Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting September 9, 2016
Permitting and Enforcement Committee FINAL
When: September 13, 2016 Answer Place ID: 2140
9:30 a.m. – 11:45 p.m.
Where: Central Office, Columbus
6th Floor - Conference Room A “Autumn Room”
Facilitator: Mike Hopkins, Jeff Canan
Minutes: Briana Hilton
Time / Topic / Lead /Involvement / Actions Needed /
9:30
9:35 / Introductions / All / Brief introductions.
9:35
10:00 / Compliance & Enforcement
New items? / Paulian/Bergman/Kavalec / General discussion.
10:00
10:30 / Permitting
New items? / Mike Hopkins
/ General discussion.
10:30
10:40 /
Short Break, If Needed.
/ All10:40 11:00 / P&E Bylaws
New Bylaws / Mike Hopkins / 7/12/16: Mike H. Bob Hodanbosi yet to meet and discuss.
11:00
11:15 / General Permit & Permit-By-Rule Development
Create new GPs and PBRs / Crematories GP- Cleveland / 7/12/16: Ben - no progress.
Mercury Modeling to B. Cirker 10/10/15.
Compressor Stations GP #14 / 7/12/16: Working on response to comments; even if comply with MACT large sources may not model well.
Grain Elevator Operations GP NWDO / 7/12/16: Still working on qualifying criteria.
11:15
11:30 / Engineering Guide Revisions
#6 - PTI for Coal to Oil Conversion / Misty Parsons
Bruce Weinberg / reviewing guide
8/26/16: - Possibly aid in revision.
#16 – Conditions for Requiring Additional Source Compliance Tests / CDO (Bryon Marusek) & SWDO (Craig Osborne) / 9/9/16: Craig Osborne: BELOW SEE Ideas on initial testing based on Potential vs. ongoing testing based on Actual.
CDO: Ben Halton comments on EG16 + Expanded EG 16 to other than renewal permits. See EG 16 Expanded scope & EG 16 CDO Comments both attached as e-mail.
#18 - SO2 Compliance Determination Methods for Boilers / Toledo – Matt Stanfield / 7/12/16: Mike Hopkins to prep for Bob H to review & move to finalize.
#23 - Determination of Significant Figures for TSP Emission Limitations / SEDO / Comments received and making revisions.
#29 - Applicability of the PTI Rules to Increases in Capacity of a Derated Boiler / CDO / update on progress
#42 - Definition of BAT for New Sources / NWDO / Beginning initial review
#44 - Permit Issuance Policy for Relocation of Portable/Mobile Facilities / CO/SEDO / 7/12/16: EG 44 Revised in response to 31-03 rule change that was effective 5/1/16. Will incorporate feedback (questions & comments) to have new draft by Sept.
#45 - Calculation of "Potential to Emit" for Surface Coating Lines / Canton
Bruce Weinberg / 9/9/16: Canton work on hold since 2013 pending the outcome of new OCAAP guidance (issued Sept 2014) and associated changes made in new GPs 3.10 – 3.13.
See new comments by Carl Safreed dated 9/1/2016 attached as e-mail.
8/26/16: - Possibly aid in revision.
#46 - Determination of Cost-Effectiveness for BAT and RACM Evaluations / NWDO / Beginning initial review
#48 - VOC Compliance Determinations for Coating Lines / Canton
Bruce Weinberg / 9/9/16: See note in #45 above.
8/26/16: - Possibly aid in revision.
#53 - Interpretation of Open Burning Standards / Paul Braun / Update on progress – reviewing guide.
#58 - Definition of “Facility” for Ohio Title V Permit Program / Drew Bergman / Beginning draft revisions due to recent court decisions
#70 - Guidance on Evaluating Emissions of Toxic Air Pollution Compounds when Processing Permit-to-Install (PTI) Applications. / Mike Hopkins / Mike Hopkins to review comments.
#74 – Stack testing for PM2.5 / Andrew Hall
Bruce Weinberg / 7/23/15: [On hold until asphalt plant testing issues are resolved.] Alan and Jim K. have been in discussion & with court decision resolved – May be able to move forward on EG 74 & 83.
8/26/16: - Possibly aid in revision.
#80 – Methods for Calculating PTE / CDO / 7/12/16: AH/MH/DB met AH will revise & clarify some of the PTE statements in guide. May add 20% into Chap 31 & 77 rules as long term fix for EG 61.
#83 – Asphalt Testing Production Rates / Todd Brown/Alan
Bruce Weinberg / 7/23/15: [On hold until asphalt plant testing issues are resolved.]
Todd Brown came up with procedure for running at max pot - May be able to move forward on EG 74 & 83.
8/26/16: - Possibly aid in revision.
#84 – Non-road Engines / SEDO / update on progress
11:30
11:45 / New items
Burning Contraband for Disposal
Not testing at Max – derating /or when to require retest. /
SEDO - Sarah Harter
NEDO – Tim Fischer
NWDO – Jennifer Jolliff /
Has past guidance shifted away from allowing a foundry to burn contraband?
(See email attached dated 8/11/16 & EPA document dated Sep 26, 2012.)
See “TEST at Max – NEDO” below
See “TEST at Max – NWDO” below
EG Guide 16: May be, initial testing can be based on “potential” and future testing based on “actual”. Here are some ideas how we could word it (No ownership just an idea):
Initial testing requirement:
(1)The permittee shall conduct, or have conducted, emission testing(s) on the regenerative thermal oxidizer and the associated capture systems so as to demonstrate compliance with the above listed requirements.
a.The emission testing(s) for this emissions unit and/or facility shall be conducted within 6 months after the emissions unit initial regular operation.
Renewal testing requirement:
(1)Within prior to year of the expiration of the operating permit, the permittee and the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office or local air agency shall determine if this emissions unit will need to be tested.
If required to be tested prior to renewal, the permittee shall conduct, or have conducted, emission testing(s) on the regenerative thermal oxidizer and the associated capture systems so as to demonstrate compliance with the above listed requirements.
a.The emission testing(s) for this emissions unit and/or facility shall be conducted within 6 months prior to the expiration of the operating permit in effect.
This way we can keep testing in the company’s and Agency’s sight, but only require retesting when the emissions are significant. Craig
TEST at Max – NEDO: Typically most asphalt plants, engines, and several other sources do not test at maximum capacity so we in effect de-rate them until they prove they can comply at higher rates. Since the Jim O. days, we have been putting a paragraph in our testing follow-up letters that states:
“Testing was performed at a production rate that was less than the unit’s maximum capacity. If production should increase above ___, further testing is required.”
Legal does not like putting this in a letter anymore because it is outside of the permit and they provided the following alternative:
“Accordingly, this office accepts these results as a compliance demonstration for the ______(P0000). However, it should be noted that if production should increase above _____, the Director of Ohio EPA, with his discretion, may require your facility to perform further testing of the unit since it did not operate at 90% of max.”
I’m wondering if we could avoid this language all together if we altered the standard testing language to include something like the following statement as an option.
“If testing occurs at less than 90% of this unit’s maximum capacity, additional testing shall be performed prior to exceeding 10% greater than the tested production rate.”
TEST at Max – NWDO: Regarding the 10% language issue that NEDO has raised, NWDO uses the following language in our letters that was also vetted through legal:
The compliance demonstration is acceptable and satisfied the compliance demonstration requirement contained in the Permit to Install. However, the source was operating at only X% of its maximum source operating rate. The Ohio EPA will conditionally accept these test results if you agree to notify our office within 14 days of exceeding the operating rate achieved in this test by 10% or more.
In addition, you must agree to conduct a retest of the source within 45 days of exceeding the 10% threshold. Please send a written response within 14 days of the date of this letter stating whether or not you agree to the conditional acceptable of these test results.
I think that we will also need a determination of whether this is still acceptable.
Pending Action Items / Date Action CompletedPossible revisions to permit application & instructions / 7/12/16: Mike Hopkins has not yet been able to assign.
EG #61 vs 20% provision / 7/12/16: M Hopkins & A Hall have had discussions - [CDO to consider how to resolve EG #61 and/or Chapter 77 rules as relates to 20% provision used to avoid Title V applicability.] Know Feds may not like it if our 31 & 77 rules change. Legal – We must all do this the same. EG 61 will need clarification.
Updated 9/9/2016 jrc
Next meeting: November 8, 2016
page2of4