the area in making a decision about this particular
boiler.  The FLM argument that greater reductions can be realized may be
true if in reality we could discuss the #9 Power Boiler alone.  DEQ
continues to argue that reducing emissions from not only the #9 Power
Boiler but the 3 non-BART-eligible boilers exceeds any reductions that
may be realized by addressing the #9 Power Boiler alone.

3.	SUBJECT:  Recovery Furnace #1, PM10.

COMMENTER:  USDA, Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests

TEXT:  According to DEQ’s staff analysis, “The recovery furnace is
currently equipped with an ESP and multicyclones. The FLM has proposed
that MW should add a field to the ESP to increase its efficiency.
Although addition of an ESP field is economically feasible, it may not
be technologically feasible for the specific location of this ESP since
it is located on the roof of the recovery furnace building. MW’s cost
estimate did not include the additional costs of placing this additional
field on the roof, nor the additional structural support for the added
weight on the roof.  DEQ feels that additional controls for this furnace
are not warranted due to cost, space constraints and issues of
safety.”

The first step in a top-down BART analysis is a determination of which
potential control technologies are technically feasible. We could find
no submittal from MW to support DEQ’s contention that it is not
technically feasible to add a field to the ESP on the #1 recovery
furnace. In its March 30, 2007 submittal, MW assumed that adding a field
to this ESP would reduce PM10 emissions by 70%. MW then provides
analyses in both its March 30, 2007 and March 10, 2008 submittals of the
economic feasibility of adding a field. Considering that MW has not
eliminated addition of a field on the basis of technical infeasibility
(lack of space) and DEQ has determined that addition of a field is
economically feasible, the remaining factors must then be considered. As
noted in our previous comments, our analysis of the modeling results
provided by MW indicates that primary particulate is the most important
pollutant with respect to visibility impairment at JRF from this source,
and also impacts SHEN. We suggest that DEQ’s determination of economic
feasibility combined with our analysis of the benefits of reducing
primary particulates from this source lead toward a conclusion that
addition of a field is BART.

RESPONSE:   MW’s March 2007 BART Determination concluded that adding a
new stage to the existing ESP would cost $12,000 per ton, rendering this
option economically infeasible.  DEQ’s argument for technological
infeasibility was misstated and should have been to address unknown
additional costs associated with the ESP’s location.

4.	SUBJECT:  Recovery Furnace #1, NOX.

COMMENTER:  USDA, Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests

TEXT:  According to DEQ’s staff analysis, “The recovery furnace
currently utilizes staged combustion and proper operation and
maintenance practices to control NOX emissions. The FLM argues that MW
should better demonstrate why low temperature oxidation is not an
applicable NOX control strategy. MW has contacted industry resources to
see if any new installation or retrofits have been demonstrated and they
could find none. DEQ concurs that this technology has not been
sufficiently proven for recovery furnaces.”

The BART Guidelines advise that:

Control technologies are technically feasible if either

(1) they have been installed and operated successfully for the type of
source under review under similar conditions, or 

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

Two key concepts are important in determining whether a technology could
be applied: "availability" and "applicability."  (A) technology is
considered "available" if the source owner may obtain it through
commercial channels, or it is otherwise available within the common
sense meaning of the term.  An available technology is "applicable" if
it can reasonably be installed and operated on the source type under
consideration.  A technology that is available and applicable is
technically feasible. 

Neither MW nor DEQ has addressed these criteria. We believe that low
temperature oxidation is a clearly available control technology, so the
remaining issue is its applicability to the #1 recovery furnace at MW.
In our previous comments we stated, “Low temperature oxidation for NOX
control was dismissed by MW because it has never been used on a recovery
furnace.  However this technology is commercially available and has been
successfully applied to, and permitted for, industrial processes [e.g.,
Minnesota Steel PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) permit]. 
It has not been used on boilers due to its temperature limitations, but
may be ideally suited to the relatively cool exhaust here.  We feel that
DEQ must show why low temperature oxidation it is not applicable to this
recovery furnace.  DEQ has presented no evidence to indicate that this
technology could not be applied.

RESPONSE:  DEQ continues to concur with MW’s initial assessment that
LoTOxtm is not an appropriate BART emission control strategy for the
recovery furnace. In addition to MW’s contact with industry resources
to see if any new installations or retrofits have been demonstrated, DEQ
has spoken with the permit writer for the Minnesota Steel PSD permit and
found that this installation has not yet been built.  The Technical
Support Document for that permit states

 “ .  .  .  the application of LoTOxtm to the indurating furnace is
not directly transferable and testing is necessary to determine its
feasibility and to adequately design a system.  Despite the fact the
LoTOxtm is an unproven technology, Minnesota Steel will conduct a trial
of LoTOxtm on the pellet plant waste gas stream.  The purpose of the
trial is to determine if LoTOxtm is technically feasible on the waste
gas exhaust.  If technically feasible, the data from the trial will also
provide the information necessary to more accurately estimate the cost
and design for a full scale installation.”  

Since this technology has not been proven at the Minnesota Steel plant,
DEQ does not see that this technology has been demonstrated to be
“applicable” as described in the BART guideline.

5.	SUBJECT:  Procedural issues - notification.

	COMMENTER:  USDA, Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests

	TEXT:  We are concerned that we did not receive notification of the
beginning of this public comment period until November 4, 2008, more
than two weeks after its publication and only ten days prior to the
deadline for submitting comments. We ask that future notices be sent no
later than the beginning of the comment period.

	RESPONSE:  As required by 40 CFR 51.102 and Section 2.1 of Appendix V
of 40 CFR Part 51, public participation activities for this particular
comment period were originally announced on October 14, 2008 in the
Covington Virginia Review, as well as on the DEQ internet site;
additional notification was provided through the Virginia Register and
Town Hall.  In addition to this notification for the general public, the
Forest Service was, as provided in 40 CFR 51.302(b)(2), given advance
opportunity to comment on the permit.  While we make every attempt to
provide additional notification to interested parties, it was not
possible for this particular permit.  We will endeavor to provide the
Forest Service with additional notice for future permits to the best of
our ability.

6.	SUBJECT:  Condition 11, reopening the permit.

COMMENTER:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

TEXT:  We believe the permit in its current form does not comply with
EPA's BART regulation, 40 CFR 51.308(e).

EPA's BART regulation requires that a state must submit a regional haze
implementation plan containing, among other things, "emissions
limitation representing BART. . ."  BART is defined as "en emission
limitation based on the degree of reduction for each pollutant which is
emitted by an existing stationary facility."  40 CFR 51.301.  BART
levels of control must be achieved no later than 5 years after EPA's
approval of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision.  40 CFR
51.208(e)(iv).

The permit does not fulfill the BART requirements due to condition 11. 
Condition 11 purports to reopen the BART determination for this facility
in either of two circumstances: (1) boiler exceeds 50% of rated capacity
of 2,891,000 MMBtu/yr, or (2) the boiler is operated on oil for over 10%
of its annual capacity.  40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).

BART, however, is a present requirement, and must be established prior
to submission of the SIP.  EPA's BART regulations make no provision for
reopening BART or re-evaluating BART after the date of the SIP
submission.  Currently proposed condition 11 not only purports to allow
BART to be re-evaluated and redetermined after SIP submission, but even
after the 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv) deadline for BART implementation.  This
is not permissible.

If the facility wishes to operate in the future on oil for over 10% of
its capacity, the proper BART emissions limits for all visibility
impairing pollutants emitted by the BART-subject facility must be set
for this scenario in the current draft permit.  Otherwise, the facility,
no matter what fuel mix it uses, must meet the emissions limitation
(BART is "an emissions limitation," 40 CFR 51.301) established under the
current permit, which we understand to be based on the facility's
current use of natural gas rather than oil.  If the permit does not
establish emissions limitations based on use of fuel oil, the facility
may emit at a level for any visibility impairing pollutant no higher
than that set for burning natural gas.  If burning oil would result in
the emission of a visibility impairing pollutant that would not be
emitted when burning natural gas, and if no limit is set for that
pollutant in the current permit, the facility may not emit that
pollutant in any quantity.  Any such emission would violate BART.

Similarly, the facility, even if it exceeds 50% of rated capacity, must
emit visibility impairing pollutants at a level no greater than that
established under the current permit.  If this would require the
facility to install control equipment, the facility must install that
control equipment to prevent violation of the BART limits.

If the facility at some future time desires to operate at greater than
50% rated capacity and Virginia would like the facility, under those
circumstances, to evaluate and install add-on controls that might
achieve emissions more stringent than permitted BART levels (while
operating at the higher capacity), there are probably a number of
avenues Virginia can explore.  These may include, but are not limited
to, the reasonable progress and periodic revision provisions of the
regional haze program.  40 CFR 51.308(f).  BART, however, would not be a
legally available means of establishing more stringent controls.  The
BART emissions limits for each visibility impairing pollutant (absent
perhaps extraordinary circumstances, such as a permit based on incorrect
or fraudulent information), cannot be changed once they have been
established in the SIP.

	RESPONSE:  Condition #11 has been removed from the permit.

6.	SUBJECT:  Typographical error.

COMMENTER:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

TEXT:  Proposed paragraphs 2-11 cite 40 CFR 51.302 as authority for
establishing the BART provisions of this permit.  This is incorrect; the
correct citation is 40 CFR 51.308(3)

	RESPONSE:  This comment is acceptable, and the proposal will be revised
accordingly.

TEMPLATES\SOURCE-SPECIFIC\PLN03

SRCESPEC\MEADWESTVACO\MW-SIP-3.DOC

 DEQ’s comments that “addition of an ESP field is economically
feasible” and that “DEQ feels that additional controls for this
furnace are not warranted due to cost, space constraints and issues of
safety” appear contradictory and require additional explanation and
justification.

 Permit Action Number: 06100067-001, page 78 of 165 (November 2, 2007).

 

 

