Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meetingnovember 8, 2011

Permitting and Enforcement Committee FINAL

When: November 8, 2011 9:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Where: Central Office, Columbus Conference Room C Facilitator: Jim Braun, Co-Chair Minutes: Jenny Avellana

Time Topic Lead / Actions Needed Involvement

9:30 Enforcement 10:00 * New items? Kalman/Paulian General discussion. Canton Want to maintain enforcement * Include warning letters in ECM? flexibility – see below. 10:00 Permitting 10:30 * Temporary activities – permit needed? OCAPP Retained from last meeting. See note below. Postpone discussion until the January meeting. CDO Determine what documentation is * Oil analysis for sulfur content. needed – see below. CDO See note below. * PTE guidance 10:30 Permit Issuance and Data Management 11:00 * New items? Ahern General update. Engel-Ishida Need to address terms established in * Problem with Chapter 31 modifications Chapter 31 mods – see below. 11:00 Break everyone Relax & Stretch 11:15

11:15 New Rules and SIP Update 11:30 * New items? Paul Braun General update.

11:30 Terms and Conditions and Policy Distribution 11:45 * New items? Suttman General update.

11:45 Engineering Guide Revisions 12:00 Misty Parsons to revisit the changes for #6 - PTI for Coal to Oil Conversion Cleveland this guide. Final recommendation submitted to #18 - SO2 Compliance Determination Methods for Boilers Toledo Kalman for final review on 9/15/2011. #20 - Determination of Compliance with Visible Emission Akron update on progress Limitations for Stack Source #23 - Determination of Significant Figures for TSP Comments received and making SEDO Emission Limitations revisions. #24 - Application of Fugitive Dust Requirements to Toledo update on progress Affected Facilities #26 - Inclusion of Weight of Water in the Weight of Submit comments by 2/15/10. No NEDO "Refuse" Charged for Incinerators comments received. #29 - Applicability of the PTI Rules to Increases in CDO update on progress Capacity of a Derated Boiler #34 - Conditions for Issuance of PTI/PTO for an Inactive Draft provided on 9/14, comments due RAPCA Source by 10/28/11. #44 - Permit Issuance Policy for Relocation of Erica and Sarah Harter working on CO/SEDO Portable/Mobile Facilities changes. #53 - Interpretation of Open Burning Standards DeWulf / Rule was appealed with hearing in Burkleca February 2007. Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting November 8, 2011 Time Topic Lead / Actions Needed Involvement Provide comments to Sarah by mid- August. Want to finalize by October. #69 – Guidance on Air Dispersion Modeling VanderWielen Might merge with EG 70. Currently under review with PAG. #70 - Guidance on Evaluating Emissions of Toxic Air Hopkins Hopkins review comments. Pollution Compounds when Processing Permit-to-Install (PTI) Applications. FR for PM2.5 effective. Need to address test protocol for condensables #74 – Stack testing for PM2.5 Hall and the Hopkins NSR guidance. Need volunteers to resume work on this guide.

#XX – Non-road Engines SEDO update on progress

#XX – Emission unit ID designations Ben Cirker Tom Kalman reviewing as of 7/12/11.

Hopkins review comments and address #XX – Crushers NSPS Subpart OOO Hopkins recent changes to subpart OOO.

12:00 General Permit & Permit By Rule development 12:15 * Create new GPs and PBRs Crematories - Sarah VanderWielen to work on Cleveland mercury modeling September 2010. Anaerobic Draft Model GP issued – comments Digesters due by November 28, 2011. Oil and Gas Well Draft Model GP issued – comments Site Production due by November 28, 2011. Miscellaneous Cheryl working on changes for Chapter Metal 17 and GACT (HHHHHH).

12:15 Training 12:30 All Any new training on the horizon? * New training items?

12:30 New items 12:45 * Reserving conference room for future meetings. CO Continue to use Room C or use a room on Floor 6? Need someone to reserve room for all of 2012.

Pending Action Items suggested by P&E Committee Date Action Completed

1. File review work group. Per 11/9/10 meeting, the Legal Division wants to revisit and possibly develop a centralized system for tracking file review requests.

2. Proposed Potential to Emit Guidance. See note below for update.

Next meeting: January 10, 2012

page2of5 Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting November 8, 2011

OCAPP – permitting of temporary sources – Postpone until January meeting

From: Carleski, Rick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:36 PM To: Braun, Jim Cc: Carleski, Rick; Carney, Jim; Korenewych, Pam; LaFavre, Adrienne; Nabors, Ron; Pellegrino, Jim; Sowry, Dan; Witte, Ralph Subject: RE: P&E Meeting Draft Agenda -requested item

OCAPP would like to request this be added to the 9/13 P&E agenda, possibly during the Permitting Section update:

1. The recent draft GP for oil & gas drilling sites contained a write-up that described all air pollution sources to be covered under the proposed GP. That summary also contained statements that air permits were not needed for some activities because they were temporary.

OCAPP frequently encounters temporary sources such as the painting/blasting of outdoor structures, concrete cutting, portable wood chippers, construction roadway fugitive dust, etc. These things are not outright exempt in 31-03, nor always able to meet de minimis thresholds. OCAPP would like clearer guidance from DAPC on this issue.

PIER – Chapter 31 Mods Do Not Terminate

From: Engel-Ishida, Erica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 9:55 AM To: Braun, Jim Cc: Hall, Andrew; Hopkins, Mike; Ahern, Mike Subject: P&E Agenda Item: Chapter 31 Mods can't terminate

When we designed Stars2 permitting it was done with the agreement that we would truly be superseding permits. So when a Chapter 31 modification is issued it truly supersedes the permit being modified. With that being the case, the Chapter 31 mod cannot terminate if the permittee did not begin a course of installation of the modification because if it does terminate the company would be operating without a permit.

Therefore, at the time, Mike Hopkins agreed that we would be writing modification terms such that they would have the original terms in them in case they did not go through with the modification.

I have heard from several permit writers in recent months that Chapter 31 mods are not being written in this manner. This obviously presents a problem for those companies that run out of time or decide not to proceed with the project. They would require a new PTI/PTIO to establish the old terms in order to continue

page3of5 Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting November 8, 2011 operating.

Where to go from here?

CDO – Oil analysis for sulfur content documentation

From: Anthony Ruggiero [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:48 PM To: Mountjoy, Luke; Scarborough, Todd; Carper, Michael; 'Riedmaier, Brian'; Dan Mapes Subject: Sulfur Documentation

Luke, I had a phone conversation with Mike Hopkins on Tuesday (10/11) about documentation needed for sulfur determination. I talked to Mike Hopkins because I received conflicting information from other districts about what documentation is needed for this determination. I told Mr. Hopkins the language in my permit, and that we had invoices and bills of lading with the maximum sulfur content listed in the fuel. I asked if this was sufficient documentation for #2 fuel oil. He explained that he thought it was but added that a reliability factor of that document could factor. I explained that for some fuel products such as used oil, I understand that position. I explained that we believe refined #2 fuel is different because the USEPA heavily regulates the refining of this fossil fuels. This is demonstrated by USEPA’s Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Program. We believe that a company should be able to rely on paperwork from an industry that is federally regulated in the manufacturing and distribution of its product.

Mar-Zane also believes there is a distinction between documentation and analysis. Mar- Zane Materials Plant 11’s permit asks for documentation, whereas Mar-Zane Asphalt Plant #2’s permit asks for suppliers analysis for sulfur content. We believe that the word “documentation” allows for more ways to show sulfur content than does requesting an analysis. Mar-Zane believes that the word documentation allows for invoices, bills of lading and other paperwork that states the sulfur content to be used.

Mar-Zane is requesting Central District Office to contact Central Office, (Mike Hopkins Office) to discuss this documentation requirements further. Attached is the permit requirement for sulfur documentation in Mar-Zane Materials Plant #11’s permit, and Mar-Zane Asphalt Plant #2. I have also attached examples of documentation of sulfur content using invoices and bills of lading.

Mar-Zane is willing to discuss this documentation with Central Office and Central District Office if the agency feels it is required. Tony Ruggiero

CDO – Potential to Emit guidance

Per message from Adam Ward:

I have an update on the new PTE Engineering Guide and was hoping you or Mike H (if he is in attendance) can let folks know during the P&E meeting on Tuesday.

It has been through legal review, Mike has completed his final review and sent it back to me. I’ll be making

page4of5 Permitting & Enforcement Committee Meeting November 8, 2011 final corrections then was hoping to send it out for a 30-day internal comment period. Following this last round of internal comments, it can be posted for external comments. (tentative plan)

Please let folks know that it will be sent to the P&E group for internal comments within the next 2 weeks and we are hoping for a 30 day turnaround.

Canton – Include warning letters in ECM?

Is there going to be a category for "warning letter" in the ECM? Currently there is only a category for "NOV" which warning letters and NOVs are grouped into. I think that if we do not have both categories, it will take away from the enforcement flexibility that we have established as policy (reference Todd Brown's EER Enforcement Recommendations) and it will also cause confusion between the facility and public. The majority of warning letters cite violations so they should definitely be included in the ECM, but they were down graded from NOV to warning letter for a reason which should not be lost.

page5of5