Workshop K. Thursday, July 21, :30 a.m. to noon

Transcription

1 Workshop K Major New Source Review Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Important Changes in the Rules Thursday, July 21, :30 a.m. to noon

2 Biographical Information Robert F. Hodanbosi, Chief Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control Lazarus Government Center, 50 West Town Street, Columbus, OH Fax: Bob Hodanbosi became chief of the Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) in September His current duties include being responsible for the air pollution control program for the state of Ohio and development of the programs needed to comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments. In 2004, Bob was selected to represent state permitting authorities on the Title V Permit Performance Task Force that was formed by the U.S. EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. Bob has also had the opportunity to testify at U.S. House and Senate committees on Clean Air Act implications for facilities in Ohio. From May 1987 to September 1992, his position was assistant chief of DAPC and manager of the Air Quality Modeling and Planning Section, DAPC, Ohio EPA. From April 1978 to May 1987, as manager of the Air Quality Modeling and Planning Section, his main duties included: development of the technical support for air pollution control regulations for criteria air pollutants; atmospheric dispersion modeling; air quality designations under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act and, development of new source review procedures. Since the 1980's, Bob has represented Ohio EPA on the Ohio Coal Development Office, Technical Advisory Committee. From January 1977 to April 1978, his position was supervisor of the Environmental Assessment Unit, DAPC, Ohio EPA. The main responsibilities of this position involved the supervising of all air quality evaluation and atmospheric dispersion modeling activities for DAPC. From June 1973 to December 1976, he held a position in the Northeast District Office/Engineering Services Section, DAPC, Ohio EPA. The main function of this position involved the engineering review of air pollution permit applications. Bob is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and Air & Waste Management Association, and is registered as a Professional Engineer in the state of Ohio. Bob has lectured extensively on topics relating to the requirements under the Clean Air Act and the controls needed to meet air quality standards. Bob received his Masters of Science degree in Chemical Engineering at the Cleveland State University in 1977, and a Bachelor in Chemical Engineering at the Cleveland State University in In addition, he completed post-graduate courses in fluid mechanics and turbulence at the Ohio State University. 1

3 Biographical Information Mike Burr, Senior Consultant Trinity Consultants 8425 Pulsar Place, Suite 280, Columbus, Ohio Fax: Mike currently operates as a Senior Consultant in Trinity s Columbus, Ohio office providing air quality permitting and compliance services for industries such as underground coal mining, soybean processing, gas and coal-fired electricity generating units, lime manufacturing, oil and gas, glass manufacturing, and chemical manufacturing. Mike serves as the lead air dispersion modeler in Trinity s Columbus office and has specialized experience performing and managing complex air dispersion modeling analyses in support of state and Federal construction permits. Mike received a Bachelor s degree in meteorology from Ohio University and a Master s degree in atmospheric science from North Carolina State University. William H. Haak, Partner, McMahon DeGulis LLP The Caxton Building, 812 Huron Road, Suite 650, Cleveland, Ohio whhaak@mdllp.net William H. Haak is a Partner with McMahon DeGulis LLP, and leads the firm s occupational safety practice. He has more than 15 years of experience in occupational safety law and worker safety, and over 20 years of experience in environmental law, including extensive experience in air pollution control law and environmental compliance. Mr. Haak graduated from The University of Akron (Business Finance) and from Case Western Reserve University School of Law (J.D. with an emphasis on litigation and trial practice). Following law school, he worked as an Assistant Attorney General in the State of Ohio Attorney General s Environmental Enforcement Section. As counsel to Ohio EPA, Mr. Haak s practice was focused primarily on civil and administrative air pollution control cases. During his time with the Attorney General s Office, Mr. Haak resolved civil environmental enforcement actions which resulted in civil penalties totaling approximately $4 million. Prior to joining McMahon DeGulis in early 2015, Mr. Haak was Senior EH&S Counsel for General Electric. He supported GE s Appliances and Lighting Businesses, and was often engaged in complex air permitting issues for other GE businesses nationwide. Mr. Haak has also been Associate General Counsel EH&S for Hexion Specialty Chemicals in Columbus, Ohio, and Senior Regulatory Law Counsel for Owens Corning in Toledo, Ohio. He has served overseas in the former Soviet Union (Ukraine) as an Environmental Enforcement Specialist with the American Bar Association s Central & East European Law Initiative ("ABA/CEELI"), and spent time as an environmental litigator with Central Florida s largest law firm. Haak is a frequent lecturer to attorneys, engineers, and environmental professionals on topics concerning federal and state air pollution law. In addition, he has taught as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Central Florida in Orlando and Columbus State in Columbus, Ohio. Haak currently teaches classes focusing on Air Pollution Law and Occupational Safety and Health Law at The University of Toledo College of Law. 2

4 26 th Annual Conference on Air & Water Permits Environmental Permitting in Ohio Workshop K Major New Source Review Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattaiment New Source Review (NNSR) Important Changes July 20, 2016

5 Agenda Section 1: Major NSR Overview Section 2: PSD Modeling Updates Section 3: Recent Major Source Enforcement

6 Section 1 Major NSR Overview

7 Environmental Permitting in Ohio Workshop K Bob Hodanbosi Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Control July 21, 2016

8 What is Major NSR? Attainment/Nonattainment Areas Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting Additional Material

9 Permits required under the Clean Air Act: Major New Source Review (NSR) includes: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) in attainment areas Non Attainment NSR in non attainment areas Can include both new major or major modification If the emissions are large enough (over trigger levels), then a Major New Source permit is required

10 Criteria pollutants are classified as attainment, unclassifiable or nonattainment An attainment area is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A nonattainment area is one officially designated as nonattainment An area can be attainment/unclassified for some pollutants, and nonattainment for others.

11 Geographic areas where U.S. EPA has designated the area as attainment or non classifiable. Applies for only the attainment pollutant and precursor emissions (VOCs for ozone, NOx and SO2 for PM2.5). Some areas violate standards and are not yet designated nonattainment - PSD still applies

12 Geographic areas where U.S. EPA has designated the area as nonattainment. Applies for only the nonattainment pollutant and precursor emissions. If nonattainment areas attain standards, redesignation process is slow, NNSR applies until designated to attainment

13 The entire state is attainment for nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Ohio has nonattainment areas for Ozone, SO2 and lead PM2.5 is currently nonattainment for the 12.0 ug/m3 (Cleveland area) and 15.0 ug/m3 standard (Cincinnati area)

14

15

16

17

18 Ohio SO2 Nonattainment Areas NA Area Townships Lake County, OH ALL (Entire County) Cross Creek (OH) Warren (OH) Steubenville, OH-WV Wells (OH) Steubenville(OH) Cross Creek Tax District (WV) Center Twshp (Morgan County) Muskingum River, OH Waterford Twshp (Washington County) Pierce Twshp (Clermont County, OH) Campbell County, KY- 5 Census Tracts in Campbell County, OH KY

19

20 PSD Goals Important Terms Applicability Requirements of PSD

21 Designed to protect air quality in attainment areas Allow economic growth Protect public health and welfare Preserve, protect, and enhance air quality in special areas

22 What is a regulated NSR pollutant? NAAQS and constituents or precursors Section 111 pollutants (NSPS) Title VI Class I or II (ozone depleting) Other CAA regulated except HAPs (unless constituents or precursors) Greenhouse gas emissions

23 Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of an emissions unit or stationary source to emit an air pollutant under its physical and operational design. PTE can be limited through federally enforceable means, such as: Control devices Limits on capacity or hours Limits on types or amount of material processed, combusted or stored

24 Emissions Units belonging to the same industrial grouping or support, Located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and Under common control.

25 In the same industrial group (SIC Code) Under the control of same owner Located on contiguous or adjacent properties for oil and gas within ¼ mile of each other

26 Attainment 28-source category? >100 ton/yr Not 28-source category? > 250 t/y

27 VOC for ozone Don t count quantifiable fugitive unless on the list List is not specific to NSPS If the change by itself is major at a non-major source, then the project is a major stationary source

28 4 page rule definition ( (LLL)) Physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in: A significant emissions increase of a RNSRP, AND A significant net emissions increase of that pollutant

29 The change itself must be above the significance levels, AND The net change must be above the significance levels for the project to be a major modification Both statements must be true to be a major modification (when not netting)

30 Significant VOC = significant ozone Calculation method for significant emissions increase is different for existing vs new Physical change or change in the method qualifiers PAL qualifier

31 Determine if the proposed source is a major stationary source for any attainment area pollutants (100, 250 ton thresholds) If any of the attainment pollutants trip the major stationary source thresholds, then the source is considered a major stationary source for PSD Determine if GHGs are above 75,000 CO 2 if yes, PSD for GHGs PSD cannot be triggered by GHGs alone

32 First, determine if the existing facility is a major stationary source for any attainment area pollutants (100, 250 ton thresholds) Second, determine that a physical change or change in the method of operation is occurring Third, do the two-part emissions increase test for each pollutant

33 Check each regulated NSR pollutant separately First, determine if the increase associated with the modification qualifies as a significant emissions increase Second, determine if the net emissions increase for that pollutant is significant If PSD is triggered for modification, then GHGs must be calculated to determine if above 75,000 TPY threshold PSD cannot be triggered by GHGs alone

34 Net emissions increase can get complex Important to verify with DO/LAA Don t want to find out late in the permit process that your evaluation was incorrect

35 Fugitive emissions means those emissions that cannot reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent or other functionally equivalent opening. Examples: Particulate matter (PM): Coal piles, road dust, quarries Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Leaky valves and flanges at refineries and oil processing equipment

36 They are included in a source s PTE to the extent that they can be quantified, if they are present at: One of the 28 PSD source categories A source category subject to NSPS or NESHAP as of 8/7/80 If a source has been determined to be major for that pollutant, they are included in any subsequent analysis (e.g. air quality impact) 28 Source categories are general, not specific to NSPS or NESHAPS

37 Emissions which, although associated with the construction or operation of a source, are not emitted from the source itself. For example, particulate from the construction They do not count toward PTE, but must be considered in the PSD analysis if PSD is required.

38

39 Employ BACT Ambient monitoring Emissions modeling Other impacts analysis

40 Best Available Control Technology means an emissions limitation maximum degree of reduction.each regulated NSR pollutant which the director taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts and other costs determines is achievable Can use production processes or available methods, systems and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control

41 1. Top-Down Process 2. Identify all control technologies 3. Eliminate technically infeasible options 4. Rank remaining control technologies by control effectiveness 5. Evaluate most effective controls and document results 6. Select BACT *See additional material at the end of the presentation.

42 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) come into play as part of PSD process decided by U.S. Supreme Court Must be a PSD anyway source source is obtaining a PSD permit for other pollutant(s) Requires application of BACT focus has been overall energy efficiency of proposed source

43 Rules require preconstruction monitoring if modeling shows impacts above monitoring trigger levels Monitoring trigger levels (H) or EG 69 Monitoring required for one year (mostly) Court decision on PM2.5 changes ground rules for that pollutant

44 D.C. Court of Appeals determined that Significant Impact Levels (SILs) not supportable Deminimus value would be okay just not manner U.S. EPA adopted PM2.5 U.S. EPA just adopted SIL of 0.0 ug/m3 for PM2.5 Important ramifications for new projects

45 If monitoring is needed, existing monitors may be sufficient to fulfill requirement Ohio is a large network of monitors in near urban areas for most pollutants Nitrogen dioxide is exception only a few operational

46 Rules require air quality impact analysis that demonstrates: NAAQS will be met Must be less than allowed increase over the baseline concentration (typically < ½ available increment) Other Impacts Analysis Soils, vegetation, visibility etc. Additional material at the end of the presentation

47

48 What is a regulated NSR pollutant? NAAQS Pollutant (SO2, Ozone, PM, PM-10, NOx, PM2.5, CO, Pb) Precursor pollutants NOx and VOC for ozone SO2 and NOx for PM2.5 Only covers NAAQS and precursor pollutants, different than for PSD

49 LAER - Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Emissions Offsets Net air quality benefit from offsets Certify all major operations owned by the source in the state are in compliance with SIP (or on an enforceable schedule)

50 A new source/major modification will be subject to NA NSR in Ohio if: Will emit or have the potential to emit 100 tpy, (thus a Major Source) any criteria pollutant ( or precursor) for which the area is designated as nonattainment, OR A modification (any physical or operational change) which results in a significant increase (see Significance Levels table) in emissions of a pollutant for which the source is major and the area is designated nonattainment.

51 Marginal Moderate and Basic Serious Severe Extreme Ozone (NOx and VOCs are precursors) * 25* any CO PM NO SO PM 2.5 (Nox and SO2 are precursors) *when aggregated with all other net increases 25 tpy in emissions from the source over any period of 5 consecutive years

52 LAER is the most stringent emission limitation based on either: 1) the most stringent limitation achieved in practice by class or source category (without taking into account economic, energy, or other environmental factors), OR 2) the most stringent limitation in any SIP for that class or source category.

53 LAER cannot be less stringent than any applicable NSPS limit. LAER is an emissions rate specific to each emissions unit. This emissions rate may result from a combination of emissions-limiting measures such as: add-on controls a process modification a change in the raw material

54 A new or modified source is required to offset any increased emissions (it generates) with a decrease elsewhere in the same nonattainment area. The offset provision shifts the burden of accommodating new growth in NA areas to new sources. Only offsets of the same pollutant are allowed within a given area.

55 Obtaining offsets is generally done by purchasing emission credits from another source or combination of existing sources, within the same nonattainment area, to offset the increase in emissions from the new source/modification. The purpose of the offsets is to allow the area to move towards attainment while still permitting some industrial growth. See Finding Offsets additional material

56 Offset ratios need to be greater than 1:1. Offset ratios for basic are 1.1:1 in basic areas, 1.15:1 for moderate areas Offsets should be located in the same nonattainment area, or in adjacent nonattainment areas. Offsets must be in the permit or a SIP revision. Offsets must be practically enforceable.

57 Emission reductions required by the State Implementation Plan (SIP) or a state or federal consent decree The difference between the SIP and the NSPS if it is applicable to the source

58 The offsets must produce a Net Air Quality Benefit (for the area affected by the new/modified source) This is required so that after the source is built, air quality is better than before the source began operation Modeling demonstration required for some pollutants (SO2, NOx)

59 All major sources owned or operated by the facility in the state must be in compliance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Rules allow facility to be on an enforceable schedule or consent decree to achieve compliance

60 An analysis by the source owner of: Alternative sites Sizes Production processes Environmental control techniques Analysis for such proposed source must demonstrate that benefits significantly outweigh: the environmental impacts social costs imposed as a result of source location, construction, or modification

61 Don t forget about netting for both PSD and NNSR If internal offsets (offsets at that plant) can be generated; netting will probably work Frequently used on expansions or replacements, but does not work for new facilities Questions

62

63 Should be comprehensive; source should not yet discount options because of infeasibility Source should consider add-on controls and inherently lower-emitting processes and practices Scope is not limited by other regulations or by national boundary

64 Step 1 (cont) Innovative technologies may be considered; technology transfer must be considered RBLC: BAT: needs updated link (Under Permits (Permit to Install and Permit to Operate) files)

65 If a control technology has already been installed and successfully operated on the type of source under review, it s technically feasible (unless there are obstacles at the source that justify infeasibility). Otherwise, source must consider whether the technology is: Available (obtainable), and Applicable (can be reasonably installed and operated)

66 Rank from most to least effective in terms of emission reduction. If a control technology has a range of performance, select the reduction level that has been achieved at other sources.

67 Weighing of energy, environmental and economic factors Energy Impacts Analysis Source should determine whether the control technology s energy requirements would result in significant or unusual energy penalties or benefits Should only consider direct energy consumption May involve fuel scarcity

68 Environmental Impacts Analysis Concentrates on non-air quality impacts, such as solid/hazardous waste, water effluent, visibility, or emission of unregulated pollutants. Significant or unusual collateral impacts may be reason for disqualifying a control technology.

69 Economic Impacts Analysis (Cost analysis) Cost effectiveness: dollars per ton reduced A technology may be rejected if the cost is disproportionately high when compared to recent BACT determinations BACT analysis may involve vendor-supplied estimates, cost manuals developed by EPA, data from trade publications, etc.

70 (Annualized Cost)/(Baseline emission rate - Control option emission rate) Capital cost estimate may include: Equipment and installation costs Indirect investment (e.g. engineering, construction, start-up, performance testing) Contingencies Working capital

71 Annual cost estimate may include: Direct costs (e.g. labor, maintenance, electricity, water) Indirect costs (overhead, property tax, insurance, capital recovery) Capital charges (taxes and insurance, capital recovery factor, interest on working capital)

72 Engineering Guide #46 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual Need help? Talk to NSR contact.

73 Existing Fac. 1 Increase Net Increase Trigger PSD? 251 t/y NOx 2 35 t/y 45 t/y 40 t/y No 240 t/y VOC 45 t/y 35 t/y 40 t/y No 15 t/y PM10 5 t/y 20 t/y 15 t/y No 50 t/y SO2 45 t/y 45 t/y 40 t/y Yes 1 Assume facility is located in an attainment area for all of the above listed pollutants. 2 This emission rate makes it a major stationary source.

74 PSD permit applicant must prepare an analysis on any impairment to visibility, soils and vegetation Applicant must prepare an analysis of the air quality impact as a result of the general commercial, residential, industrial or other grown associated with the project Rarely significant

75 Based on an inventory of the soils and vegetation types found in the area, including all vegetation of commercial or recreational value Rarely significant but can be for pollutants like hydrogen fluoride

76 Affects projects that are located near or impact Class I areas Class I areas are places like national parks No Class I areas in Ohio Closest is Dolly Sods Wilderness area in WV Rarely significant but could be for large projects like power plants

77

78 Contact the DO/LAA and ask them for recent shutdown sources in their area. Obtain copy of the emissions inventories for past years. Determine if sources have been shutdown. Contact local chamber of commerce to find closures Contact the Ohio EPA permit staff and ask about available Emission Reduction Credits in bank

79 Ohio EPA developed rules to allow for emission banking Allows permanent emission reductions to be formally recognized Credits are posted on internet so that interested parties can see what is available in the area For more information contact Sudhir Singhal

80 Many more nonattainment areas for ozone, SO2, PM2.5 Want to attract new business, expansions of current business Ohio EPA bank designed to assist development in nonattainment areas

81

82 Section 2 PSD Modeling Updates

83 Overview PSD Modeling when is it required? Appendix W modeling guidance Overview Discussion of few key changes in recent proposed revisions Practical impacts of proposed revisions How will revised guidance impact how you model? How to proceed during interim period before revisions are finalized?

84 PSD Modeling When is it required? Modeling required for all pollutants with net emissions increases exceeding the PSD significant emission rates First step: Significance Analysis Model project only impacts and compare to significant impact levels (SILs) Cumulative Impacts Analysis (if required) If project only impacts are above SIL, perform cumulative impacts modeling NAAQS Analysis PSD Increment Analysis

85 Guideline on Air Quality Models What is it? Appendix W (or the Guideline) provides direction to EPA, states, tribes, and industry on how to perform modeling Outlines requirements and recommendations for: SIP revisions; NSR/PSD permitting; and Other regulatory modeling (e.g., NEPA) Last updated in 2005 (11 years ago!) Appendix W is legally binding Contrast to more typical guidance issued in the form of a memorandum or technical assistance document

86 Proposed Revisions Overview and Schedule Proposed Rulemaking: Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models, July 29, 2015 Proposes updates to current EPA preferred models to address input and science issues Incorporates new analytical techniques to address ozone and secondary PM 2.5 Updates for conducting individual source and cumulative impact analysis for NAAQS pollutants Final Rulemaking schedule Originally expected Spring 2016 OMB has requested 90 day review, as of today has not been submitted for review

87 Proposed Revisions Key Changes Incorporation of key scientific advancements as default model options ADJ_U* / LOWWIND3: Advanced NO2 modeling techniques; Adjustment to modeling of horizontal/capped stacks; Clarification on approach for quantifying source impacts on ozone & secondary PM 2.5 Updates to Modeling Procedures for Cumulative Impacts Analysis Inclusion of fewer nearby sources Use of actual emissions for nearby sources

88 Model Improvements Low Wind LOWWIND & ADJ_U* AERMOD has well documented tendency to over predict under low wind, stable conditions In version 12345, both AERMOD and AERMET incorporated non default (or beta) options to address these concerns LOWWIND3 ADJ_U* Changes to increase plume meander under low wind conditions, thus resulting in a less concentrated plums Adjustment to calculation of minimum friction velocity (u*) in AERMET under low wind speed, stable conditions

89 Model Improvements Low Wind LOWWIND & ADJ_U* Both options proposed as regulatory default in proposed Appendix W revision ADJ_U* seems to be more in favor ADJ_U* well documented in its improvements to model performance under low wind speed conditions Could result in significant reductions to maximum modeled impacts, particularly under certain conditions (i.e., tall stacks in complex terrain)

90 Modeling Approaches Ozone and Secondary PM 2.5 Impacts of precursor emissions on formation of ozone and PM 2.5 have historically been largely unaddressed in PSD analyses 2012 Sierra Club petition required U.S. EPA to initiate rulemaking for establishing air quality models to evaluate these impacts Proposed revisions to Appendix W suggest a two tiered approach that includes a first screening level step

91 Modeling Approaches Ozone and Secondary PM 2.5 MERPS (Modeling Emission Rate for Precursors) serve as first screening level step Similar to PSD SERs, MERPs represent a level of emissions of precursors that is not expected to contribute significantly to O 3 or secondarily formed PM 2.5. MERPs not specified in proposed revisions. EPA intends to establish MERPs in separate rulemaking If precursor emissions above MERPs, two tiered approach: Tier 1: use of existing technical information that establishes relationships between precursor emissions and a source s impact Tier 2: Use of a photochemical grid model

92 Modeling Approaches Ozone and Secondary PM 2.5 Though Appendix W not finalized, Ohio EPA has and continues to require ozone/secondary PM 2.5 analyses as part of a PSD modeling analysis No standardized approach in state guidance, check with modeling group for recommended approach

93 Cumulative Impact Analysis When is it required? If project only impacts exceed the significant impact level (SIL) for a particular pollutant, a cumulative impacts analysis is triggered National Ambient Air Quality Standards Facility wide impacts + nearby source impacts + background concentrations compared to NAAQS Nearby sources included in model at maximum/allowable emission rates Inclusion of nearby sources and background concentrations often results in double counting PSD Increment Facility impacts (increase only) + PSD consuming sources compared to Incremental standards

94 Cumulative Impact Analysis What s changing? Smaller modeling domain Distance to which source exceeds the SIL, or 50km, whichever is less Number of nearby sources explicitly included within the model should be reduced from previous status quo Instead rely on ambient monitoring network to characterize impacts Attempt to remedy past practices of being overly conservative Use of actual emissions instead of maximum/potential for nearby sources This is a big change.

95 Practical Impacts How will revised guidance impact how you model? How should you proceed during interim period before revisions are finalized?

96 Practical Impacts What will be different? Many of proposed revisions aimed at mitigating overprediction issues within AERMOD Fewer nearby sources, use of actual emissions for nearby sources, improvement under low wind conditions, smaller modeling domains, etc. Path to a compliant modeling solution could become a little less strenuous However, application of many of the revised approaches is incompletely defined Reliance on case by case approach requiring consultation with State and Region Likely to result in more expansive modeling protocols which will require longer review times Lack of consistency in approach could offer greater opportunity for permit challenges and/or litigation

97 Practical Impacts How should we proceed in the interim? With timeline for promulgation of revised Appendix W unclear, question of how to proceed in the interim Beta (non default options) can be very useful, but still require significant alternative model documentation Path for approval of adj_u*has been at least somewhat paved. Recent Model Clearinghouse approvals have been published to SCRAM Nevertheless, expect several weeks for approval Should consult with State before application of any modeling approaches specified in proposed revisions Ohio EPA generally continuing to adhere to existing guidance until proposed revisions are finalized

98 Questions?

99 Section 3 Recent Enforcement

100 Major Source Air Enforcement NSR, MACT and NEI Update ( ) William Haak, Partner McMahon DeGulis LLP July 21, 2016 ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation

101 Overview Update on recent major air enforcement USEPA s National Enforcement Initiative (Air) Present Future Major source compliance reminders ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation

102 Recent NSR Enforcement Guardian Industries (September 2015) Part of USEPA s Glass Plant NSR Enforcement Initiative Seven plants in seven states nationwide $312K civil penalty plus $71 million in control measures Alleged modifications without permitting and control J.R. Simplot Company (December 2015) Part of USEPA s Acid Plant NSR Enforcement Initiative Five sulfuric acid (fertilizer) plants in three Western states $899K civil penalty plus $40 million in control measures Alleged modifications without permitting and BACT ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation

103 Recent MACT Enforcement ASARCO LLC (November 2015) Part of USEPA s Air Toxics Enforcement Initiative One integrated copper plant in Arizona Total penalty package: $4.5 million civil penalty $150 million control equipment $9 million in SEPs Company failed (???) to properly classify itself as HAP major for MACT Subpart QQQ (Primary Copper Smelting) Operated for 10+ years in alleged violation of the MACT ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation

104 USEPA s Air National Enforcement Initiatives USEPA selects (and reviews) NEIs every three years Current air NEIs are: The Largest Sources Cutting Hazardous Air Pollutants Large Source NEI focuses on finding NSR violations HAP NEI largely focused on MACT violations ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation

105 USEPA s Glass Large Source Initiative ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation

106 USEPA NEIs for 2017 through 2019 Note that years are USEPA fiscal years 2017 starts on October 1, 2016 for USEPA The Agency is retaining Large Source NEI HAP NEI will be expanded for 17 through 19 Additional focus on large storage tanks Also focusing on hazardous waste generators and TSDFs ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation

107 Final Compliance Reminders The whats are easy The devil is in the details Know your modification definitions, and ensure you have a robust management of change system Understand and frequently review the underlying bases for your emissions assumptions Air is difficult, seek expert assistance ATTORNEYS Environmental l Safety l Litigation