Air Quality Compliance & Enforcement:

What YOU Need to Know

Steve PalzkillPollution Control Specialist

steven.palzkill@state.mn.us218-302-6653

Why is Enforcement Important? Federal Clean Air Act (CAA)

State Implementation Plan Permits

Piece of paper

Enforcement Levels the playing field every Regulated Party is treated the same

under the law Protects human health and the environment (by enforcing the permit) Provides on-site verification Face of the agency out in the field often

Who We Are / Where We Are

Enforcement St. Paul

Sarah Kilgriff - Supervisor Vacant - Compliance Coordinator Brent Rohne – PCS Sr. Jennifer (Lovett) Carlson – PCS Sr. Lad(islaus) Strzok – PCS

Brainerd Dave Crowell – PCS Sr. Rachel (Peters) Studanski – PCS Sr.

Duluth Steve Palzkill – PCS Sr.

Stack Testing and Monitoring Program

(STAMP) St. Paul

Andy Place – State Program Admin Prin

Curt Stock – State Program Admin Prin

Marc Severin – PCS Sr. Jim Kolar – PCS Sr. Lad(islaus) Strzok – PCS

Industries We Regulate Waste Combustors Ethanol Production Taconite Sugar Beets Electrical Utilities Pulp & Paper Printing & Coating

Refineries Foundries Fiberglass Wood products Mining Frac Sand

Enforcement “Tool Box” Letter of No Action (LONA) Notice of Noncompliance (NON) Notice of Compliance (NOC) Alleged Violations Letter (AVL) Letter of Warning (LOW) Notice of Violation (NOV) Administrative Penalty Order (APO) Schedule of Compliance (SOC) Stipulation Agreement (STIP) Consent Decree

Most Common “Tools” LOW’s

Less formal – enforcement letter, alleged violations, corrective actions, no penalty

NOV’s More formal, alleged violations, corrective actions, no penalty

APO’s Violations, corrective actions, penalty (forgivable vs nonforgivable),

corrective actions, penalty (< $10k), due process (can be appealed), 30 day time limit for corrective actions

STIP/SOC Negotiated settlement (Agency and company), background, alleged

violations, corrective actions, schedule (no time limit, set in document), penalty (except SOC, no limit), stipulated penalties (failure to complete corrective actions on time)

New Case Flowchart

Case is closed

Enforcement tool

Enforcement forum

Company responds in writing

Company is notified of violations (AVL, inspection follow up letter)

Violations are identified

How We Get Cases Inspections

Announced/Unannounced Full/Partial

Complaints Smoke Odor

Review of Submittals DRF-2’s (deviations reports) DRF-1’s (CEMS/COMS deviations reports) Stack Tests

Referrals from Permitting Construction/Modifications without a permit Permitting staff help by providing facts of the case (dates, PTE’s, applicability

status, etc)

Failed Stack Tests Permits, state, & federal rules limit emissions of:

PM PM10 SO2 NOx etc

Permits and rules require stack testing every 1-5 years NOC’s set a “testing frequency” (can also be set through a separate letter)

Based on tested result Failed tests are serious violations

May indicate long periods of noncompliance 1 failure usually results in a nonforgivable APO

RP can retest or apply for a permit amendment to increase the limit

Modification w/out a Permit Serious Violation

RP avoided Public input Review of suitable emission controls Modeling EAW/EIS etc

Pan O Gold Bakery in St. Cloud built & expanded without AQ permits Required to

Obtain a backward PSD permit (constructed w/out a PSD permit) Install current control technology on all 3 baking lines, which were installed in 1983,

1989, and 2008. Installed catalytic oxidizer, SEPS Large penalty based on

History (RP knew permit was required had a similar facility in Wisconsin) Economic benefit Large emissions rates for VOCs

Penalty Calculation Gravity/Severity

Potential for harm to human health or environment Deviation from compliance (duration, # of violations,

margin of compliance) Adjustments

History (past violations, similarity, elapsed time) Culpability/Willfulness (awareness/purposefulness of the

action) Other Factors (unique circumstances)

Economic Benefit (avoided/delayed costs, profit gained)

Interaction w/EPA Good, close working relationship Contact on big enforcement cases, to insure buy-in,

cooperation (also referrals) AQ staff monitor EPA consent decrees in MN to verify

terms are incorporated into permits and are filed correctly

Monthly update phone calls on status of state and federal High Priority Violations (HPV)

EPA inspections in MN Corn Plus – criminal vs. civil case

Multimedia Cases

American Crystal Sugar $186k penalty

3 beet plants caused emissions of H2S (odors, headaches) from wastewater systems, beet storage.

Major upgrades to wastewater systems, beet storage.

US Steel, Minntac $119,544

WQ – Not meeting discharge limits, and discharged clarifier underflow when lines plugged - fixed

AQ – Many scrubbers had too low water flow or pressure drop to meet permit limits, lowering particulate removal efficiency – violations corrected.

MPCA Enforcement Actions per State Fiscal Year (July 1 – June 30)

1987

1989

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

YTD

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NOV'sAPO'sSTIP's

MPCA Total Penalty Assessed per State Fiscal Year (July 1 – June 30)

19871989

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

2012

2013 YTD

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Questions?