UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION BROADWAY NEW YORK. NY

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION BROADWAY JUl NEW YORK. NY CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Global Companies, LLC Attn: Eric Slifka, President and Chief Executive Officer 800 South Street, Suite 200 Waltham, MA Re: Notice of Violation: EPA Docket No. CAA Dear Mr; Slifka: Pursuant to Section 113(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(I), Region 2 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues the enclosed Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Global Companies LLC ("Global"). The NOV identifies Global's violations of the Act and the federally enforceable New York State Implementation Plan ("SIP") by increasing the throughput of crude oil at its.petroleum storage facility located at 50 Church Street, Albany, New York ("Albany Terminal") without complying with the New Source Review requirements of the New York SIP. If Global would like to schedule a face-to-face conference to discuss the NOV, please have your legal counsel contact Anhthu Hoang, Assistant Regional Counsel, at Hoang.Anhthu@epa.gov, within ten days of your receipt of this letter and the enclosed NOV. Sincerely,.(if. ~ f1'n.v"e.~.~ Dore LaPosta, Director Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance.Enclosure cc: Thomas Christoffel, Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer NYSDEC Region North Westcott Road Schenectady, NY Edward J. Faneuil. Executive Vice President and General Counsel Global Companies, LLC. IntemetAddress (URL). hltp:/iwww.epa.gov Recyc:llCIlRecyc:labl. Printed with Vegetable 011Bald Inks on Rec:yc:1edP~r (Minimum 50%PostGonsumer c:ontent)

2

3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2 In the Matter of: Global Companies LLC Albany Terminal Respondent In a proceeding under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act NOTICE OF VIOLATION CAA O Summary The Director of the Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance ("Director") for the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Region 2 issues this Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Global Companies LLC ("Global" or "Respondent"), pursuant to Section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. 7413(a). The NOV describes EPA's findings that Global violated the Act and the federally enforceable New York state implementation plan ("SIP") by increasing the throughput of crude oil at its petroleum storage facility located at 50 Church Street, Albany, New York ("Albany Terminal") without complying with the new source review (''NSR'') requirements of the New York SIP. Statutory and Regulatory Background 1. Under Section 109 of the CAA, the EPA Administrator is required to promulgate regulations establishing national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for each pollutant for which air quality criteria have been issued pursuant to Section 108 of the Act. 42 U.S.c Under Section 107( d) of the CAA, each state is required to identify a list of areas within the state and designate each area as one of three categories: "nonattainment," "attainment," and "unclassifiable" for each criteria pollutant. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d). 3. Under Section 107(d) of the CAA, a "nonattainment" area for a given criteria pollutant is

4 "any area that does not meet (or contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)" the NAAQS for that pollutant. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d). 4. Under Section 107(d) ofthe CAA, an "attainment" area for a given criteria pollutant is "an area (other than an area identified as "nonattainment")" that meets the NAAQS for that pollutant. ' 42 U.S.C. 7407(d). 5. Under Section 107(d) ofthe CAA, an "unclassifiable" area for a given criteria pollutant is "any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting" the NAAQS for that pollutant. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d). 6. Under Section 1l0(a)(l) ofthe CAA, each state is required to adopt and submit to EPA for approval a plan that provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each of the NAAQS. Such plans, once approved by EPA, are known as State Implementation Plans, or SIPs. 42 U.S.c. 7410(a)(l). 7. Under Section 184 of the CAA, the State of New York is established as part of the Ozone Transport Region ("OTR") by operation oflaw. 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a). 8. Under Section 184 of the CAA, a stationary source that is located within an OTR and that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year ("tpy") of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a "Moderate" nonattainment area. 42 U.S.c. 7511c(b)(2). 9. Under 40 C.F.R. Part 50, EPA established NAAQS for criteria pollutants, including ozone. 10. Under 40 C.F.R (a)(I)(xxxvii), VOC and nitrogen oxides ("NOx") are regulated NSR pollutants for purposes of permitting under the CAA. 11. Under 40 C.F.R (a)(l)(xxxvii), VOCs and NOx are also regulated as precursors to the formation of ozone in all ozone nonattainment areas. 12. Under 40 C.F.R , "[fjailure to comply with...any permit limitation or condition contained within an operating permit issued under an EPA -approved program that is incorporated into the State implementation plan, shall render the person or governmental entity so failing to comply in violation of a requirement of an applicable implementation plan and subject to enforcement action under section 113 of the Clean Air Act." 13. Under Section 302(e) of the CAA, a "person," as used in the Act, includes any individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality, political subdivision of a State, and any CAA

5 agency, department, or instrumentality of the United States and any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 14. New York has adopted a SIP ("New York SIP" or ''NY SIP") that has been approved by EPA under Section 110 of the Act for New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities. 75 Fed; Reg (November 17,201'0) The New York SIP includes various regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"), including Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (JuJ. 17,2013) (6 NYCRR 200.1). See 6 NYCRR 200.1; see also 78 Fed. Reg. 16. The definitions that are part of the New York SIP are set forth in 6 NYCRR 200.1: a. Under 6 NYCRR (ak), the "lowest achievable emission rate" ("LAER") is defined as, among other things, the most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice, or which can reasonably be expected to occur in practice for a category of emission sources taking into consideration each air contaminant which must be controlled. b. Under 6 NYCRR (ba) an "operator" is defined as "any person who leases, operates, 'controls or supervises a facility at which air contaminants are emitted." c. Under 6 NYCRR (be), an "owner" is defined as "any person who has legal or equitable title to an emission source; or of the control equipment at such source." d. Under 6 NYCRR (bi), a "person" is defined as "any individual, public or private corporation, political subdivision, government agency, department or bureau of the State, municipality, industry, copartnership, association, firm, trust, estate or any other legal entity whatsoever." 17. The New York SIP includes 6 NYCRR , which States, inter alia, that a "source may elect to accept federally enforceable permit terms and conditions which restrict or cap emissions from a stationary source or emission unit in order to avoid being subject to one or more applicable requirements that the source or unit would otherwise be subject to." See 70 Fed. Reg (Oct. 3, 2005). 18. The New York SIP includes the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 231, "New Source Review (''NSR'') for New and Modified Facilities," which includes requirements pertaining to contents of applications and criteria for obtaining NSR permits in nonattainment areas as required by Sections 1 All SIP requirements referenced in this NOV point to the provisions as they were approved into the New York SIP (available at CAA

6 172(c)(5) and 173 ofthe CAA. 6 NYCRR Part 231; see also 75 Fed. Reg (Nov. 17,2010). 19. The New York SIP states that "no owner or operator of a proposed major facility, NSR major modification, or existing major facility which undertakes a significant modification but avoids NSR applicability through netting, shall be allowed to begin actual construction, commence operation, or operate such new facility or modification, as appropriate, without a permit which incorporates the requirements of [6 NYCRR Part 231]." 6 NYCRR < 20. The New York SIP defines a "modification" as "any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a facility which results in a level of annual emissions in excess of the baseline actual emissions of any regulated NSR contaminant emitted by such facility or which results in the emission of any regulated NSR contaminant not previously emitted." 6 NYCRR The New York SIP defines a facility that emits 50 tpy or more ofvocs and is located in the OTR as a "major facility." 6 NYCRR (iv)(c) and 6 NYCRR The New York SIP defines "project emission potential" as "the difference between the baseline actual emissions and the proj ected actual emissions of the emission source" for existing emission sources at a major facility. 6 NYCRR (b)(39). 23. The New York SIP provides that, where a permit establishes an emission cap that allows a source owner or operator to avoid the requirement to obtain a Title V facility permit or comply with an applicable requirement, the emission of pollutants in exceedance of the applicability thresholds for obtaining a title V facility permit or other applicable requirements is a violation of Part 201 and of the Act. 6 NYCRR The New York SIP requires that fugitive emissions are included in the project emission potential if the facility belongs to one of the source categories listed at 6 NYCRR NYCRR (b)(39). 25. The New York SIP lists petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels as a source category under 6 NYCRR The New York SIP defines "net emission increase" as, among other things, the project emission potential of a modification for existing major facilities. 6 NYCRR (b)(29). 27. The New York SIP defines a "NSR major modification" as, among other things, a modification of an existing major facility located in the OTR that would exceed a project emission potential threshold of 40 tpy or more ofvocs and would result in a net emissions increase of 40 tpy or more ofvocs. 6 NYCRR (31) and The New York SIP requires that when a modification results in a NSR major CAA

7 modification, the facility owner or operator must comply with the appropriate provisions of 6 NYCRR , "Modifications to Existing Major Facilities in Nonattainment Areas and Attainment Areas of the State within The Ozone Transport Region." 6 NYCRR (c). 29. The New York SIP requires that a permit application submitted to the NYSDEC for a modification which results in a NSR major modification must include all the relevant information required by 6 NYCRR (a)-(e). 6 NYCRR The New York SIP requires LAER implementation for NSR major modifications at existing major facilities located in the OTR for each emission source that emits the applicable nonattainment contaminant. 6 NYCRR The New York SIP requires that project emission potential must be offset for NSR major modifications at existing major facilities located in the OTR. 6 NYCRR Findings of Fact 32. The following fmdings of fact are based on an investigation conducted by EPA Region 2 pursuant to Section 114 of the CAA, 42 D.S.C The investigation included, among other actions, an information request letter ("IRL") to the Respondent on February 12,2016; follow-up s requesting additional information and clarification of the Respondent's responses to EPA's IRL on May 18,2016 and June 23,2016, respectively; reviewing Respondent's response records; obtaining relevant documents from the NYSDEC Region 4 offices; and reviewing these NYSDEC documents. 33. Respondent operates a petroleum product terminal located at 50 Church Street, Albany, New York The Albany Terminal is located in the state of New York. 35. Thomas Keefe ("Mr. Keefe") is the Vice President of Environmental Health & Safety for Global. 36. Mr. Keefe provided the certified responses to the EPA's information requests on behalf of the Respondent by letters with attachments dated March 21,2016, April 15, 2016, May 31,2016, and June 27, 2016 (collectively, "Section 114 Information Request Responses"). 37. Based upon the EPA's review of the Section 114 Information Request Responses, the violations described in this NOV are ongoing. 38. The Albany Terminal has a total storage capacity for petroleum products greater than 300,000 barrels. CAA

8 39. The Albany Terminal currently operates under NYSDEC Air Title V Facility Permit /00029 Modification 4, effective November 7,2012 ("Modification 4 of the Title V Permit"). 40. Starting August 29,2011, and ending November 7, 2012, Respondent received a series of Title V permit modifications that authorized the storage and marine loading of crude oil at the Albany Terminal. 41. The permit modifications that were issued between August 29, 2011 and November 7,2012 authorized crude oil throughput increases up to 1,850,000,000 gallons per year (collectively, the "crude oil modification"). 42. Modification 4 of the Title V Permit authorized an increase in storage and marine loading of crude oil from 450,000,000 gallons to 1,850,000,000 gallons per 12-month rolling period. 43. Modification 4 of the Title V Permit also authorized the construction of a new vapor combustion unit ("VCU"), defined as "VCUM2" in the Modification 4 of the Title V Permit, to control the emissions from the marine loading operations. 44. At the time Modification 4 of the Title V Permit was issued, the Albany Terminal operated under Modification 3 to the Title V Permit, which had an effective date of November 2, Modifications 1,2, and 3 of the Title V Permit characterize the Albany Terminal as having a potential to emit of tpy ofvoc. See e.g., Condition 24 of Modifications 1,2, and 3 to the Title V Permit. 46. Since at least Modification 1 to the Title V Permit, the Albany Terminal has been a major stationary source because its potential to emit was greater than 50 tpy ofvoc. 47. On November 9, 2011, Respondent submitted to NYSDEC a permit application which included, among other things, a request for modifications to the Albany Terminal in order to accommodate increased storage and marine loading of crude oil from 450,000,000 gallons of crude oil per year up to 1,850,000,000 gallons of crude oil per 12-month rolling period ("November 9,2011 Permit Application"). 48. On June 5, 2012, Respondent submitted to NYSDEC a revised permit application which included, among other things, updated emission calculations ("June 5, 2012 Permit Application"). 49. The June 5, 2012 Permit Application included a table entitled "Project Summary" ("Project Summary table"). 50. The Project Summary table lists the following as emission sources for the requested CAA

9 permit modification: four storage tanks (specifically, Tanks 30, 31, 114, ~d 115),2 marine loading of crude oil, and "additional fugitive emissions." 51. The Project Summary table includes a calculated "total project emission potential" of tpy of V OC that would result from the requested increase in crude oil storage and marine loading of crude oil. 52. The Project Summary table lists the "projected actual emissions" associated with each of Tanks 30, 31,114, and 115 as zero. 53. Aside from the Project Summary table in the permit application for Modification 4 of the Title V Permit, no other document related to this permit application nor to applications for any other modification to Respondent's Title V permit associated with the crude oil modification contains a past actual to projected actual emission analysis for storage tanks to store crude oil-at the Albany Terminal. 54. The Project Summary table lists the "projected actual emissions" associated with the marine loading of crude oil as tpy. 55. The "projected actual emissions" in the Project Summary table included 0.08 tpy of "additional fugitive emissions" associated with the requested permit modification. 56. The Project Summary table lists an "actual emissions" (baseline) rate associated with the marine loading of crude oil of 0.39 tpy, which was presented as the total average-emission rate for the emission units associated with the requested permit modification for calendar years 2010 and The Project Summary table lists "actual emissions" of Tanks 30, 31, 114, and 115 of the years 2010 and 2011 as zero. 58. Respondent never presented its calculations for the baseline actual emissions to the projected actual emissions analysis of the crude oil modification for any tank except in the application for the Modification 4 of the Title V Permit, in which it lists the emissions of the tanks as zero. 59: The June 5, 2012 Permit Application also included a table entitled "Emissions from Marine Loading of Crude Oil" ("Emissions from Marine Loading of Crude Oil table"). 60. The Emissions from Marine Loading of Crude Oil table shows Respondent's calculations ofvoc emissions and includes such information as assumptions made and emission factors used in arriving at the 39.5 tpy ofvoc as the "projected actual emissions" listed in the Project Summary table. 61. EPA has determined from the Emissions from Marine Loading of Crude Oil table that 2 Although the Project Summary table lists Tanks 30, 31, 114, and 115, the tanks actually used to accommodate the throughput increase permitted in Modification 4 of the Title V Permit were Tanks 31, 32, and 39. This correction applies to all other references to this set oftanks. CAA

10 Respondent based the VOC emission calculations reported in the June 5, 2012 Permit Application on an uncontrolled emission factor of lbs. ofvoc per 1,000 gallons of crude oil loaded and a capture efficiency of98.7% for the VCU. 62. EPA has determined from the Emissions from Marine Loading of Crude Oil table that Respondent based the VOC emission calculations reported in the June 5, 2012 Permit Application on the assumption that 1.3% of uncontrolled VOC emissions remain uncaptured by emission control equipment (i.e., the VCU) and is emitted directly to the atmosphere. 63. Respondent has also used the assumption that 1.3% of uncontrolled VOC emissions from marine loading of crude oil remains uncaptured by emission control equipment (i.e., the VCU) and is emitted directly to the atmosphere for calculations supporting annual emission inventory reports submitted to NYSDEC. 64. EP A has determined from the Emissions from Marine Loading of Crude Oil table that the. controlled VOC emission calculations listed therein are based on a VCU outlet rate of3 milligrams of VOC per liter of crude oil loaded, which is the enforceable limit contained in Modification 4 of the Title V permit for the new VCU. See e.g., Condition 4-3 of Modification 4 ofthe Title V Permit. 65. EPA has determined from the information listed in the Emissions from Marine Loading of Crude Oil table that Respondent claimed the marine loading of crude oil from the requested permit modification would result in 16.3 tpy ofvoc emissions that would not be captured and 23.2 tpy of VOC that would be captured, but not combusted by the VCU. 66. Modification 4 to the Title V Permit contains enforceable emission caps pursuant to 6 NYCRR Condition 4-7 of Modification 4 to the Title V Permit includes enforceable emission caps intended to keep the net emission increase resulting from Modification 4 to the Title V Permit below the 40 tpy ofvoc threshold that would trigger NSR applicability under 6 NYCRR Because the Respondent's permit application estimated a net emissions increase associated with the requested permit modification below the 40 tpy threshold set forth in 6 NYCRR 231-6, the NSR requirements applicable under 6 NYCRR were not included in Modification 4 of the Title V Permit. 69. Conditions 4-3 and 4-7 of Modification 4 of the Title V Permit include an enforceable emission cap that comprises crude oil throughput limits, an emission limit of3 milligram ofvoc emissions per liter of crude oil loaded at the marine loading dock from the new VCU, and a requirement to perform reference method testing of the new VCU. CAA

11 70. According to an August 7, 2013 submittal, entitled "Compliance Emissions Testing on the John Zink Marine Vapor Combustion Unit," made by Global ("2013 VCu. Test Report"), Respondent conducted compliance testing, pursuant to Condition 4-3 of Modification 4 of the Title V, Permit, on the new VCU on June 21, 2013 in order "to satisfy conditions of the facility source permit issued by the State of New York, No /00029." 71. According to the 2013 VCU Test Report, the testing measured VOC concentrations and vapor flow rates at the inlet and outlet of the VCU and the amount of crude oil loaded to the barge. 72. According to the 2013 VCU Test Report, Respondent calculated the VOC mass emission rate based on the VOC concentration Test Report"). and vapor flow rates at the inlet and outlet of the VCu. 73. The 2013 VCU Test Report contains a table entitled "Table 2-1" ("Table 2-1 of the VCU 74. Table 2-1 of the 2013 VCU Test Report states that it shows the results of the testing conducted on June 21, According to the 2013 VCU Test Report, Table 2-1 of the 2013 VCU Test Report shows the VOC mass emission rate calculated by Respondent as described above. 76. The EPA used data Respondent reported in the 2013 VCU Test Report (i.e., VOC mass emission rate and the amount of crude oil loaded d~ing the test), and the capture efficiency reported by the Respondent in the June 5, 2012 permit application (i.e., 98.7%), to calculate an uncontrolled emission factor for marine loading of the actual crude oil processed by the Respondent Terminal. at the Albany 77. The EPA's calculation, as described above, yields an uncontrolled VOC emission rate of 4.841b per 1,000 gallons of crude oil that is marine loaded. 78. The EPA-calculated site specific uncontrolled emission factor of 4.841b per 1,000 gallons of crude that is marine loaded is over 3.5 times higher than the uncontrolled emission factor of lb per 1,000 gallons of crude oil used in the Respondent's June 5;2012 Permit Application. 79. Based on the results of the 2013 VCU Test Report, information obtained in the Section 114 Information Request Responses, and information obtained at the NYSDEC office, the physical and operational changes associated with the crude oil modification requested permit modification of over 40 tpy ofvoc. resulted in an emission potential for the 80. Based on the EPA-calculated uncontrolled VOC emission factor for marine loading of crude oil throughput data, annual emission statements and supporting calculations for storage tanks, and CAA

12 other information submitted by the Respondent in response to the IRL, the modification to increase the facility's crude oil throughput also resulted in an actual significant net emission increase in VOC. 81. Respondent did not submit to NYSDEC a permit application for the crude oil modification that included a proposal for implementation of LAER and offsets for the emissions in excess of the NSR threshold of 40 tpy. Conclusions of Law Based on the Finding of Fact set forth above, EPA reaches the following conclusions of law: 82. Respondent is a "person" as defined by Section 302(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7602(e), and the New York SIP. 83. Respondent is the "owner" and "operator" ofthe Albany Terminal within the meaning of Part 200 of the NY SIP. 84. During the time the crude oil modification was made, the Albany Terminal was an existing major stationary source under the NYSIP because its potential to emit was greater than 50 tpy ofvoc. 85. The Albany Terminal is located within an OTR, and therefore is located in an ozone nonattainment area under the CAA. 86. The crude oil modification, which authorized the increase in the allowable annual crude oil throughput at the Albany Terminal to 1,850,000,000 gallons per year resulted in net emissions of greater than 40 tpy ofvoc. 87. The net emissions of greater than 40 tpy ofvoc resulting from crude oil modification is a NSR major modification to an existing major facility under 6 NYCRR Because the increase in annual crude oil throughput to 1,850,000,000 gallons per year from the crude oil modification resulted in a significant net emissions increase in VOC, and the Albany Terminal is a major facility, Respondent is required to implement LAER under the CAA and the NYSIP. 89. Because crude oil modification to increase annual crude oil throughput to 1,850,000,000 gallons per year resulted in a significant net emissions increase in VOC, and the Albany Terminal is a major facility, Respondent is required to implement offsets under the CAA and the NYSIP. 90. Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the NSR major modification associated with crude oil modification in violation of the New York SIP, 6 NYCRR CAA

13 91. Respondent continues to operate the facility after the NSR major modification in violation of the New York SIP, 6 NYCRR Respondent Jailed to implement LAER for the crude oil modification in violation of 6 NYCRR Respondent failed to obtain VOC emission offsets for the crude oil modification in violation of 6 NYCRR Respondent failed to submit to NYSDEC a permit application for crude oil modification that meets the requirements ofa NSR major modification in violation of the New York SIP, 6 NYCRR Respondent emitted VOCs in exceedance of the NSR applicability thresholds in violation of 40 C.F.R Respondent emitted VOCs in exceedance of the NSR applicability thresholds in violation of6 NYCRR (f). Enforcement Section 113(a)(l) of the CAA authorizes EPA to take any of the. following actions in response to a respondent's violation: violation( s) of a SIP, after the expiration of 30 days following the issuance of a notice of Issue an order requiring compliance with the requirements or prohibitions of the SIP; Issue an administrative penalty order in accordance with CAA Section 113(d); or Bring a civil action in accordance with CAA Section 113(b) for civil penalties and/or injunctive relief. The Clean Air Act provides for civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each violation of the Act and its implementing regulations. This amount has been adjusted over time as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 V.S.C note; Pub. L ), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and most recently, by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of2015 (28 V.S.C note; Pub. L , Section 701). Furthermore, for any person who knowingly violates any requirement or prohibition of an applicable SIP for more than thirty (30) days after the date of the issuance of an NOV, Section 113(c) of the Act provides for criminal penalties or imprisonment, or both. In addition, under Section 306 of the CAA

14 Act, the regulations promulgated thereunder (40 CFR Part 15), and Executive Order 11,738, facilities to be utilized in federal contracts, grants and loans must be in full compliance with the Act and all regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Violation of the Act may result in the subject facility, or other facilities owned or operated by Respondent, being declared ineligible for participation in any federal contract, grant, or loan program. Penalty Assessment Criteria Section 113(e)(I) of the Act provides that if a penalty is assessed pursuant to Section 113 of the Act, EPA or the court, as appropriate, shall, in determining the amount of the penalty to be assessed, take into consideration the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, the violator's full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation as established by any credible evidence (including evidence other than the applicable test method), payment by the violator of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, and other factors as justice may require. Section 113(e)(2) of the Act allows EPA or the court, as appropriate, to assess a penalty for each day of violation. In accordance with Section 113(e)(2) of the Act, EP A will consider a violation to continue from the date the violation began until the date Respondent establishes that it has achieved continuous compliance. If Respondent proves that there was an intermittent day of compliance or that the violation was not continuous in nature, EPA will reduce the penalty accordingly. Opportunity for a Conference Respondent may request a conference with EPA concerning the violations alleged in this NOV. This conference will enable Respondent to present evidence regarding the findings of violation, the nature of the violation, and any efforts it may have taken or it proposes to take to achieve compliance. Respondent's request for a conference must be confirmed in writing within ten (10) days of receipt of this NOV. The request for a conference, or other inquiries concerning this NOV, should be made by to hoang.anhthu@epa.gov or in writing to: I CAA

15 Anhthu Hoang, Assistant Regional Counsel u.s. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2 Office of Regional Counsel- Air Branch 290 Broadway - 16th Floor New York, NY Notwithstanding this NOV and the opportunity for conference, Respondent must comply with all applicable requirements of the CAA. Issued: S'"-tJ ~~,2016 Dore LaPosta, Director Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2 To: Eric Slifka, President and Chief Executive Officer Global Companies, LLC 800 South Street; Suite 200 Waltham, MA cc: Thomas Christoffel, Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer NYSDEC Region North Westcott Road Schenectady, NY CAA

16