Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting May8, 2012

Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting May8, 2012

Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting –May8, 2012

Final

Lazarus Government Center

Ohio EPA

7th Floor DAPC conference room

Attendees:Co-Chairs–Sean Vadas (Akron), TBA

Minutes –Cheryl Suttman (CO)

Bruce Weinberg, John Paulian, Mike Hopkins,Andrew Hall, Cheryl Suttman, Todd Brown(CO);Drew Bergman (CO-Legal);Todd Scarborough, John McGreevy,Olen Ackman, Benjamin Halton (CDO); Duane LaClair, (Akron);Jan Tredway, Wendy Licht (NWDO);Ed Fasko, Erik Bewley(NEDO);Carl Safreed(Canton), Jeff Canan (RAPCA), Anne Chamberlin (Portsmouth), Peter Park (Toledo), Paul Tedtman (SWOAQA), Mary McGeary, John Polak, Valerie Shaffer (Cleveland); Sarah Harter (SEDO)

  1. Enforcement issues –Bruce Weinberg & John Paulian
  1. Return to compliance letters- were intended only to address resolution of the violation identified in the NOV, not to document that the facility is in compliance with other requirements. The letter should be drafted to only identify the violation(s) for which the facility was out of compliance. DAPC will be working on a template letter for this purpose.
  1. CETA data has been successfully integrated into STARS2 and has been forwarded to Region V in this format. All data should be integrated by the end of June.
  1. NOVs can be entered at the facility tab in STARS2; however, asbestos and open burning violations cannot be entered without a facility ID, so they should, instead, be scanned and entered into the E-doc system in order to track them. They can later be entered into STARS2 if they are assigned a facility ID number following the violation.
  1. New Source Review –Mike Hopkins

Natural Gas Production

  1. We are starting to get applications for the oil and natural gas (NG) well site production General Permit (GP); applications have been received from Devon Energy and Chesapeake. Chesapeake said that this is the first of many to follow.
  1. The new NSPS Subpart OOOOand amendments to the NESHAPs Subpart HH and HHH were signed by Lisa Jackson on 4/17/12 and they should be promulgated in the Federal Register any day (and might have already been posted). We will be working on modifying the well site GP for any new requirements; however, the NG facilities will have to comply with these requirements regardless if they are identified in a permit or not.
  1. DAPC CO is working on template permits and/or GPs for midstream facilities and compressor stations.
  1. The GP can be issued as a synthetic minor in order to get the permit out the door quickly; however, it will require a public comment period, unlike other GPs, and could be or would need to be modified for significant comments.
  1. There are some issues relating to the determination of what is a “single facility”, where wells are being drilled in close proximity and/or on different property owners land. There are some pending court cases regarding this issue(we are waiting on for resolution); however, we have drafted the well site GP terms to address each well separately, though multiple wells at the “pad” may be identified in the GP. The qualifying criteria (QC) restricts the GP to a single facility.
  1. The application for the NG well site GP need not include all of the emission units contained in the GP. The facility has the option to install the emissions unit later and/or the GP can be modified to deletethese emission units from the permit if never installed.
  1. Cleveland’s question regarding “True Minor verses FEPTIO” was not discussed but will be addressed at our next meeting.
  1. SEDO’s question regarding “PE vs PM10 for Title V applicability” was not especially discussed in relation to Title V permitting, butit will be brought up again at our next meeting.

SIP Approvals

  1. Region V is reviewing several of our SIP renewals. The April 2006 submission, which changed the storage tank exemptions to match the NSPS and added a few PBRs, has been approved and will soon be in the SIP.
  1. U.S. EPA still has not make a decision on the <10 TPY/no BAT determination; they still have a problem with back-sliding.
  1. The SIP submission containing the ethanol facility exemption (where using natural fermentation) from the definition of “a major stationary source”(per Paul Braun) and the determination to eliminate “clean units” from Chapter 31 has been put on hold due to concerns/comments received by Region V from environmental groups on the ethanol exemption.
  1. The PSD/TV Greenhouse Gas tailoring rule is on hold pending resolution of Region V’s disagreement with some specific language they have identified in the proposed new rules from Chapter 31.

Asphalt PM testing

  1. Mike Hopkins and Alan Lloyd met with the “Flexible Pavement Association”. Many of the Shelly case issues have been resolved, others have not. Mike and Alan are working to open communications with the industry and to possibly re-draft a new GP (which the industry rejected after the last attempt).
  1. The industry has an issue with the test method for PM10: They have determined that Method 201 does not work where there is too much moisture (it was suggested that the problem instead was water droplets). The “National Asphalt Association” has requested U.S. EPA to make a determination on the appropriate test method from for PM/PM10.
  1. Bruce Weinberg, Todd Brown, Todd Scarborough, Jan Tredway, Erik Bewley, and John McGreevy all agreed that the back half of Method 5 can be used to resolve the problem and the front half of a Method 5 would not demonstrate compliance alone. Old permits with PM only limits will need to be modified to include PM10 or possibly even PM2.5 (per Mike H.)
  1. It has also been determined that modeling for the 1-hour SO2 standard does not normally pass when running slag, where SO2 emissions exceed 200 pounds/hour; and up to 600 pounds SO2/hour have been requested (SEDO). It was decided that the industry must stack test while runningslagand/or other asphalt mixes, in order to develop reliable emission factors. Per Mike Hopkins, they will need to resolve this problem themselves by installing taller stacks, burning different fuels, reducing the slag content, adding additional controls, etc. Mike Hopkins suggested that if the SO2 emission limits submitted are less than 200 pounds/hr and <25TPY, that SO2 modeling might not be required. Everyone agreed that emission testing must be conducted, at a minimum, for PM10 and SO2, and possibly NOx; and PM2.5 for major NSR.
  1. Bruce Weinberg stated that the asphalt industry also has an inherent problem with meeting the maximum production level requirements during stack testing, as the run is by-order and mix-dependent and not always worst-case. Jan Tredway stated that slag used from an electric arc furnace emits 1/5th of the SO2 emissions emitted from using blast furnace slag. This also makes any AP-42 factors less representative of the source and estimated PM vs PM10 fractions less reliable.
  1. Any questions on the limits and test Methods to use for any new asphalt applications or in permit renewal, contact Alan Lloyd. Mike Hopkins said, when asked, that we will not be starting a workgroup at this time, and for the time being, get in touch with Alan with all your questions and for updates.

PM vs PM10 and PM2.5

  1. Regarding when to use PM vs PM10 and PM2.5, Mike later said that we do not change BAT limits for a permit renewal unless it is a TV, which must be the federal criteria pollutant of PM10, or maybe better PM10/PM2.5. Renewals would get all of the new applicable rules added, but non-TVs will keep their original BAT. Mike anticipates that the new criteria pollutant that we will soon be putting in new permits will be PM10/PM2.5. This will be discussed further in our next meeting.
  1. From Andrew: PM10 is the pollutant for which PTE is evaluated for Title V applicability. Unless there is PM10 data available, it is generally assumed that all PM=PM10 and this could result in co-located asphalt plants being pulled into Title V.

Digesters

  1. Alan Lloyd has completed a search for all of our permitted digesters and believes he has a list of most of the digesters in the State, based on contacts with the larger field offices. This list was attached to our agenda prior to the P&E meeting. Through Alan’s review of these permits, CO has determined that findings & orders should be drafted requiring permits for existing digesters. If you have specific questions concerning permitting digesters, contact Alan or review his spreadsheet to see what limitations were used at the time of issuance.
  1. Permit issuance and Data Management (PIDM)-Mike Ahern

CETA and CEMS integration into STARS2

  1. DAPC has received initial testing and feedback from representatives in the CETA integration project group. CETA users should test the system. Training on the functionality of the data entry system will be conducted. The goal is to have the system up and running by the end of June. Packaging of the data for submission to Region V will soon be conducted.
  1. Integration of CEMS data into STARS is also in process. By the 2nd quarter all CEMS data entry should be submitted electronically instead of via hard copy.

Non-TV fee reports

  1. Hard copy blue cards are coming in and are being processed.

Changes to the Standard Terms & Conditions

  1. DAPC has received comments regarding reference to the nuisance rule in the TV standard terms & conditions; it was suggested that it be removed; however, U.S. EPA disagrees with this determination.
  1. Mike has received comments regarding the requirement to submit reports through Air Services in the Standard Terms & Conditions. The concern was that they do not want the legal liability to submit it through Air Services as there is no rule requiring it. Some facilities might run into problems during the submission and they want the option to submit it in hard copy to assure it is on time. The language has been “softened” to suggest that reports be submitted through Air Services instead.

Answer Place Topic #1165

  1. This question is concerning the restrictions on who is authorized to PIN a facility’s submission. Carl Safreed suggested that the system is more restrictive than described in the 2004 guidance. Mike Ahern said that a non-TV facility can delegate someone other than the “Responsible Official” to be authorized to PIN the facility reports/submissions. This authorization needs to be granted by someone associated with the facility that has legal authority to do so (from Answer Place).

4.New Rules and SIP Update – Paul Braun

No update

5.Terms and Conditions - Cheryl Suttman

1.Cheryl passed out a handout summarizing the requirements for the affected facilities in the new NSPS Subpart OOOO and the recent changes made in the amendments to NESHAPs Subparts HH and HHH, for the Natural Gas industry. If the storage vessels can be individually restricted to <6 tons of VOC/year and sweetening units can be demonstrated to have a design capacity of less than 2 long tons of H2S per day, it is possible that many of the control requirements and daily compliance demonstrations (for sweetening units) can be avoided. Well flowback control requirements would influence a new well site;however, technically our GP only covers NG production following flowback completion operations (flowback recovery/control would be required even if not included in the permit). The GP only references the NESHAP (Subpart HH) in the facility terms, so the HH amendments have no influence on the well site GP. Most of the new NSPS requirements affect the midstream facilities and compressor stations. The major change to the 2 NESHAPs is the addition of a small glycol dehydration unit at a major source facility and the BTEX limits that go with it. Mike Hopkins is reviewing the NG engines for the compressor stations.

Template permits have been loaded in the Library for some of the units identified in Part 60 Subpart OOOO and additional affected facilities will be added as they are completed. The Library templates for Part 63 Subparts HH and HHH will be updated ASAP for the addition of the small glycol dehydration units and the other smaller changes made in these NESHAPs.

Engineering Guide Updates

  1. EG #20: This guidance is for the determination of compliance with Visible Emission (VE) limitations for stacks. It was decided that this EG meets the intended purpose of the guidance and does not address VE from acid gas/sulfuric acid mist or condensable organics. An equivalent visible emission limit (EVEL) can be established during a stack test for PM/PM10 at facilities emitting acid gases, where needed, to demonstrate compliance with a VE that exceeds that allowed by rule. It was suggested that we might draft another EG for establishing an EVEL at such facilities. Comments provided during meeting by Todd Brown and Bruce Weinberg.
  1. EG #6 PTI for Coal to Oil conversion; Jim Braun and Misty Parsons are working on what to include in this guidance document.
  1. EG #8 Compliance Test at Bulk Gasoline Terminals; John McGreevy is working on this and the draft is out for review until 5/31/12.
  1. EG # 24 Application of Fugitive Dust Requirements to Affected Facilities; Toledo; the draft is out for review until 5/31/12
  1. EG # 26 Inclusion of Weight of Water in the Weight of Refuse Charged for Incinerators; final recommendation was submitted to Tom Kalman for final review on 4/13/12
  1. EG # 34 Conditions for Issuance of PTI/PTO for and Inactive Source; RAPCA; issued final on 3/12/12
  1. EG #74 Stack testing for PM2.5; Andrew Hall suggested we hold this one for the resolution of the asphalt test method
  1. EG #80 Methods for Calculating PTE; CDO; issued final on 3/2/12, however Mike Hopkins was accepting comments through 4/8/12
  1. EG #81 Emission Unit ID Designations; Ben Cirker; issued final 3/12/12
  1. See Agenda for EGs not discussed, with no updates

Pending Actions

  1. Training –

Steve Friedman will be taking Afrika Alsup’s place until the training position can be filled.

Training is being offered for APTI 455 – “Inspection of Gas Control Devices,” September 25 – 28, in Columbus.

  1. Portable Source Workgroup Director’s Efficiency Task Force Item –

Update from Lynne Martz- members: Erica Engel-Ishida, Lynne Martz, Sarah Harter, Chris Boss, Carl Safreed, Luke Mountjoy, Anne Chamberlin, John Polak, Brad Faggionato, Sean Vadas, Ron Nabors, Rick Smith. Workgroup has completed the evaluation phase. Bob Hodanbosi approved the group’s proposed revisions to Chapter 31, the Relocation Request form and approval letter changes. Key changes will be: combination of both types of portable source notifications into one place in Ch. 31; reduced one-time relocation request time from 30 days to 21 days; reduced time for pre-approvals from 15 days. Both requests will require confirmation within 7 days after relocation occurred; Revised ITR form to be more user friendly and provide DO/LAA with more information to expedite processing. Next step will be implementation: Jenny Avellana will be working with the SIP section to get the portables language into the Chapter 31 package. Bob appreciates the workgroup members’ accomplishments in the last few months.

  1. Chrome Plating

EAC form for Chrome Plating – Laura Miracle has submitted this draft for comments, through 6/1/12

  1. Testing Condition Requirements IOC – Todd Brown working on IOC for establishing maximum conditions and procedure for derating. Problems with facilities like loading racks and asphalt plants need to be resolved.

P&E Minutes are available in Answer Place Topic ID 2140.

Next meeting is Tuesday, July 10, 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.

Top View