Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting – March 13, 2012
Please note: This document is intended for internal DAPC use only and may not reflect Agency policy or position regarding any materials accessed via this document.
P & E minutes March 13, 2012
Lazarus Government Center
Ohio EPA
7th Floor DAPC conference room
Attendees: Co-Chairs – Sean Vadas (Akron), TBA
Minutes – Jenny Avellana (CO)
- John Paulian, Mike Hopkins, Erica Engel-Ishida, Alan Lloyd, Lynne Martz, Cheryl Suttman (CO), Drew Bergman (CO-Legal), Rick Carleski (OCAPP/CO) Todd Scarborough, John McGreevy (CDO), Duane LaClair, (Akron), Jan Tredway (NWDO), Tim Fischer, Misty Koletich, Corey Kursian (NEDO), Carl Safreed (Canton), Chris Clinefelter (RAPCA), Anne Chamberlin (Portsmouth), Peter Park (Toledo), Paul Tedtman (SWOAQA), Mary McGeary, Valerie Shaffer (Cleveland)
1. Enforcement issues – John Paulian
Not too many updates. Waiting on revisions on Compliance through Enforcement Policy, hope to send out by April 15. Drew Bergman is working on tweaking compliance plans for enforcement. He will be scheduling a call with the locals like he did with the districts to talk about the plan.
2. New Source Review – Mike Hopkins
EAC Form for chromium electroplating seemed to disappear. Why didn't we proceed forward with that? Maybe 5-15 years ago a group was put together to work on chromium electroplating MACTs. Group was put together to draft the EAC but never got beyond that. We need to update the draft EAC form. Sean Vadas will take a stab at updating it and passing it around for P&E committee to review.
Question from Adam Ward - Should we update the Preliminary Completeness letter to include site preparation activities allowed under OAC rule 3745-31-33? 31-33 allows for certain activities but the letter currently says you can't initiate construction. Chris Clinefelter volunteered to update the letter. He will have something by next P&E meeting. Do we have a preference to spell out 31-33 or just reference and provide a link to the rule? It was suggested to keep the letter as short as possible.
A related issue was brought to the committee's attention, that in Stars2, when entering a new application, a date of commencement of operation is required. This needs to be fixed for situations where a facility has started installation but not operation.
CDO question - John McGreevy -
Bulk gasoline terminal testing conditions - max not always achievable. OAC rule 3745-21-10(E) requires that “the gasoline throughput during any test shall be not less than ninety per cent of the maximum throughput of the loading rack(s) and not less than eighty thousand gallons.” Is there anything else they can do to comply with the rule? CDO talked to Todd Brown and Bob and Mike, who decided that if the facility is having trouble meeting 90%, to test at less than 90% and we’ll accept this as 90% of their maximum throughput. This is similar to derating, but it’s an unofficial derating of the maximum throughput. It is difficult to track an unofficial derating for testing and retesting. This is not in compliance with what is in the permit, so the facility needs to keep us apprised of their throughput rate. The plan is to modify Ohio’s stack testing guidance to include this language for derating of facility when they don't meet their testing requirement. We will track the derating in a formal letter through Stars2 and require monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting in that letter. If they exceed 10% of the lower rate we've accepted, then they need to notify us. Also, rule 3745-21-10(E) references NSPS subpart XX but our rule is more stringent. Subpart XX requires the 80,000 gallons of gasoline pumped requirement but our rule also requires the 90% of the maximum throughput. We have an IOC on our website right now but we need to revise to address this issue. There is an engineering guide that addresses testing for bulk gasoline terminals. The EG is confusing. It mentions the NSPS and our rule. The EG needs revised with how our rules are intertwined with the NSPS. John will take a look at it and try to revise for review by P&E committee at the next meeting.
NSR General Update – Mike Hopkins
We issued EG 80. This is the Potential to Emit guide that Adam Ward has been working on. We finalized it and sent it out to interested parties for comment at the same time so we can have a final document in-house that we can use. W3'll get comments from interested parties and see if we need to make changes to it.
We issued the final GP for digesters.
We issued the final Oil & Gas GP for well sites. We are starting to see applications for those coming in. One company was installing well sites but putting in smaller equipment so the PTE was less than de minimis and they have not been applying for GPs.
We are starting to work on better understanding the next step in the process – mid-stream operations, compressor stations. Operations similar to what we have under GP. These companies are taking raw gas, making sure gas is dry and ready to go in pipeline, flares, all done in central location where a bunch of different wells go to that one location. They may have compressors at that one operation. We expect these operations to have larger equipment. This could end up as another GP or template terms for T&C library. We expect to see a fair number of these. We also expect to see a more general type of compressor situation. Can we do a GP for these or do a template? All depends on emissions. We haven't yet done a GP as a synthetic minor and there is no reason we can't do one. We’d have to set it up so that draft terms can be issued quickly but then we would have to do a normal comment period and final issuance on the regular (non-general) permit track. GP would get you a quick draft issuance.
We submitted information to US EPA to support the <10 tpy BAT exemption for no backsliding. They are reviewing this information along with other changes in the rule. We hope in a month or so we'll get comments as to whether we are on the right track.
Same thing with another rule of ours where the PTI exemption for storage tanks matches with NSPS levels; US EPA also wanted support on why this wasn't backsliding. Mike Mansour worked on this and we submitted information supporting this rule change to US EPA.
ERAC - air toxics appeal by environmental groups
The environmental groups appealed the development of the air toxics rule and the compounds that ended up in the rule. When we developed that rule and decided on compounds, we had detailed support for all the decisions we made. ERAC said we did our homework and the rules are fine. No reason to overturn any of it.
ERAC - Shelly Plant 77 appeal - Shelly appealed a PTI and had a number of issues that affect many different types of facilities or permits we issue. ERAC found 12 out of 14 issues for director. The 30 days is now up and Shelly did not appeal the ruling. We chose not to appeal on the 2 issues we lost on.
Some issues that ERAC said were fine:
That we list different fuels in a permit that you are allowed to use
Having limits on different fuels
No problem on 1 minute, 3 minutes opacity issues
Having a sulfur content restriction for fuels.
No problems with burner tuning
2 issues they ruled for Shelly:
T&C that restricted the amount of slag that could be used - said we didn't have enough support to put that restriction in. This made sense because we didn't have stack testing to show what impact the use of slag would have on emissions at the time. But now we have stack testing from Shelly that shows significantly higher sulfur emissions. The lesson is we need good information to support restrictions we put in permits.
For asphalt plants we had put separate limits on plant stack emissions from baghouse and then limits on storage silos and other parts of plant. This was mainly for convenience in calculations. ERAC said for one EU you shouldn't have it split up into parts. Maybe we'll have to put a common limit in one location, but show compliance by two different calculations.
There are many other Shelly appeals for many of the same issues at ERAC. AG will have to work with ERAC on how to deal with those appeals. We might be able to get rid of a bunch of pending appeals.
NWDO has done an asphalt permit based on changes from the appeal. The calculations are not user friendly. Didn't put a slag limit but MH believes we have enough support for now putting in a slag limit restriction.
These decisions should help us to determine how to move forward with asphalt draft GP terms.
Todd wanted to give an announcement for smoke school March 20-22 in Cincinnati, March 27-29 in Columbus, and April 3-5 in Akron.
Permit renewal project question - Todd Scarborough - MH said the ones we are normally reviewing are Title Vs, major NSR, synthetic minor or controversial. We may occasionally pick others based on workload. Todd says that unless you have a copy of the PTI for the PTIO renewal, it is difficult to review. If CO staff does not have a copy of PTI, they might ask for this from DO/LAAs.
3. STARS2 and permit issuance update – Erica Engel-Ishida
The PTI/PTIO application we sent out for comment received a lot of comments. We received comments for instructions on EAC forms. Erica going through each EAC form to make sure info is up to date. Let her know if there are any other EAC forms that need to be opened up for updating. She will be updating addresses and typos and things like that.
Mike Ahern gave updates to pass along - E-document project. The only office's documents not published are Cleveland, SEDO and some of SWDO. If you have permit-related NOVs or emissions-related NOVs get them uploaded into Stars2. We had talked about having a type of NOV for rescinding NOVs. We will be adding that option very soon.
Standard T&Cs – we received comments. Bob and Mike A. are determining how best to proceed based on new comments. We are hoping to have those published by end of this month or April
We have had many questions with how we are going to deal with early renewals of PTIOS. The first set of PTIOs will expire beginning in July 2013. As you approach renewal, every permit that was issued would get same expiration dates. PIDM is working on guidance for what timeframe you can issue an early renewal if facilities have PTIs butting up against the PTIO renewal. Legal is currently reviewing some questions that PIDM came up with.
We've issued GPs that MH mentioned. EG 34 and 81 are on Bob's desk. These will be posted to the web very soon.
Automated letters from Stars2 for NOVs-Will this be done for PER non-submittals? Elisa is actually generating these letters, they are not automated. Erica sent out a list of which letters PIDM will send out that DO/laas do not need to send out. See previous minutes for this list.
4. New Rules and SIP Update – Paul Braun
No update
5. Terms and Conditions - Cheryl Suttman
Cheryl passed out two handouts. One was the changes made to the last final to the Boiler MACT, Subpart DDDDD from March of last year; now w/ proposed amendment published in FR on 12/23/11. The other was a summary of Part 63 Subpart HH for the NG Production facilities (both attached).
Cheryl is working on terms for NSPS Subpart Db for industrial boilers. Bob Princic has found a review team to work on the asbestos rule changes for the landfill terms. I have already fixed and uploaded the problem file (for landfills not authorized to accept NESHAP regulated asbestos) and “they” (new review team, including some solid waste people) are looking at the file for the NESHAP regulated asbestos which just needs to be better organized (and maybe solid waste will add some of their rules).
Cheryl sent a follow-up email after the meeting with this information: Andrew Hall has drafted terms for the boiler MACT until it goes final. He is working on revisions in response to significant Region V comments, he said.
I am guessing the review team knows what to do if you need a major source boiler permit issued right away; if not, e-mail Andrew.
As far as the parameter monitoring, the proposed amendments changed 12-hour block averages to 30-day rolling averages. I would not anticipate that they will change this again in the final. These terms, along with the option to use emissions averaging for existing units (also revised for the amendment), are available in separate files in the Library under “By-rule” Part 63, Subpart DDDDD. Do not use the completed terms for the proposed D5 amendments (FR 12/23/11); I will be revising them after the rules go final again. If you need terms for NSPS Subpart Da, they are complete under Part 60.
6. Engineering Guide update-
EG 77 – Addressing BAT limits that may have come from the old 21-07(G). CDO is in progress of collecting samples to determine how different situations should be handled.
EG 20 - question regarding acid mist having an exemption. Sean received a comment from Dean Ponchak of SEDO about how we shouldn’t include acid mist when doing a visible emission test. Sean asked him for clarification but hasn't received it yet.
EG 26 - Misty talked to Ed Fasko, he is taking another look but doesn't believe there will be more than typo-related revisions.
EG 80 - Issued final on 3/2/2012. Contact Ben Halton for comments. They are taking comments until April 8?
7. General Permits –
Anaerobic Digesters issued final 3/7/12
Misc Metal Parts GP - Rick hoping to have ideas from other states to pass around for next meeting.