J^tD S7"4^y
pRQ^-
North Dakota Division of Air Quality (NDAQ)
Title V Program Review
Conducted by
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Region 8
July 2016
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 2
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW 2
PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS 2
PROGRAM REVIEW PROCEDURE 4
FOLLOW-UP TO SECOND ROUND REVIEW 4
THIRD ROUND REVIEW'S FINDINGS AND COMMENTS 5
NDAQ ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING 9
TRAINING 10
FEE AUDIT 10
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT 11
CONCLUSION 11
ATTACHMENT 1: TITLE V THIRD ROUND STATE PROGRAM REVIEW
QUESTIONNAIRE AND NDAQ RESPONSES
ATTACHMENT 2: STATE/LOCAL TITLE V PROGRAM FISCAL TRACKING
EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE AND NDAQ RESPONSES
ATTACHMENT 3: FEE AUDIT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FROM NDAQ
ATTACHMENT 4: NDAQ/EPA TITLE V IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
-------
Executive Summary
In July 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the third
round review of the North Dakota Division of Air Quality's (NDAQ) Clean Air Act Title V
operating permits program. This review consisted of a conference call with NDAQ as well as
document review. The first round program review was conducted in fiscal year 2006. EPA issued
the final report for the first round in September 2006. The second round program review was
conducted in fiscal year 2009. EPA issued the final report for the second round in September
2009. The third round program review (like the previous reviews) consisted of a discussion of
NDAQ's responses to the program evaluation questionnaire and fiscal tracking questionnaire.
The goal of the third round review was to review any concerns raised by NDAQ or EPA in the
prior evaluation (second round), to determine how any unaddressed concerns might be
addressed, to identify any good practices developed by NDAQ that may benefit other state and
local Title V permitting authorities and EPA, document any areas needing improvement, and
learn what assistance EPA can provide.
EPA Concerns from the Second Round Review:
EPA had five recommendations, all of which the NDAQ responded to satisfactorily. The NDAQ
later informed EPA that it believes the implementation of these recommendations resulted in
improvements to the Title V program. See "Followup to Second Round Review" below for
details.
EPA Concerns from the Third Round Review!
EPA has no new concerns. The NDAQ's own concerns may be found in "Third Round Review's
Findings and Comments" below. EPA has proposed responses to some of those concerns.
Conclusions
NDAQ has provided all of the necessary information to EPA during this review and has
addressed issues raised by EPA. NDAQ's field experience and knowledge of air permitting has
assisted EPA in understanding the challenges faced by the State. No deficiencies were noted
during this review.
1
-------
Introduction
EPA conducted this program review as part of its obligation to oversee and review state
programs that have been approved by EPA, and in response to recommendations from an audit
conducted in July 2002 by the Office of Inspector General.
The State of North Dakota operates a fully EPA approved program that allows it to implement
the requirements of Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the issuance of operating
permits. EPA has a statutory responsibility to oversee the programs it approved by performing
oversight duties, including occasional program reviews. Such responsibilities include overseeing
the activities of the State program to ensure that local, regional, and national environmental goals
and objectives meet minimum requirements outlined by the federal regulation.
Objective of the Program Review
Following the completion of the first and second round reviews for states in Region 8, EPA
nationally committed to a third round of reviews. While the questionnaire used for the first round
review was developed by a "national workgroup" for national consistency, the second and third
round review questionnaires were developed by the Regions to emphasize Regional priorities
that were identified during the first round reviews.
Region 8 consulted with other Regions about the approach and format of the questionnaire and
the extent of the follow-up review of state programs. Region 8 concluded that the follow-up
reviews do not need to be as extensive as the first round reviews, but should build on the findings
and recommendations of the first round review.
The main objectives of the third round reviews are to conduct a follow-up to the first and second
round reviews by: 1) ensuring that areas of concern identified by EPA during the first and second
rounds have been addressed or are being addressed satisfactorily; 2) ensuring that the NDAQ
concerns have also been addressed or are being addressed to NDAQ's satisfaction; 3) identifying
and documenting additional good practices that can benefit other state and local Title V
permitting authorities and EPA; 4) identifying and documenting any areas of concerns that need
improvement; and 5) getting feedback on how EPA can be of service to the permitting
authorities.
Program Review Process
As mentioned above, in July 2016, the EPA conducted the third round review of NDAQ's Title
V operating permits program, consisting of a conference call with NDAQ and document review.
The final report for the first round review was issued in September 2006. The final report for the
second round review was issued in September 2009.
The first round review was conducted in response to the 2002 Office of Inspector General audit
recommendations that EPA: examine ways it can improve permitting authorities' Title V
operating permit programs and expedite the permit issuance rate; note and document good
practices which other agencies can learn from; assess deficiencies in the program; and to learn
how EPA can help the permitting authorities improve their overall program. In meeting these
2
-------
goals, EPA developed a questionnaire that was sent to each permitting authority and followed up
with on-site visits to conduct interviews and file reviews. The findings of the NDAQ Title V
operating permit program's review were outlined in the September 2006 final report with the
main categories as follows: a) programmatic areas where NDAQ has improved in the past five
years; b) programmatic areas where improvements can be made; and c) programmatic areas
where NDAQ needs additional assistance from EPA.
The second round review focused primarily on: 1) assessing and documenting NDAQ progress
in areas where EPA had previously identified as areas needing improvements; 2) assessing
permitting authorities' evaluation of EPA's effort in providing additional assistance to improve
its Title V operating programs; 3) identifying continued improvements in the program's
previously identified strong attributes; 4) identifying additional good practices by the NDAQ
since the first round review and 5) conducting a Title V operating permit program fee audit.
The format of the third round review differs slightly from the first two rounds. EPA provided a
standard Title V questionnaire (Attachment 1) and fiscal tracking questionnaire (Attachment 2)
to NDAQ, as has been done in the previous two reviews, but with some revisions. Also, the third
round review included a conference call rather than an on-site visit. The NDAQ commented that
the process used for the third round review appears to have resulted in an evaluation that was just
as thorough as the previous rounds, but was a more efficient use of NDAQ's and EPA's time.
As mentioned above, a separate questionnaire was provided by EPA to NDAQ for the Title V fee
audit ("State/local Title V Program Fiscal Tracking Evaluation Document"). The purpose of the
fee audit is to determine whether the following are satisfied:
Sources are being billed in accordance with fee requirements and are paying the
required fees;
Division of expenses is identified by NDAQ between Title V and non-Title V programs;
Features are integrated into NDAQ's accounting/financial management system which
will identify Title V revenue and expenditures separate from other funding, and which
certify the disposition of Title V funds;
Title V fees collected from sources are used by NDAQ to pay for the entire Title V
program; and
No such fees are used as CAA Section 105 grant matching.
During the third round review, EPA found that NDAQ has satisfactorily addressed all the issues
identified by EPA as needing improvement during the first two reviews. The issues are discussed
in "Follow-up to Second Round Review" below.
3
-------
Program Review Procedure
EPA sent the third round program review questionnaire and the Title V fiscal tracking
questionnaire to NDAQ on March 16, 2016. NDAQ submitted an electronic copy of the
completed questionnaires to EPA on March 24, 2016. EPA had a few followup questions, which
were handled by informal phone calls and emails between EPA and NDAQ staff. All followup
questions were answered. EPA then prepared a draft Title V program review report and emailed
it to NDAQ on June 30, 2016 for review. NDAQ responded with comments on July 5, 2016. A
conference call was held between EPA and NDAQ on July 12, 2016 to discuss the comments.
EPA then made appropriate edits to the report to incorporate the comments. The final report was
sent to NDAQ on July 14, 2016.
During the above-mentioned conference call, EPA explained that the main objectives of
conducting on-going reviews of states' programs are twofold. First, EPA seeks to continue to
effectively perform its regulatory oversight obligation under the Clean Air Act. Second, EPA
hopes such periodic reviews will improve communication and the relationship between the
agency and NDAQ and thus continue to improve the state's Title V operating program. EPA and
NDAQ then discussed topics as listed in the program review and fiscal tracking questionnaires
and draft third round program review report.
Follow-up to Second Round Review
1. EPA recommendation on Title V renewal application form: Add "...a requirement in the
NDAQ's Renewal Application form for applicants to cross-reference the current title V
permit, or other document(s), for identification of applicable requirements, compliance test
methods, and other types of information required by rule to be addressed by the state's
standard application form for title V permits."
NDAQ response: The Title Vpermit renewal application form (SFN52824) was revised
to include the following requirements: "The current Title Vpermit will be the baseline
reference for this renewal. The requirements (40 CFR 70.5(c) & NDAC 33-15-14-06.4. c)
to include a citation and description of all applicable requirements and a description of
or reference to any applicable test method for determining compliance with each
applicable requirement may be met by accomplishing either or both of the following: 1)
enclose an annotated (red-lined) copy of the current permit indicating all changes needed
to reflect the current facility configuration, applicable requirements and test methods; 2)
enclose a narrative that conveys all changes needed to the current permit to reflect the
current facility configuration, all applicable requirements and test methods."
2. EPA recommendation on the annual compliance certification report: Add "...a definition in
the NDAQ's annual compliance certification reporting form for intermittent compliance."
NDAQ response: The Annual Compliance Certification Report form (SFN52738) was
revised to include the following: "Intermittent compliance means continuous compliance,
except for the permit deviations and possible exceptions to compliance noted in the two
Title V Semi-Annual Monitoring Report forms covering this period. (NDAC 33-15-14-
06.5.c(5)(c)[3])."
4
-------
3. EPA recommendation on annual compliance certification report: Add "...a requirement in
permits, or in the annual compliance certification reporting form, to send a copy of annual
compliance certification reports to EPA."
NDAQ response: Text was added to the bottom of the Annual Compliance Certification
Report form directing the permittee to send the report to EPA at Air & Toxics Technical
Enforcement Program (8ENF-AT) Office of Enforcement, Compliance & Environmental
Justice, US EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
4. EPA recommendation on acid rain permits: Add "...a provision in permits for acid rain
sources on re-opening for cause that is specific to Acid Rain Program."
NDAQ response: The following text was added to the Acid Rain Program section of
affected Title Vpermits: "Reopening for Cause In addition to any reasons for
reopening for cause previously stated in this permit, the Department will reopen and
revise this permit as necessary to remedy deficiencies in the following circumstances: If
additional requirements, including excess emissions requirements, become applicable to
an affected source under Title IV of the Federal Clean Air Act or the regulations
promulgated there under. Upon approval by the administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, excess emissions offset plans shall be deemed to be
incorporated into the permit. Applicable Requirements: NDAC 33-15-14-06.6.f (l)(b)
and 40 CFR 0.7(f)(1)(H)"
5. EPA recommendation on the Northern Sun Enderlin plant title V permit: Incorporate "...a
condition from an underlying Permit-To-Construct into the title V permit for the Northern
Sun (ADM) Enderlin plant."
NDAQ response: The following text was added to the Northern Sun Enderlin title V
permit at Condition 7.B.14: Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
Emissions Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping: The permittee shall comply with
all applicable emissions monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of
Special Condition II.A.2 of the Air Pollution Control Permit to Construct No. PTC07037
and 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)(iii) and (v).
As mentioned earlier in this report, EPA has examined NDAQ's responses to EPA's concerns
and recommendations from the second round review and concludes that NDAQ has satisfactorily
addressed all of them.
Third Round Review's Findings and Comments
Procedural changes in Title V program. The third round program review questionnaire asked
whether any procedures in the Title V program have changed (e.g., public participation,
petitions, communication with EPA) since the second round program review. Below is NDAQ's
response.
5
-------
NDAQ response: Yes, several changes have been made to Title Vprocedures since the
second round program review. NDAQ has stopped mailing EPA a hard copy of draft title
V review documents; instead, those documents are emailed to EPA as Word or pdffiles.
Title Vpermit applications, which are often quite large files, are made available to EPA
through a link provided to the web site posting. The public comment and notice web site
also provides notice to the public of draft title V permits and presents the documents
considered during the permit drafting process. In addition NDAQ web pages now provide
the public with easy access to all air pollution control permits to construct and operate.
Title V permit application forms have been revised to make it easier for applicants to
provide permit writers with the information needed to draft permits. The applications are
now formatted so they are able to be filled out online.
What the State believes it is doing especially well. The third round questionnaire also asked what
the State think it is doing especially well in the Title V program. Below is NDAQ's response.
NDAQ response: We think we are doing a great job of providing the resources needed
for the Title Vprogram. Fees collected are sufficient to provide the resources needed to
conduct the Title Vprogram. We have enjoyed stability among the permit writers for the
past decade allowing us to ensure trained and seasoned personnel implement the
program. Permit issuance is timely with renewal permits being typically issued within a
few weeks either side of the expiration date. We believe the public's opportunity for
commenting on proposed permits has improved significantly since posting draft permits
and related documents on the NDAQ web site.
Issues affecting the Title V program. The third round questionnaire also asked if there are any
issues affecting the Title V program that the NDAQ considers particularly important. Below is
NDAQ's response.
NDAQ response: Yes, there are several items that have begun to place additional
demands on implementation of the Title V program and other factors that may have
similar impacts in the future.
Most important issues. The third round questionnaire asked which issues the NDAQ would rate
as the most important. Below is NDAQ's response.
NDAQ response: Title V permit applications from the oilfields are piling up as sites with
multiple oil/gas wells exceed major source emission thresholds for potential to emit.
Title Vpermit application requirements are not well suited to these facilities that may no
longer be major sources by the time they could be issued Title Vpermits.
rEPA note: EPA has experienced this issue in Indian country in North Dakota. We
looked into possibly developing a reservation-specific Part 71 general permit for oil and
natural gas production sources after getting indication from operators on the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation that we should expect numerous applications to start coming
in. However, thus far, the prediction has not come to pass and we have a manageable
6
-------
enough load that upon issuance of the first such permit, we should be able to use the
language as a template.
If NDAQ is interested in the latter approach, they could perhaps develop a checklist of
application content for these types of sources that would make up a complete application
and avoid cumbersome back and forth, then share it with operators so that applications
they receive are more likely to be complete and the permitting process can be somewhat
streamlined once some standard language is developed. Otherwise, they still have the Part
70 general permit option to explore..]
EPA policies or regulatory issues causing concern. The third round questionnaire also asked if
there are any EPA policies or regulatory issues that are causing concern. Below is NDAQ's
response.
NDAQ response: Yes, new EPA rules that are issued without providing the state with
additional resources to implement them strain our ability to implement the Title V
program in a quality way. The Title Vprogram does not allow the state to opt out of
accepting implementation responsibility for MACT rules that are often judged to require
more resources to implement than the value of the benefits they provide. This situation
can especially be a problem in small states with limited staff.
As rules are issued that are applicable to numerous emission units, like the RICE MACT,
the labor required to permit those sources within the Title Vprogram increases
significantly, and implementation and enforcement requires much more investment. Even
the threat of the Clean Power Plan has resulted in new Title V sources as the industry
shifts away from coal and toward natural gas for electricity generation.
Rules that are and will soon be proposed, such as the NSPSfor oil and natural gas to
control methane, will also require significant additional resources to implement. It
appears that there are no bounds on the number of rules that EPA will create. It appears
to be of no concern to EPA administrators that each rule requires additional resources to
implement and enforce resources that neither EPA nor the states have available to
invest in rules that provide ever diminishing returns.
rEPA note: North Dakota has declined to adopt the NSPS discussed above (NSPS
Subpart OOOO). North Dakota has also declined to adopt the area source provisions of
MACT Subparts HH and ZZZZ. The NDAQ does, however, include these regulations in
Title V permits, for sources where they are applicable, as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1).
For such situations, EPA and NDAQ have agreed to an arrangement in which the Title V
permit notes that these regulations have not been adopted by the State and instructs the
permittee to send compliance reports to the EPA Regional Office's compliance and
enforcement group.]
What EPA can do to help. The third round questionnaire asks how EPA can help with these
issues. Below is NDAQ's response.
7
-------
NDAQ response: Recognition could be given to the fact that EPA's "one size fits all"
approach when it comes to air quality rules is not appropriate for a nation that includes
both Los Angeles and Bismarck, both the densely populated coasts and the sparsely
peopled plains, both windless areas like California's central valley and windy regions
like the northern plains. Different regions with different levels of air contaminants could
benefit from flexibility in the application of the "one size fits all" rules if the use of
resources is to be optimized.
rEPA note: If the NDAQ would like us to raise any State-specific or Region-specific
issue to EPA Headquarters, we would be happy to do so.]
Permit issuance timeliness questions. The third round questionnaire asked the questions below
about timeliness of permit issuance. These questions are followed by NDAQ's responses.
1. Since the second round program review, what percent of Title V initial permits have you
issued within the regulatory timeframe specified in 40 CFR 70.7(a)(2)?
NDAQ response: From January 2010 through December 2015, 100% (3 of 3) of the
initial Title Vpermits issued were issued within 18 months following receipt of a
complete permit application.
2. Since the second round program review, what percent of Title V significant permit
modifications have you issued within the regulatory timeframe specified in 40 CFR
70.7(a)(2) and (e)(4)(ii)?
NDAQ response: From January 2010 through December 2015, 89% (25 of 28) of the
significant permit modifications issued were issued within 9 months following receipt
of a complete permit application. The remaining 3 were issued within 18 months.
3. What percent of Title V permits expire before they can be renewed?
NDAQ response: From January 2010 through December 2015, 0% of the Title V
permits expired before they could be renewed. Many of the permits were not renewed
until after the expiration date on the permits; however, in every case the permittee
had submitted a timely renewal application which allowed the terms and conditions
of the permit to remain in effect until the renewal permit was issued.
rEPA note: To those who may not be very familiar with Part 70, the NDAQ's use of
the words "expired" and "expiration date" may seem difficult to reconcile with each
other; however, this usage merely reflects how those two words are used in Part 70.
Under 40 CFR 70.4(b)(10), permitting authorities have two options for dealing with
situations where a timely and complete application for permit renewal has been
submitted, but the renewal permit has not been issued before the end of the term of
the previous permit. The permitting authority can either: (i) provide that the permit
shall not expire until the renewal permit has been issued or denied, or (ii) provide that
all terms and conditions of the permit shall remain in effect until the renewal permit
8
-------
has been issued or denied. EPA's preamble to Part 70 states that EPA believes the
substantive effect of choosing one option or the other should be minimal at most.
The word "expiration" is presented in Part 70 in a somewhat different context. Under
40 CFR 70.7(c)(l)(ii), permit expiration terminates the source's right to operate,
unless a timely and complete renewal application has been submitted.
In any event, there is no real issue here. Earlier in this report, NDAQ stated that
renewal permits are typically issued within a few weeks either side of the expiration
date. Also, NDAQ has stated that in every instance, a timely renewal application was
submitted, enabling the terms and conditions of the permit to remain in effect until a
renewal permit is issued.]
4. For those permits that could not be renewed before they expired, what are the reasons
they could not be renewed prior to their expiration?
NDAQ response: N/A.
5. Have unresolved violations created any delay in issuing Title V renewals?
NDAQ response: No.
6. Have permittees requested a hold in renewal for any reason?
NDAQ response: No, but occasionally we will delay a renewal until we can inspect
new source units constructed under a PTC or until we receive stack test results.
Based on these questions and responses, EPA finds no issues or concerns with timeliness of Title
V permit issuance in North Dakota.
Permit reviews. EPA reviews a small percentage of NDAQ's Title V permits, during either the
draft stage or the proposed stage. Since many of the permits are now undergoing the fourth
renewal, EPA is quite familiar with them, having seen them multiple times already. Most of the
changes to the permits are either to incorporate terms and conditions of recently issued NSR
permits (called Permits to Contract) or to incorporate recently promulgated changes to NSPS or
MACT regulations. Since the second round review in 2009, EPA has not found any issues or
concerns with the permits that would warrant written comments to NDAQ.
NDAQ Organization and Staffing
All types of air quality permits, including Title V and New Source Review, are issued by the
Permitting & Compliance Branch within the NDAQ. The air permitting staff work closely with
the air compliance staff. The NDAQ is within the Environmental Health Section, which is within
the Department of Health.
The current head of NDAQ's Title V permitting program is Lew Dendy. He is scheduled to retire
on August 1, 2016. Kyla Schneider of the NDAQ will be taking his place and participated with
9
-------
Mr. Dendy in this Title V program evaluation. Mr. Dendy is currently the primary Title V permit
writer.
Training
As noted earlier in this report, NDAQ has enjoyed stability among the permit writers for the past
decade, allowing the State to ensure trained and seasoned personnel implement the program.
The NDAQ has not noted any training concerns or made any requests to EPA regarding traininig.
Fee Audit
EPA did not conduct a formal Title V operating permit fee audit during the first round review. A
fee audit was conducted during the second round review. A fee audit questionnaire titled "Fiscal
Tracking Evaluation Document" (unchanged from the first and second round) was submitted to
the NDAQ during the third round to fill out, but no on-site fee audit was performed. NDAQ's
responses to the fee audit questions may be found as Attachment 2 to this report.
Supporting documents are included as Attachment 3. These documents consist of tables showing
the amount of emission fees paid by individual Title V sources during 2010 through 2015, along
with some examples of fee submittals. Although total fees have steadily declined over this
period, NDAQ has assured EPA that the fees remain sufficient to run the program. (See answer
to question #1 below.)
After the fee audit questionnaire was sent out by the Region to the NDAQ, EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards (OAQPS) asked the Region to pose some additional fee-related
questions, which are listed below, along with NDAQ's responses.
1. The total of the fees collected for the last fiscal year and the total of costs for the fiscal
year, so that they can be directly compared.
NDAQ response: The title V annual permit fees collected for ND fiscal year 2015
totaled: $1,344,742.86. FY2015 ran from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The
fees were collected during the months of July and August of 2014. The fees were
sufficient to cover costs.
2. Any transfers of fee money out that may be used for non-title V purposes.
NDAQ response: No.
3. Computation of the presumptive minimum fee for the state for the last fiscal year,
including the GHG cost adjustment, so that it can be compared to the fees collected.
NDAQ response: The minimum annual title V permit fee for the FY2015 billing cycle
was $604.43. This fee amount represents a 1.5% increase from the previous year's
fee. The annual increase is based on the average unadjusted Consumer Price Index
for the 12-month period that ended August 31, 2013. ND does not consider GHG
emissions in calculating title V permit fees.
10
-------
rEPA note: At EPA's request, NDAQ further explained that when computing the annual
air permit fee for North Dakota Title V sources, the fee is computed based on the cost per
ton of billable pollutants emitted. If that fee amount is less than the minimum Title V fee
set for the year, then the permittee is billed for the minimum fee. On the other hand, if the
fee based on tons of pollutants emitted exceeds the minimum fee, then the permittee is
billed for that amount. In other words, the annual Title V air permit fee billed is the
higher of the pollutant-based fee or the minimum fee set for the year.]
EPA has examined NDAQ's responses to the fee audit questions and does not have any
concerns.
Implementation Agreement
On September 11, 1995, EPA and NDAQ signed a Title V Implementation Agreement. A copy
of the Agreement is included as Attachment 4 to this report. As stated in the Agreement, the
purpose is to define policies, responsibilities and procedures by which the operating permits
program will be administered by NDAQ nd EPA. During this third round Title V program
review, EPA verbally asked NDAQ if they desire any changes to the Agreement, or feel the need
to discuss it as part of this review. The answer was no. The Agreement will continue unchanged.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NDAQ implements an effective Title V program that continues to evolve as
challenges arise. NDAQ continues to communicate with EPA staff to address issues in proposed
permits. The Title V fee review demonstrates NDAQ's ability to continue to operate a program
that meets the fee requirements of Part 70. NDAQ has provided all of the necessary information
to EPA during these reviews and has addressed issues raised by EPA. NDAQ's Title V program
continues to meet the requirements of the Part 70 regulations. No deficiencies were noted during
this review.
11
-------
Title V Third Round State Program Review Questionnaire
(ND Responses in italics March 21, 2016)
I. General Questions and Responses to First and Second Round Program Reviews
A. What has been done in response to EPA recommendations for improvements from
the second round program review?
1. EPA recommendation on Title V renewal application form: Add "...a
requirement in the NDAQ's Renewal Application form for applicants to cross-
reference the current title V permit, or other document(s), for identification of
applicable requirements, compliance test methods, and other types of
information required by rule to be addressed by the state's standard application
form for title V permits."
NDAQ response: The Title Vpermit renewal application form (SFN52824)
was revised to include the following requirements: "The current Title V
permit will be the baseline reference for this renewal. The requirements (40
CFR 70.5(c) & NDAC 33-15-14-06.4.c) to include a citation and
description of all applicable requirements and a description of or reference
to any applicable test method for determining compliance with each
applicable requirement may be met by accomplishing either or both of the
following: 1) enclose an annotated (red-lined) copy of the current permit
indicating all changes needed to reflect the current facility configuration,
applicable requirements and test methods; 2) enclose a narrative that
conveys all changes needed to the current permit to reflect the current
facility configuration, all applicable requirements and test methods."
2. EPA recommendation on the annual compliance certification report: Add "...a
definition in the NDAQ's annual compliance certification reporting form for
intermittent compliance."
NDAQ response: The Annual Compliance Certification Report form
(SFN52738)was revised to include the following: "Intermittent compliance
means continuous compliance, except for the permit deviations and possible
exceptions to compliance noted in the two Title V Semi-Annual Monitoring
Report forms covering this period. (NDAC 33-15-14-06.5.c(5)(c)[3])."
3. EPA recommendation on annual compliance certification report: Add "...a
requirement in permits, or in the annual compliance certification reporting
form, to send a copy of annual compliance certification reports to EPA."
NDAQ response: Text was added to the bottom of the Annual Compliance
Certification Report form directing the permittee to send the report to EPA
at Air & Toxics Technical Enforcement Program (8ENF-AT) Office of
-------
Enforcement, Compliance & Environmental Justice, US EPA Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
4. EPA recommendation on acid rain permits: Add "...a provision in permits for
acid rain sources on re-opening for cause that is specific to Acid Rain Program."
NDAQ response: The following text was added to the Acid Rain Program
section of affected Title V permits: "Reopening for Cause In addition to
any reasons for reopening for cause previously stated in this permit, the
Department will reopen and revise this permit as necessary to remedy
deficiencies in the following circumstances: If additional requirements,
including excess emissions requirements, become applicable to an affected
source under Title IV of the Federal Clean Air Act or the regulations
promulgated there under. Upon approval by the administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, excess emissions offset
plans shall be deemed to be incorporated into the permit. Applicable
Requirements: NDAC 33-15-14-06.6.f (l)(b) and 40 CFR 0.7(f)(1)(H)"
5. EPA recommendation on the Northern Sun Enderlin plant title V permit:
Incorporate "...a condition from an underlying Permit-To-Construct into the
title V permit for the Northern Sun (ADM) Enderlin plant."
NDAQ response: The following text was added to the Northern Sun
Enderlin title V permit at Condition 7.B.14: Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality Emissions Monitoring, Reporting and
Recordkeeping: The permittee shall comply with all applicable emissions
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Special
Condition II.A.2 of the Air Pollution Control Permit to Construct No.
PTC07037 and 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)(iii) and (v).
B. What key EPA comments on individual Title V permits remain unresolved (EPA
to determine this)? What is the State's position on these unresolved comments?
Although EPA's second round file review included several comments on
individual title V permits and offered suggestions for improvements, those
permit changes were accomplished either during or shortly after the file
review. NDAQ is not aware of any EPA comments on individual title V
permits that remain unresolved.
Have any procedures in Title V changed (e.g., public participation, petitions,
communication with EPA) since the second round program review?
2
-------
1. If so, which ones?
Yes, several changes have been made to Title V procedures since the second
round program review. NDAQ has stopped mailing EPA a hard copy of draft
title V review documents; instead, those documents are emailed to EPA as Word
or pdf files. Title V permit applications, which are often quite large files, are
made available to EPA through a link provided to the web site posting. The
public comment and notice web site also provides notice to the public of draft
title V permits and presents the documents considered during the permit
drafting process. In addition NDAQ web pages now provide the public with
easy access to all air pollution control permits to construct and operate. Title
V permit application forms have been revised to make it easier for applicants
to provide permit writers with the information needed to draft permits. The
applications are now formatted so they are able to be filled out online.
C. What does the state think it's doing especially well in the Title V program?
We think we are doing a great job of providing the resources needed for the
Title Vprogram. Fees collected are sufficient to provide the resources needed
to conduct the Title V program. We have enjoyed stability among the permit
writers for the past decade allowing us to ensure trained and seasoned
personnel implement the program. Permit issuance is timely with renewal
permits being typically issued within a few weeks either side of the expiration
date. We believe the public's opportunity for commenting on proposed permits
has improved significantly since posting draft permits and related documents
on the NDAQ web site.
D. Are there any issues affecting the Title V program in your state right now that you
consider particularly important?
Yes, there are several items that have begun to place additional demands on
implementation of the Title V program and other factors that may have similar
impacts in the future.
1. Which one would you rate as the most important?
Title V permit applications from the oilfields are piling up as sites with multiple
oil/gas wells exceed major source emission thresholds for potential to emit.
Title V permit application requirements are not well suited to these facilities
that may no longer be major sources by the time they could be issued Title V
permits.
3
-------
2. Are there any EPA policies or regulatory issues that are causing concern?
Yes, new EPA rules that are issued without providing the state with additional
resources to implement them strain our ability to implement the Title Vprogram
in a quality way. The Title V program does not allow the state to opt out of
accepting implementation responsibility for MACT rules that are often judged
to require more resources to implement than the value of the benefits they
provide. This situation can especially be a problem in small states with limited
staff.
As rules are issued that are applicable to numerous emission units, like the
RICE MACT, the labor required to permit those sources within the Title V
program increases significantly, and implementation and enforcement requires
much more investment. Even the threat of the Clean Power Plan has resulted
in new Title V sources as the industry shifts away from coal and toward natural
gas for electricity generation.
Rules that are and will soon be proposed, such as the NSPS for oil and natural
gas to control methane, will also require significant additional resources to
implement. It appears that there are no bounds on the number of rules that EPA
will create. It appears to be of no concern to EPA administrators that each rule
requires additional resources to implement and enforce resources that
neither EPA nor the states have available to invest in rules that provide ever
diminishing returns.
3. How can EPA help?
Recognition could be given to the fact that EPA's "one size fits all" approach
when it comes to air quality rules is not appropriate for a nation that includes
both Los Angeles and Bismarck, both the densely populated coasts and the
sparsely peopled plains, both windless areas like California's central valley and
windy regions like the northern plains. Different regions with different levels
of air contaminants could benefit from flexibility in the application of the "one
size fits all" rules if the use of resources is to be optimized.
II. Permit Issuance
A. Since the second round program review, what percent of Title V initial permits have
you issued within the regulatory timeframe specified in 40 CFR 70.7(a)(2)?
From January 2010 through December 2015, 100% (3 of 3) of the initial Title
Vpermits issued were issued within 18 months following receipt of a complete
permit application.
4
-------
B. Since the second round program review, what percent of Title V significant permit
modifications have you issued within the regulatory timeframe specified in 40 CFR
70.7(a)(2) and (e)(4)(ii)?
From January 2010 through December 2015, 89% (25 of 28) of the significant
permit modifications issued were issued within 9 months following receipt of a
complete permit application. The remaining 3 were issued within 18 months.
C. What percent of Title V permits expire before they can be renewed?
From January 2010 through December 2015, 0% of the Title Vpermits expired
before they could be renewed. Many of the permits were not renewed until after
the expiration date on the permits; however, in every case the permittee had
submitted a timely renewal application which allowed the terms and conditions
of the permit to remain in effect until the renewal permit was issued.
1. For those permits that could not be renewed before they expired, what are
the reasons they could not be renewed prior to their expiration?
N/A
D. Have unresolved violations created any delay in issuing Title V renewals?
No
E. Have permittees requested a hold in renewal for any reason?
No, but occasionally we will delay a renewal until we can inspect new
source units constructed under a PTC or until we receive stack test results
results.
F. CAM
1. Are CAM plan requirements slowing the renewal process?
No
a. If so, what is it about CAM that's problematic?
N/A
2. Where CAM plans have been inadequate, what have been the main types of
inadequacies that have caused difficulties or delays in permit issuance?
5
-------
CAM plans for ethanol plants do experience more frequent changes due to
changes in the type or amount of scrubber additives used to reduce VOC
emissions.
3. What difficulties have you had in getting better plans to be submitted?
There may be a delay involved waiting for stack test results to verify
efficacy of the new chemical or feed rate.
4. Have you had to supplement the CAM technical guidance document (TGD)
with state-issued guidance?
No
5. Is CAM training adequate?
Yes, however it will be beneficial for our staff member who will become
the principal manager of our Title V program this summer to participate
in a CAM training course.
6. Are CAM applicability determinations resource-intensive or difficult?
No, however there are more CAM-related discussions in recent years to
determine whether recently-issued rules provide sufficient monitoring to
allow discontinuance of existing CAM plans.
G. What improvements does the State believe it has made to the management of the
Title V permit program, since the second round program review, that could be
described as best practices and could be of interest to other States?
Electronic document storage for Title V files began last year. Incoming Title V
documents are received electronically or scanned and stored electronically.
We still file paper copies as a secondary source, and we have yet to convert
past documents to digital format, but as time passes and we gain confidence
with the adequacy of the electronic document storage we plan to discontinue
the paper files. The records retention policy has been revised to support this
effort.
The Air Quality Permitting and Compliance website has been revised from the
ground up to reflect a more customer oriented and user friendly approach. The
website now makes all construction and operating permits available to the
public. Also the Title Vpermit application forms and instructions were revised
to streamline the applicants submission of forms.
H. What improvements does the state plan to make, if any, in the management of the
Title V permit program within the next five years?
6
-------
A new Title V program manager will replace the retiring manager who has
done the job for the past ten years. The new manager will bring fresh ideas to
the program and will likely implement positive changes that will make a great
program even better. The new manager has undergone an extensive mentoring
program and we expect to continue with the success of our program.
We are also in the process of developing the tools needed to receive Title V
reports and permit applications electronically. This capability will benefit our
customers, the public, and provide efficiencies for our staff.
We will continue to improve and streamline the permitting process wherever
practical.
1. Does the state have a set period of time for planning cycles?
Budgeting is done on a two year cycle commensurate with the biennial
meetings of the state legislature.
III. Public Participation
A. What forms of news media do you use to maximize public participation, for
implementation of 40 CFR 70.7(h)?
Permit notices are provided via newspaper, three NDDoH websites, mail, and
television if a local station elects to cover a public hearing.
1. How is the form of media chosen?
Publication in the county newspaper of record and on the websites is
routine, as is mailing the notices to everyone who has requested to be on
our mailing list. Public hearings are accomplished when there is
sufficient public interest or controversy concerning the project.
2. How do you believe public participation should be improved?
It appears that web postings have become the most effective and efficient
means of informing the public of permit notices. Publishing notices in
county newspapers is quite expensive, especially considering the general
decline in newspaper viewership in recent years. We support EPA's
December 21, 2015 proposal to remove the mandatory requirement to
provide public notice of a draft Title V permit through publication in a
newspaper and instead allow for electronic noticing.
B. Do you have a mailing list for Title V public participation for implementation of
40 CFR 70.7(h)(1)? If so, please provide it.
7
-------
Yes, the mailing list is enclosed.
C. Is there a policy which outlines the response to comments procedure or process,
such as which comments are responded to, the time-frame for responding, how the
permitting authority will respond, to whom, etc.?
Standard procedures are followed as outlined in NDAC 33-15-14-06.6.h(5)
which requires the Department to keep a record of the commenters and also of
the issues raised during the public participation process. These records shall
be available to the public.
1. If written, can you provide a copy? If not written, could you describe the
policy?
Though not a written policy, the standard routine followed upon receipt
of a public comment is:
- to acknowledge receipt of the comments to the commenter;
- to forward the comments to EPA/R8 and to the permit applicant;
- to research the issues addressed by the comments;
- to consider any information the permit applicant may provide on the
matters addressed by the comments;
- to provide a written response on each comment to the commenter, to
EPA/R8 and to the permit applicant as soon as practicable;
- to make any changes to the draft permit that may be warranted;
- to consider whether additional time for public comment is needed
prior to starting the EPA review period;
- and to add the documents associated with the comments to the Title V
source file.
IV. Petitions
A. Since the second round program review, to what extent have Title V petitions:
1. Changed how permits are written;
We have not been involved with any Title Vpetitions.
2. Resulted in re-openings of other permits;
N/A
3. Resulted in an amended permitting process, to address any issues settled
through petitions granted in full or in part?
N/A
8
-------
V. EPA Relationship
A. Is there any EPA policy, on Title V, that is causing problems or confusion?
NOTE: Answer may or may not be the same as I.E.2.
Yes, see the response to I.E.2.
B. Has the state developed any tools, strategies, or best practices that have assisted in
the inclusion of MACT subparts in Title V permits?
Yes, we have found that it is best to initially include in the permit only a general
condition requiring compliance with the new MACT rule. Recent MACT rules
often have multiple emission limits and methods that can be used to show
compliance. Including every potential limit and compliance method in the
permit produces an unnecessarily complex permit that can be difficult to use.
We delay including the rule details in the permit until the source knows just how
they will comply. This approach yields the leanest possible permit with the best
chance of being understood and applied by both the permittee and the
implementing authority.
C. Is the issue of startup-shutdown-malfunction (SSM) emissions causing problems or
confusion in Title V permit writing?
Yes, the inclusion or exclusion of SSM emissions does not appear to be
consistently applied across the various rules and types of sources. This
inconsistency makes applying the rules more time consuming, and it gives the
appearance that the inconsistency may be the result of political influences
rather than science-based.
Also, removing permit exemptions for SSM emissions has required emission
limits to be permitted for these periods. Generating these SSM limits and
conditions requires additional permitting activities and adds complexity to the
permits and to compliance testing, recordkeeping and reporting.
1. Has the state developed any tools, strategies, or best practices that have
alleviated problems or confusion if either exist?
No
D. Do you have any unaddressed training needs? What can EPA do to help?
Not in the area of Title V. Our upcoming Title Vprogram manager attended
advanced Title V training five years ago. If she wants a refresher, one is being
held this May. If a CAM training class is planned for this summer or fall, she
may want to attend that.
9
-------
State/local Title V Program Fiscal Tracking Evaluation Document (ND responses in italics) March 21, 2016
Basic Questions for All
Permitting Authorities
More Detailed Questions - Factors to Support a Permitting
Authority's Answer to the Basic Questions
(Note: these are not all-inclusive, and some ideas will not apply in
all cases)
Possible Resources Available
1. Title V Fee Revenue
Can the Permitting Authority show
that sources are being billed in
accordance with its fee
requirement(s), and that sources are
paying fees as required?
Where are the fee collection authority and the fee rate(s) specified? Is
the Permitting Authority including reference to these fee requirements
in its Title V permits?
NDCC 23-25-04.2 and NDAC 33-15-23-04. Yes, see ND T5 General
Condition A.
List the fee rate(s) formulae applicable for the time period being
reviewed. (Include emission based fees, application fees, hourly
processing fees, etc.)
Fee Rates for 2015 Bills:
Criteria Pollutants (except CO) - $14.76/ton/yr.
HAPs - $30.74/ton/yr.
4,000 ton maximum (per regulated contaminant) used for billing
purposes.
No fee charged based on a pollutants status as a GHG.
Boilers >250 MMBtu assessed separately.
$614.71 minimum.
Fee rates adjusted annually based on August 12-month CPI.
Does the Permitting Authority anticipate any significant changes to its
fee structure?
No, other than the annual CPI-based fee changes.
What is the current status in States/locals with requirements to balance
income & expenditures of the Title V program annually (i.e., must
rebate any overage of fees, etc.)?
No requirements.
Req's/Auth.: State/local Title V
program legislation & regulations
Permit ref's: Permits state has
written/submitted to EPA
Fee Rate(s): State/local Title V
program submittal, and then verify
w/ Permitting Authority that info is
up-to-date
Billing/Payments: Permitting
Authority records. Emission data
may be in AIRS. If some fees are
hourly, there should be some direct
labor tracking mechanism (see
accounting system, below).
-------
1. Tillo V Kit Revi'iiue - Continui'd
Examine documentation of how the annual fees for sources are
determined. Audit several sources' bills for accuracy.
Are appropriate (actual or potential) emission records used for
$/ton based fees? How are the Permitting Authority and its
sources determining actual emissions for fee purposes?
See attached Annual Emissions Inventory Report and fee spreadsheet.
Actual emissions are based on CEM data, stack tests, emission factors,
etc.
Are records kept (and used) for any hourly based fees?
No hourly fees.
Review similar documentation for other types of fee mechanisms.
No other fees.
Billing...
How is the Permitting Authority notifying sources of the fees
owed and due dates for payment?
Sources are notified by letter, (see attached example).
Discuss how incoming payments are recorded to the appropriate
accounts (receivings tracking).
Checks for the fees are received by the Division of Air Quality. Each
fee is logged in and then sent to the Administrative Services Section -
Accounting Division - for deposit in the Title V operating fund.
1. 'I'itk1 V Kit Revi'iiue - Continui'd
Payments...
Are the sources paying the total fees charged each year?
Yes (see attached summary for 2015).
-------
Are they paying on time?
In a typical year, most (-98+ percent) pay on time. The remainder,
usually different permittees each year, pay promptly after a telephone
call and/or the second notice.
If there's a collection problem, how is the Permitting Authority
addressing it?
Telephone calls are made, and a second notice is sent if the permittee
claims not to have received or to have lost the first notice.
Are late fees being assessed? If so, are the late fees being credited
to the Title V accounts?
No. We would consider establishing a late fee mechanism if a
permittee becomes a chronic late-payer; however, that situation has
not yet developed. Personal contact has always remedied the
problem.
2. Tillo V Kxpondiluri's
Is the Permitting Authority
identifying division of expenses
between Title V and non-Title V
programs?
What matrix is the Permitting Authority using to differentiate Title V
activities from non-Title V activities?
Time sheets, expense vouchers, mileage tracking forms, etc.
Direct labor:
If used by State/local program, review time sheets and instructions
given to employees as to how to code information into the time
sheet. If time sheets are not used, investigate method that
State/local program uses to differentiate Title V and non-Title V
direct labor.
Yes, travel vouchers and equipment requisitions specify the program
code to be charged.
If used by State/local program,
sample time sheets and instructions
given to employees; equivalent
records for alternate direct labor
differentiation methods.
Accounting system records
showing that administrative/
clerical personnel costs are
accounted for in the Title V
program
Accounting system records
showing that non-labor costs
-------
Ensure that accounting system is set up to utilize the various
coding information.
Analyze time sheets/instructions (and/or other direct labor
differentiation method) for conformance with the matrix of
acceptable Title V activities
(travel, equipment, office space
costs, etc.) are accounted for in
some fashion and a portion is billed
to Title V.
EPA Guidance includes: "Matrix of
Title V-Related and Air Grant-
Eligible Activities, Information
Document," Office of Air &
Radiation, May 31, 1994
2. Tilie V Kxpondiluri's - Conlinui'd
Direct non-labor:
Does the Permitting Authority utilize an allocation system that
separates travel and equipment costs for Title V and non-Title V
functions?
Yes, travel vouchers and equipment requisitions specify the program
code to be charged.
If so, are the allocations in accordance with the Permitting
Authority's Title V/ non-Title V activity separation?
Yes
If not, are these included as part of indirect costs? (Direct non-
labor needs to be addressed somewhere.)
Indirect labor & non-labor:
How are indirect labor & non-labor costs apportioned between
Title V vs. non-Title V accounts? (Indirect costs include parts of
secretarial & managerial overhead, paper & supplies, space,
utilities, generalized computers, etc., that is not addressed as direct
labor/non-labor)
Indirect costs are apportioned according to the amount of time spent
in each area (i.e.: Title Vor non-Title V).
-------
-------
3. Accounting System (i.e.. the system Unit provides I'or iinnlvsis of the Title V program revenue iind expenditure inrormntion
withered nhovc)
Has the Permitting Authority
integrated features into its
accounting/financial management
system which will:
identify Title V fee revenues
separate from other funding?
identify Title V expenditures
separate from other expenses?
produce management reports,
periodically and as requested,
which the Permitting Authority
will be able use to certify as to
the disposition of Title V
funds?
Describe the accounting structure that the Permitting Authority uses to
differentiate Title V $ from other funds, [i.e., govt, fund, enterprise
fund, etc. -- for more detail on options, see the U of MD report.]
Title V activities have been assigned a unique project number which is
used to track the Title Vfees collected and expended.
Does the accounting system have separate categorization for Title V
and non-Title V funding and expenses?
Yes
If yes, are these features being used to track Title V monies
separate from non-Title V monies?
Yes, separate account codes are assigned to Title V monies and non-
Title V monies.
If no, does the Permitting Authority keep any separate records
that identify Title V monies separate from non-Title V monies?
Could such information potentially be integrated into an
accounting/financial management system?
Review sample reports/specific
reports for the time period being
reviewed.
For background: Overview of
CLEAN AIR Title V Financial
Management and Reporting, A
Handbook for Financial Officers
and Program Managers,
Environmental Finance Center,
Maryland Sea Grant College,
University of Maryland, 0112
Skinner Hall, College Park, MD
20742, January 1997, [Publication
Number UM-SG-CEPP-97-02]
4. Separation ol' Title Y I'rom $ 105 grunt nnd mutch funding
Can the Permitting Authority
confirm that the Title V fees
collected from sources are used to
pay for the entire Title V
program, and that no Title V fees
are used as match to the CAA
section 105 Air Program grant?
Determine the federal ง105 grant award received, and the amount of
state/local funds used during the time period being reviewed.
Determine the Title V fees collected (and Title V funds available, if
carryover of Title V fees is allowed by state/local regulations)
during the time period being reviewed.
Determine Title V expenditures during the time period being
reviewed.
Grant files FSR's for applicable
years. (See appropriate EPA
Region grant & project manager
staff)
Permitting Authority accounting
system reports showing revenue
and expenditure summaries for
Title V, grant, and other activities
-------
Ensure that adequate non-Title V state/local funds were available to
provide required match to the federal grant.
Ensure that sufficient Title V funds were available to pay for the
Title V program (i.e.Title V program is self supporting)
-------
Title V Log / ND Division of Air Quality - FINAL Due: 8/30/15 (bills dated 7/1/15) (as of 9/2/15) Last year's comments in italics T fcRS
Company
Fee
Check Number
Date Red
Comment
ADM Processing
$13,132.83
468754
7/23/15
Alliance Pipeline, L.P.
$4,765.98
7014007
8/31/15
American Crystal Sugar Company
$43,594.58
1351142
7/9/15
One check for T5 and minor
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
$340,127.94
458617, 458716
7/20/15
458663, 458662 (Expect a check for each plant)
Big Dipper Enterprises, Inc.
$614.71
12199957
7/20/15
Waste Management check paid with Jahner Sanitation Inc.
Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC
$1,714.60
17308
7/16/15
Cargill Corn Milling
$5,842.20
106169443
8/3/15
Paid by Cargill Incorporated check
Cargill, Inc.
$2,900.31
106169158
8/7/15
Electronic payment
Cavalier AFS
$740.77
311050378
7/27/15
Paid by BAt systems; 12 days late in 2014
CNH America LLC
$948.04
4000318503
8/4/15
CNH Industrial check
Dakota Gasification Company
$126,170.97
327241
7/31/15
Enbridge Operating Services, L.L.C.
$950.54
3074000124
7/14/15
Grand Forks Air Force Base
$614.71
91300285
7/24/15
Email rcpt to Gary Raknerud gary.rakknerud@us.af.mil; 15 days late in2014
Great River Energy
$299,535.52
546921
8/7/15
GRE paid 1c more than we billed due to rounding
Guardian Hankinson, LLC
$3,567.60
8302
7/27/15
Healthcare Environmental Services, LLC
$614.71
4266524
7/23/15
Paid by Sanford Medical Center Fargo
Hebron Brick Company
$1,921.22
158549
8/26/15
Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC
$2,312.86
55000511
7/20/15
1 check for T5 & minor
Hess Tioga Gas Plant LLC
$22,900.97
51000382
7/20/15
Hood Packaging Corporation
$614.71
221268
7/20/15
Jahner Sanitation, Inc.
$614.71
12199957
7/20/15
Waste Management check paid with Big Dipper Ent.
J.R. Simplot
$1,641.31
1455524
8/31/15
Simplot check
LM Wind Power Blades
$5,085.91
59511
7/27/15
Late in 2011
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative
$14,234.07
100072034
8/27/15
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.
$144,270.01
662309
7/22/15
Minot Air Force Base
$614.71
1034
7/13/15
Email receipt to michael.getty@us.af.mil
Montana Dakota Utilities Company
$69,884.15
181370
8/24/15
MorTech Fab, Inc.
$614.71
23143
7/30/15
Nordic Fiberglass, Inc.
$1,435.85
82155
8/24/15
Northern Border Pipeline Company
$7,850.82
1001213
7/28/15
Northern Sun (Division of ADM)
$7,969.55
468755
7/20/15
Paid by ADM
NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership L.P.
$614.71
60391901
7/27/15
ONEOK Rockies Midstream, L.L.C.
$14,284.27
1201340
7/27/15
Otter Tail Power Company
$122,682.47
776281
8/19/15
Petro-Hunt, LLC
$8,154.90
4021470
8/3/15
Red Trail Energy, LLC
$6,038.70
43894
7/10/15
Targa Badlands LLC
$885.55
609191
8/18/15
Minor & T5 paid with a single check
T&C Inc. dba Fiberglass Specialties
$614.71
12977
7/27/15
Fiberglass Specialties check
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, LLC
$23,387.23
1977038
8/4/15
Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC
$4,557.39
14578
8/14/15
Trinity Containers, LLC
$671.81
10851371
7/15/15
WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
$767.58
351-0618942
7/20/15
Total Title V: $1,310,460.89
-------
Title V Log / ND Division of Air Quality -- FINAL Due: 8/30/14 (bills dated 7/1/14) (as of 9/16/14) Last year's comments in italics
Company
Fee
Check Number
Date Red
Comment
ADM Processing
$11,066.51
328681
7/16/14
Alliance Pipeline, L.P.
$4,899.79
7010033
7/29/14
American Crystal Sugar Company
$45,084.04
1328740
7/15/14
One check for T5 and minor
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
$406,701.28
445188
7/25/14
Expect a check for each plant
Big Dipper Enterprises, Inc.
$604.43
11692781
7/21/14
Waste Management check paid with Jahner Sanitation Inc.
Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC
$1,726.09
14287
8/27/14
Cargill Corn Milling
$5,471.39
106031891
8/4/14
Paid by Cargill Incorporated check
Cargill, Inc.
$2,472.42
106030120
7/31/14
Cavalier AFS
$604.43
311038445
9/12/14
Paid by BAE Systems; 12 days late in 2014
CNH America LLC
$975.54
4000296188
7/21/14
CNH Industrial check
Dakota Gasification Company
$126,981.66
315638
7/14/14
Grand Forks Air Force Base
$604.43
9130028-5
9/15/14
Email rcpt to Larry Olderbak lawrence.olderbak@us.af.mil; 15 days late in2014
Great River Energy
$282,154.76
528276
8/25/14
Guardian Hankinson, LLC
$3,590.51
2580
7/14/14
Paid by Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (Murphy sold it in 2014?)
Healthcare Environmental Services, LLC
$604.43
4171333
7/21/14
Paid by Sanford Medical Center Fargo
Hebron Brick Company
$1,803.49
148791
8/28/14
Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC
$2,544.70
55000007
7/14/14
1 check for T5 & minor
Hess Tioga Gas Plant LLC
$30,211.27
51000010
7/14/14
Hood Packaging Corporation
$640.76
204425
7/21/14
J.R. Simplot
$2,177.61
1382553
7/21/14
Simplot check
Jahner Sanitation, Inc.
$604.43
11692781
7/21/14
Waste Management check paid with Big Dipper Ent.
LM Wind Power Blades
$3,773.05
57642
8/28/14
Late in 2011
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative
$12,818.49
100062546
9/2/14
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.
$137,378.29
649703
7/21/14
Minot Air Force Base
$604.43
1023
7/15/14
Email receipt to michael.getty@us.af.mil
Montana Dakota Utilities Company
$59,856.41
157529
7/14/14
Mor Tech Fab, Inc.
$604.43
27811
8/6/14
Nordic Fiberglass, Inc.
$1,093.48
79306
9/2/14
Northern Border Pipeline Company
$10,971.74
1000507
8/1/14
Email Ruth Jensen a pdf of the check (ruthjensen@transcanada.com) (Not
sure if she will need this email each year)
Northern Sun (Division of ADM)
$5,930.44
331469
7/25/14
Paid by ADM
NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership L.P.
$1,076.53
60369567
7/28/14
ONEOK Rockies Midstream, L.L.C.
$10,334.89
1153779
7/28/14
Otter Tail Power Company
$120,469.28
759275
8/20/14
Petro-Hunt, LLC
$9,922.81
4001891
7/11/14
Red Trail Energy, LLC
$5,538.23
37984
7/11/14
T&C Inc. dba Fiberglass Specialties
$698.31
12319
7/21/14
Fiberglass Specialties check
Targa Badlands LLC
$2,972.74
592404
8/28/14
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, LLC
$22,542.90
1947575
7/22/14
Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC
$4,201.02
12598
7/11/14
Trinity Containers, LLC
$604.43
10771886
7/14/14
WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
$1,222.56
351-0618786
7/21/14
Wil-Rich LLC
$604.43
168259
7/21/14
Total Title V: $1,344,742.86
-------
Title V Log / ND Division of Air Quality - FINAL 2013 Due: 8/25/13 (bills dated 6/26/13) (as of 8/26/13) Last year's comments in italics
Company
Fee
Check Number
Date Red
Comment
ADM Processing
S11.584.51
181911
7/19/13
Alliance Pipeline, L.P.
$5,207.68
7006555
8/20/13
American Crystal Sugar Company
$40,675.12
1296280
7/5/13
One check for T5 and minor
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
$435,592.72
431734 & 431735
7/24/13
Expect a check for each plant
Big Dipper Enterprises, Inc.
$595.50
11139346
7/24/13
Paid with Jahner Sanitation Inc.
Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC
$1,445.11
10280
7/17/13
Cargill Corn Milling
$5,393.28
105884268
8/26/13.
Check dated 8/22/13
Cargill, Inc.
$2,506.32
105865655
7/19/13
Cavalier AFS
$1,362.07
311020784
8/19/13
Paid by BAE Systems
CNH America LLC
$1,195.00
4000257990
7/8/13
Dakota Gasification Company
$176,237.41
305400
7/19/13
Grand Forks Air Force Base
$595.50
09130028-5
5/10/13
Email rcpt to Larry Olderbak lawrence.olderbak@us.af.mil (pd early)
Great River Energy
$291,366.63
506824
8/13/13
Bill reduced by $25.75 on 7/9/13 due to correction of data entry error
Hankinson Renewable Energy, LLC
$3,518.65
5068133
7/24/13
Paid by Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (bill dated 7/5/12)
Healthcare Environmental Services, LLC
$595.50
4053575
7/17/13
Paid by Sanford Medical Center Fargo
Hebron Brick Company
$1,786.71
138309
8/1/13
Hess Corporation
$33,901.99
1773755
7/25/13
Late in 2011; overnighted on 59th day in 2012; 1 check for T5 & minor
Hood Packaging Corporation
$1,015.01
187530
7/26/13
J.R. Simplot
$1,773.45
1320539
8/26/13
2009 late; 2010 paid the last day; 2013 check dated 8/23/13
Jahner Sanitation, Inc.
$595.50
11139346
7/24/13
Paid with Big Dipper Ent.
LM Wind Power Blades
$5,453.52
55488
8/5/13
Late in 2011
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative
$11,050.49
100045839
8/9/13
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.
$146,314.95
635887
7/15/13
Minot Air Force Base
$595.50
1012
2/4/13
Email receipt to michael.getty@us.af.mil (paid early due to sequester)
Montana Dakota Utilities Company
$58,997.84
135161
7/30/13
MorTech Fab, Inc.
$595.50
26237
7/11/13
Nordic Fiberglass, Inc.
$1,206.08
76181
7/22/13
Northern Border Pipeline Company
$10,558.12
14270
7/17/13
Northern Sun (Division of ADM)
$6,094.72
191687
8/6/13
Paid by ADM
NuStar Pipeline Operating F'artnership L.P.
$1,016.56
60343067
7/12/13
ONEOK Rockies Midstream, L.L.C.
$9,631.37
1127323
7/22/13
Otter Tail Power Company
$117,626.50
741481
8/21/13
Petro-Hunt, LLC
$5,101.10
4227751
7/8/13
Red Trail Energy, LLC
$6,603.30
31660
8/16/13
T&C Inc. dba Fiberglass Specialties
$759.39
11736
7/12/13
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, LLC
$22,500.74
1905829
7/29/13
Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC
$5,036.63
11062
7/19/13
Trinity Containers, LLC
$688.91
10706760
7/15/13
WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
$1,191.00
351-0618622
7/22/13
Wil-Rich LLC
$595.50
162679
7/5/13
Total Title V: $1,428,561.38
-------
Title V Log / ND Division of Air Quality - FINAL 2012 Due: 8/31/12 (bills dated 7/2/12) (as of 9/11/12) Last year's comments in italics
Company
Fee
Check Number
Received Date
Comment
ADM Corn Processing
$4,877.32
40102
7/30/12
ADM Processing
$931.90
39621
8/29/12
Alliance Pipeline, L.P.
$5,163.51
7002699
8/13/12
American Crystal Sugar Company
$37,345.14
1265865
7/16/12
One check for T5 and minor
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
$420,260.06
418520 & 418521
8/7/12
Expect a check for each plant; fee increased 0.01 per BEPC (Erin) call
Big Dipper Enterprises, Inc.
$585.55
10586626
7/30/12
Paid with Jahner Sanitation Inc.
Cargill Corn Milling
$5,214.45
105717045
8/6/12
Cargill, Inc.
$2,328.84
105712093
7/26/12
Cavalier AFS
$2,374.37
311002199
8/20/12
Paid by BAE Systems
CNH America LLC
$1,224.69
217442
7/23/12
Continental Resources, Inc.
$1,790.78
68921
8/31/12
Dakota Gasification Company
$169,868.27
295076
7/26/12
DMI Industries
$3,319.63
523180
7/27/12
Grand Forks Air Force Base
$585.55
electronic transfer
8/7/12
Email receipt to Larry Olderbak lawrence.olderbak@us.af.mil
Great River Energy
$287,698.20
485490
8/13/12
Hankinson Renewable Energy, LLC
$3,148.99
5063029
7/20/12
Paid by Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (bill dated 7/5/12)
Healthcare Environmental Services, LLC
$585.55
3144081
7/30/12
Paid by Sanford Medical Center Fargo
Hebron Brick Company
$2,020.91
129674
8/30/12
Hess Corporation
$29,003.00
1760516
8/30/12
Late in 2011; overnighted on 59th day in 2012
Hood Packaging Corporation
$1,058.72
169630
7/20/12
J.R. Simplot
$2,075.19
1232118
7/23/12
Jahner Sanitation, Inc.
$585.55
10586626
7/30/12
Paid with Big Dipper Ent.
LM Wind Power Blades
$3,829.21
52919
8/24/12
Late in 2011
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative
$12,622.92
100029121
8/24/12
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.
$202,300.28
621966
7/23/12
Minot Air Force Base
$585.55
1008
7/12/12
Email receipt to michael.getty@us.af.mil
Montana Dakota Utilities Company
$62,400.01
110973
8/1/12
Mor Tech Fab, Inc.
$585.55
24845
8/27/12
Nordic Fiberglass, Inc.
$967.28
73765
8/13/12
Northern Border Pipeline Company
$8,211.59
13203
7/30/12
Northern Sun (Division of ADM)
$9,194.67
38263
7/27/12
Paid by ADM
NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership L.P.
$1,051.52
60312114
8/3/12
ONEOK Rockies Midstream, L.L.C.
$6,461.79
1051986
7/23/12
One check for T5 and minor
Otter Tail Power Company
$116,643.27
724753
8/30/12
Bill revised and reissued 7/10/12 (increased $9.99); due 9/8/12
Petro-Hunt, LLC
$4,671.86
4207792
7/23/12
Red Trail Energy, LLC
$6,662.95
26407
7/18/12
T&C Inc. dba Fiberglass Specialties
$585.55
11095
7/27/12
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company
$24,965.18
1865417
8/6/12
Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC
$3,740.11
9482
7/31/12
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Comp.
$1,171.10
14735
7/19/12
Wil-Rich LLC
$585.55
156717
7/16/12
Total Title V: $1,449,282.11
-------
Title V Log / ND Division of Air Quality 2011 Due: 9/6/11 (as of 9/19/11, FINAL)
Company
Fee
Date Rec'd
Check if
Ldsi /ears comments in Diue italics
Comment
ADM Corn Processing
ADM Processing
S4.000.05
8/8/2011
885429
$27,403.57
8/10/2011
3/22/4324
Alliance Pipeline, LP.
$4,269.78
8/24/2011
4009828
American Crystal Sugar Company
$40,256.44
/720/2011
1237749
Check includes minor fee
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
$422,960.91
9/1/2011
see right
Expect a check for each plant: 406459 & 406460
Bear Paw Energy, LLC
$6,243.84
I 7/25/2011
! 142564
Paid with one check for both minor and major fees
Big Dipper Enterprises, Inc.LandfiN
$564.11
7729/2011
9834660
(Paid with Jahner Sani. Inc.
rCargill Corn Millinq
* $5,163.62
I 9/6/2011
105544299
ฆ
Cargill, Inc.
$3,269.84
7/27/2011
105522646
Cavalier AFS
$1,295.71
8/29/2011
150999
iPaidTbyBAE Systems
CNH America LLC (billed $987.61)
$987.00
8/1/2011
f4000179724
Check was for $987.00, 61 cents less than the bill; cautioned CNH
Continental Resources, Inc.
$2,283.48
8/11/2011
37239
Dakota Gasification Company
$162,263.15
8/1/2011
I 285265
DMI Industries
r $2,567.02"
7/25/2011
517397
Grand Forks Air Force Base
$564.11
8/1/2011
1021
Email receipt to Linda.Fugelstad@grandforks.af.mil
Great River Energy
$289,522.49
9/12/2011
I 465325
Fee lowered $17.62 per discussion with Deb Nelson (cap & oil)
Hebron Brick Company
$1,717.57
8/30/2011
120133
rHessCorporation
$3^^7430
9/14/2011
1741698
Late; emailed Rory Nelson; check 1 week late(1 check for T5 & minor)
Hood Packaging Corporation
$1,162.59
7/25/2011
15212?
Idahoan Foods, LLC
$564.11
7/18/2011
41991"
J.R. Simplof
$1,964.68
7/22/2011
1149043
2009 late; 2010 paid the last dav\ 2011 paid 6 wks before deadline
Jahner Sanitation, Inc.
$564.11
7/29/2011
9834660
Paid with Big Dipper Ent.
LM Wind Power Blades ~
$5,903.90
9/19/2011
50184
Late; emailed Dana Paulson 9/12/11; check will be sent
I Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative
$13,861^61?
7/19/2011
100008625
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.
Minot Air Force Base
$221,707.44
7/28/2011
607828
$564,111
7/18/20Tr
10281
Montana Dakota Utilities Company 1
$57,066.16
8/8/201V
86591
underreported 266 tons S02, Unit 1 '
Mor Tech Fab, inc.
$564.11
8/24/2011
23275
Nordic Fiberglass, Inc.
$834.00
9/6/2 oTr
___|
Northern Border Pipeline Company
$8,418.99
7/29/201V
11498
INorthern Sun (Division of ADM) ~~i
$11,257.08
7/19/2011
874359
Paid by ADM
NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership L.P.
$1,754.01
60275739
OtterTail Power Company
$112,397.04!
9/2/2011
698640
|Petro-Hunt, LLC
$3,186.28
7/19/2011
4186236
Red Trail Energy, LLC
$5^975.061
8/2/2011
218681
Sanford Medical Center- Fargo 1
$1,336.93ฎ
8/2/2011
30457521
Now Healthcare Env. Services / Paid by Sanford Medical Center Farqo
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company
$26,374.86
8/8/2011
1824078
Tharaldson Ethanol Plant 1, LLC
$4,387.55
8/24/2011
8011
Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation ~l
$56411^
7/27/2011
3100998201
Check includes minor fee
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company
$1,799.91
8/12/2011
351-616735
Wil-Rich LLC
77l5/20lTf
150759
Total Title V:l
$1,490,079.78
-------
Title V Log / ND Div. of Air Quality 2010
Due: Sep 13
(as of 9/27/10)
Company
Fee ($)
Date Rec'd
Check #
Comments
ADM Corn Processing
6,544.82
7/29/2010
707689
ADM Processing
12,463.40
8/4/2010
712525
Alliance Pipeline
4,278.47
8/9/2010
4006611
American Crystal Sugar Comp.
40,224.37
7/22/2010
1206216
Check includes minor fee
Basin Electric Power Coop.
429,225.95
8/2/2010
392579/392580
A check for each plant
Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C.
8,680.66
7/20/2010
829465
Big Dipper Enterprises
557.97
7/28/2010
9006466
Paid with Jahner Sani. Inc.
Cargill Corn Milling
5,246.76
8/9/2010
105314787
Paid with Cargill Malt
Cargill Inc
2,658.18
7/29/2010
105307358
Cavalier AFS (late in 2008)
1,061.31
8/2/2010
111089
Paid by BAE Systems
CNH America
830.85
7/23/2010
XXX
Credit card
Continental Resources
1,500.60
7/28/2010
16869
Dakota Gasification Co.
115,898.57
8/10/2010
275380
DMI Industries
2,415.01
8/16/2010
511734
Grand Forks AFB
557.97
7/30/2010
1013
email rcpt to Linda.Fuglestad@grandforks.af.mil
Great River Energy
292,826.81
8/23/2010
443866
Health Care Env. Serv. Inc.
1,625.66
8/2/2010
37593
Hebron Brick Company
1,799.21
8/31/2010
111208
Hess Corporation
29,869.38
8/16/2010
1722231
Hood Packaging Corporation
1,299.26
8/4/2010
134486
Idahoan Foods, LLC
557.97
8/30/2010
34294
Jahner Sanitation, Inc.
909.86
7/28/2010
9006466
Paid with Big Dipper Ent.
J.R. Simplot
2,039.09
9/13/2010
1076066
2009 late;2010 pd the last day
Kaneb Pipe Line O.P., L.P.
1,888.06
8/13/2010
60239299
LM Wind Power Blades
5,914.31
7/30/2010
45650
Minn-Dak Farmers Coop.
12,651.95
8/26/2010
88977
Minkota Power Cooperative
217,757.04
8/12/2010
594394
Minot AFB
557.97
7/15/2010
XXX
Credit card
Montana Dakota Utilities Co.
61,663.22
8/12/2010
58130
3,564.40
9/27/2010
62149
underreported 266 tons S02, Unit 1
Mor Tech Fab, Inc.
557.97
9/14/2010
21915
2009 late;2010 rec'd 1 day late
Nordic Fiberglass, Inc.
746.76
9/7/2010
68252
Northern Border Pipeline Co.
3,787.37
8/10/2010
9244
Northern Sun, ADM
11,091.04
8/6/2010
714400
Paid by ADM
Otter Tail Power Company
110,555.01
9/3/2010
680854
Petro-Hunt, LLC
5,403.68
7/26/2010
4168315
Red Trail Energy, LLC
17,715.82
7/16/2010
16236
Tesoro Refining and Marketing
31,442.68
8/9/2010
1777378
Tharaldson Ethanol Plant 1, LLC
2,849.49
9/8/2010
5709
Whiting Oil & Gas Corporation
557.97
8/10/2010
3100873155
Check includes minor fee
Williston Basin Interstate PC
1,559.98
8/6/2010
VISA158/159
Wil-Rich LLC
557.97
7/23/2010
145715
Total Title V: 1,453,894.82
-------
BASIN ELECTRIC
POWER COOPERATIVE
1717 EAST INTERSTATE AVENUE
BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 58503-0564
PHONE: 701-223-0441
FAX: 701-557-5336
El
July 17, 2015
Mr. Terry O'Clair
ND Health Department
918 East Divide Avenue, 2nd Floor
Bismarck, ND 58501-1947
Dear Mr. O'Clair:
Enclosed is the 2014 annual air pollution Permit to Operation fees for the Leland Olds Station.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Erin Fox Dukart
Environmental Compliance Coordinator
Enclosures
cc: Casey Mutzenberger
K
Equal
Employment
A Touchstone Energyฎ Cooperative
-------
4k NORTH DAKOTA
B DEPARTMENT of HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION
Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58501-1947
701.328.5200 (fax)
www.ndhealth.gov
July 1, 2015
Ms Erin Fox Dukart
Environmental Analyst
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
1717 East Interstate Avenue
Bismarck ND 58503-0564
Re; Air Pollution Permit to Operate Fees
Dear Ms Erin Fox Dukart:
& "%fcCLIVtU JUL u.6 2015
5 ' /?ซ
4
J"i %
Chapter 33-15-23 of the North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules prd
annual air pollution Permit to Operate fees. Based on these rules, the
shown below.
ฎC0/.
a^that
thej
/our
3
:ment collect
source(s) is
Facility Name
PTO
Fee
Leland Olds Station
T5F73004
$107,766.88
Antelope Valley Station
T5F86003
$231,131.63
Pioneer Generating Station
T5F15001
$614.71
Lonesome Creek Generating Station
T5F15004
$614.71
Total Due:
$340,127.94
Please submit one copy of this letter with a check payable to the North Dakota Department of Health in
the amount shown above within 60 days of the date of this notice. Payments should be sent to this office
at the above address.
If you have any questions concerning fees, please contact Lew Dendy of my staff at (701)328-5188.
Sincerely,
C
CD
Terry L. O'Clair, P.E.
Director
Division of Air Quality
TLO/LHD:saj
Enc:
Environmental Health Division of Division of Division of Division of
Section Chiefs Office Air Quality Municipal Facilities Waste Management Water Quality
701.328.5150 701.328.5188 701.328.5211 701.328.5166 701.328.5210
Printed on recycled paper.
-------
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Company:
PTO#:
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
T5F73004
M1-NI16 - Rotoclones, Baghouses, Silos Tons
$
Unit 1 - Babcock and Wilcox Boiler Tons
$
Unit 2 - Babcock and Wilcox Boiler Tons
$
Subtotal:
Company: Basin Electric Power Cooperative
PTO #: T5F86003
M1-M15 - Dust Collectors, Day Tanks, Lime Tons
. _ . $
Unit 1 - Combustion Engineering Boiler Tons
$
Unit 2 - Combustion Engineering Boiler Tons
$
Subtotal:
AEIR Permit Fee Calculator
Criteria Fee per Ton = $14.76
HAPS Fee per Ton = $30.74
Minimum Title V Fee = $614.71
Year = 2015
Owner = Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Facility:
Leland Oids Station
PM-10
S02
NOx
voc
HAPs
32.3
0
0
0
0
$476.75
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
so.oo
62.5
412.1
1396.2
26.7
8.88
$922.50
$6,082.60
$20,607.91
$394.09
$272.97
164.7
1025
4000
118.3
21.6
$2,430.97
$15,129.00
$59,040.00
$1,746.11
$663.98
$3,830.22
$21,211.60
$79,647.91
$2,140.20
$936.96
Facility Total:
$107,766.88
Facility:
Antelope Valley Station
PM-10
S02
NOx
VOC
HAPs
27.6
0
o
0
0
$407.38
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
131.7
' 4000
3127.4
46.6
23.5
$1,943.89
$59,040.00
$46,160.42
$687.82
$722.39
171.4
4000
4000
51.7
25.92
$2,529.86
$59,040.00
$59,040.00
$763.09
$796.78
$4,881.13
$118,080.00
$105,200.42
$1,450.91
$1,519.17
Facility Total:
$231,131.63
Page 1 of 2
-------
215 South Cascade Street
PO Box 496
Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56538-0496
218 739-8200
www.otpco.com
August 17, 2015
OwTERTJUI
POWER COMPANY
Mr. Terry L. O'Clair, P.E.
Director, Division of Air Quality
North Dakota Department of Health
ฆEnvironmental Health Section
Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58501-1947
Dear Mr. O'Clair,
Subject: OTTER TAIL POWER COMPANY
COYOTE STATION
ANNUAL AIR POLLUTION PERMIT TO OPERATE FEES
PERMIT NO. T5-F84011
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $122,682.47 for the Coyote Station annual air pollution
permit to operate fee based on emissions from calendar year 2014.
If you need to contact me, I can be reached at 218.739.8349 or email me at
pviikonich@otpco.com.
Sincerely,
Paul Vukonich
Senior Compliance Specialist
Environmental Services
Enclosure
An Equal Opportunity Employer
AN ^OTTERTAIL COMPANY
-------
^?r 7/c/fs-
\
tk NORTH DAKOTA
B DEPARTMENT of HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION
Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58501-1947
701.328.5200 (fax)
www.ndhealth.gov
July 1, 2015
Mr Mark Thoma
Manager, Environmental Services
Otter Tail Power Company
P.O. Box 496
Fergus Falls MN 56538-0496
Re: Air Pollution Permit to Operate Fees
Dear Mr Mark Thoma:
Chapter 33-15-23 of the North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules provides that the Department collect
annual air pollution Permit to Operate fees. Based on these rules, the annual fee for your source(s) is
shown below.
Facility Name
Coyote Station
PTO
T5F84011
Total Due:
Fee
$122,682.47
$122,682.47
Please submit one copy of this letter with a check payable to the North Dakota Department of Health in
the amount shown above within 60 days of the date of this notice. Payments should be sent to this office
at the above address.
If you have any questions concerning fees, please contact Lew Dendy of my staff at (701 )328-5188.
Sincerely,
Terry L. O'Clair, P.E.
Director
Division of Air Quality
TLO/LHD:saj
Enc:
O
i
Environmental Health Division of Division of Division of Division of
Section Chief's Office Air Quality Municipal Facilities Waste Management Water Quality
701.328.5150 701.328.5188 701.328.5211 701.328.5166 701.328.5210
Printed on recycled paper.
-------
AEIR Permit Fee Calculator
Criteria Fee per Ton = $14.76
HAPS Fee per Ton = $30.74
Minimum Title V Fee = $614.71
Year = 2015
Owner = Otter Tail Power Company
Monday, March 21, 2016
Company: Otter Tail Power Company Facility: Jamestown Peaking Plant
PTO #: F76003
PM-10
S02
NOx
VOC
HAPs
6A - General Electric Turbine (37,550 bhp) w Tons
0.1
0.01
2.7
0
0
$
$1.48
$0.15
$39.85
$0.00
$0.00
6B - General Electric Turbine (37,550 bhp) w Tons
0.1
0.01
3.8
0
0
$
$1.48
$0.15
$56.09
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal:
$2.95
$0.30
$95.94
$0.00
$0.00
Facility Total:
$300.00
Company: Otter Tail Power Company Facility: Coyote Station
PTO#: T5F84011
PM-10
S02
NOx
VOC
HAPs
1 - Unit 1 Boiler
Tons
183.5
4000
4000
78.7
6.3
$
$2,708.46
$59,040.00
$59,040.00
$1,161.61
$193.66
2 - Auxiliary Boiler
Tons
0.2
0
2.2
0
0
$
$2.95
$0.00
$32.47
$0.00
$0.00
4 - Waukesha Diesel 1440 Hp Generator
Tons
0
0
0.2
0
0
$
$0.00
$0.00
$2.95
$0.00
$0.00
5 - Cummins Diesel 225 Hp Fire Pump
Tons
0
0
0.1
0
0
$
$0.00
$0.00
$1.48
$0.00
$0.00
M2M8 - Miscellaneous
Tons
33.8
0
0
0
0
$
$498.89
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal:
$3,210.30
$59,040.00
$59,076.90
$1,161.61
$193.66
Facility Total:
$122,682.47
Number of Records 2
Page 1 of 1
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (301)
PAYROLL TIME DISTRIBUTION
EMPLOYEE NAME :
EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE:
ฆ PAYROLL MONTH:
DIVISION OF:
Air Quality
DAYS OF THE MONTH
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Title V-Clean Air
6
7
7
7
6
6
7
3
6
7
8
7
3
7
7
8
4
/' '* '
itlllfl
7
7
8
7
135
148.5
5511 1250 01
Radiation Health
0
5511 1251 01
Oil and Gas / Minor
"""
0
5511 1254 01
FDA MSQA
0
5511 H351 01
PM2.5 Air Monitoring
'V
~
0
5511 H053 01
EPA Block
1
2
2
2
1.5
1.5
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
35
38.5
5511 H099 51
Training - Emergency
Response**
0
6611 H327 99
Pre-approved oil field
overtime > 44 hrs*
J
"
*
0
5511 101
Paid Leave/Holidav Hours
4
2
1.5
1.5
8
Total Daily hours
4
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
4
9
9
9
9
4
9
9
9
5
8
9
For Payroll Use only:
Total Hours
187
187
Total Emergency
Response
SFN 02028H (Effective February 1, 2016)
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
SEP I I 1995
Dear t^^MCTQntT
Dana Mount, Director
Department of Health
Environmental Engineering Division
1200 Missouri Avenue, Room 304
Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-5520
Ref: 8ART-AP
Enclosed is the signed original Implementation Agreement
(IA) between the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) and the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region VIII, for the
Title V Operating Permits Program. An original IA is also being
retained in Region VIII.
Many thanks to you and your staff for a job well done. If
you have any questions or comments, please contact me or have a
member of your staff contact Pat Reisbeck of the Air Programs
staff at (303) 293-1761.
Sincerely
Air, Radiation and Toxics Division
Enclosure
cc: Tom Bachman, NDDH
Q
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
AIR QUALITY OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
I. GENERAL
A. This implementation agreement (IA) defines policies,
responsibilities, and procedures, pursuant to Part 70 of
Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Part
70), by which the operating permits program will be
administrated by both the North Dakota Department of Health
(Department) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .
Such agreement will be maintained consistent with the Clean
Air Act (Act) and other .existing regulations, notably the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and corresponding regulations
promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). The
provisions of this IA include strategies and priorities for
all aspects of operating permit issuance, compliance
monitoring, and enforcement.
B. This agreement is entered into by the Director of the Division
of Environmental Engineering of the North Dakota Department of
Health (hereinafter "Department") and the Chief of the Air
Programs Branch, EPA Region VIII (hereinafter "EPA"). The
geographic area covered by this IA is the entire State of
North Dakota over which the Department, as the permitting
authority, has received Part 70 program approval.
C. Nothing in this IA shall be constructed to restrict in any way
EPA's authority to fulfill its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities under the Act.
D. This IA shall become effective upon signature by both parties.
This IA may be modified only after mutual consent of both
parties for any purpose. Any revisions or modifications to
this IA must be in writing and must be signed by the
Department and EPA.
E. This IA will be reviewed and revised when new. applicable
requirements are to be implemented by the Department (e.g.,
Compliance Assurance Monitoring Program, new Section 112
requirements, revised Part 70 regulations, etc.).
typy
-------
II. POLICY STATEMENT
A. Each party is responsible for ensuring that its obligations
under Part 70 and Title V of the Act are met. Each party
agrees to maintain a high level of communication, cooperation,
and coordination between their respective staffs to assure
successful and effective administration of the operating
/permits program.
III. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
A. ' Both the Department and EPA will maintain and share a list of
contact persons involved with implementation of the permits
program.
B. The Department and EPA agree to participate in conference
calls, as needed, to discuss program implementation and
specific issues which need resolution. Either party may
request conference calls/meetings to review operating
procedures, resolve problems, or discuss concerns regarding
program implementation.
C. The Department and EPA each agree to notify the other as early
as possible of any significant problems either party
anticipates with any permit or permit application such as
anticipated public controversy, complex equivalency or trading
provisions, etc.
D. ' The Department agrees to do the following:
1. Maintain and update required data elements in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Facility
Subsystem (AFS) for all Title V.sources.
2. Maintain an adequate public file, accessible for EPA
audit, for each permittee. The file must include the
permit application, the issued permit, a record of the
public notice procedures the permit has undergone, a
record of the commenters and the issues raised during
the public participation process, monitoring reports,
inspection reports, compliance certifications,
enforcement actions, revisions to permits and
applications for revisions, and other pertinent
information.
2
-------
3. Notify EPA if the schedule for issuing permits during
the first 3 years of the program is expected to be
delayed and what steps will be taken to minimize such a
delay.
4. The Department will maintain, and provide to EPA, if
requested, an accounting system demonstrating how
/ revenue from required permit fees was collected and
spent by the Department and demonstrating that the fee
structure is adequate. Or, if the fee structure is not
adequate, the Department will submit to the EPA a
package to modify the permit fee system, as appropriate,
to ensure that it covers all reasonable direct and
indirect costs of administering the program as the costs
change over time.
5. Maintain adequate resources (fee revenue equal to or
exceeding Title V costs) for effective implementation
and enforcement of the Title V program.
6. Maintain an enforcement program consistent with the
current EPA/State Enforcement Agreement.
7. Ensure.that the permit information system is .compatible
with the national operating permit system.
8. Maintain the compliance subset of AFS in AIRS.
9. Provide EPA with copies of any new or updated permit
application forms, model permit forms, or reporting
forms within 3 0 days prior to mailing to sources.
/
10. Adopt applicable new regulations and standards (e.g.
NESHAPs, NSPS, Sections 112(e), 112(g), and 111(d) in
accordance with required timeframes.
E. The EPA agrees to do the following:
1. Provide technical support and assistance and training
opportunities as available for interpretation of
national regulations, development of technology-based
requirements, automated transmission of permit data to
EPA in an AIRS-AFS compatible format, general technical
assistance in determining appropriate permit conditions
and processing permits, and other areas as requested by
the Department.
3
-------
2. Communicate to the Department when additional legal,
technical and financial resources may be necessary to
implement new section 112 requirements as they become
applicable.
3. Work with the Department in making case-by-case MACT
determinations under sections 112(g) or (j), including
i providing to the Department the use of centralized EPA
data bases and exploring with the Department the
possible use of general permits to establish a
presumptive MACT for certain qualifying source
categories.
4. Assist the Department by making available model permits
and model general permits developed by EPA and other
states.
5. Cooperate with the Department by allowing appropriate
flexibility when determining the most effective and
expeditious means of implementing EPA policies and
guidance.
6. Review and incorporate into the approved program after
notice in the Federal Register and opportunity for
comment, where appropriate, any approvable changes the
Department makes and submits as program modifications.
Provide timely input where the Department provides such
an opportunity.
7. Specify to the Department the minimum federal data
elements that are necessary for EPA to execute its
program oversight and monitoring requirements.
8. Maintain a list, and consult with the Department in its
development, of minor source categories or types of
permit applications for which EPA waives the right to
review under section 70.8(a)(2).
9. Maintain a list, and consult with the Department in its
development, of source categories for which a summary
checklist may be submitted to EPA in lieu of a permit
application.
10. Provide comments or objections to proposed permits in an
expeditious manner, but no later than 45 days from
receipt of the proposed permit with all necessary
supporting information.
4
-------
a. Include with any objection a statement of the
reasons for the objection and the actions that
should be taken by the Department to resolve the
basis for the objection.
b, Send a copy of its written comments- to the permit
applicant.
c. Issue or deny the permit if the Department fails to
submit a revised permit for review within 90 days
after receipt of an objection.
11. Provide assistance on permit provisions necessary to
eliminate SIP "gaps" or ambiguities.
12. Review the permits program by examining the files and
documents of the Department for selected facilities to
determine whether permits are processed, issued,
reopened, revised, renewed, and enforced in a manner
consistent with Federal requirements. Program reviews
will be conducted on an as needed basis.
13. Whenever EPA determines that the Department is not
adequately administering or enforcing the program, EPA
will notify the Department in writing as soon as
possible of the determination and the reasons for it.
EPA will then work with the Department to determine the
process and timeframe for correcting the program
deficiencies in an expeditious manner.
F. The Department and EPA agree to discuss appropriate pollution
prevention activities which can be implemented through the
permits program and encourage sources to adopt such pollution
prevention measures, if applicable.
IV. REPORTING AND TRANSMITTAL OF INFORMATION
A. The Department agrees to submit to EPA the following
information, including computer-readable files to the extent
practicable:
Pescription
Frequency
Basic tracking information
based on the permit application.
Prior to the public
comment period.
5
-------
Copies of all permit applications
and proposed permits except those
for which EPA has waived review.
Prior, to start of
EPA 45-day review
Period.
Copies of all permit applications
and public notices for which EPA
has waived review.
Upon request.
Copies of summary forms of permit
applications.
Copies of all final permits and
all settlements and decisions
in permit appeals.
Copy of public comments on a
permit.
Copies of all compliance in-
spection reports, report
forms, data, and transmittal
letters to major permittees
or a summary thereof if
agreed to by EPA.
Source-specific information in
AIRS-AFS regarding enforcement
of the program, including in-
spections, monitoring reports,
compliance certifications, vio-
lations, and the resolution of
violations.
As developed.
As issued.
With proposed
permit.
Within 60 days of
inspection or
consistent with
Enforcement Agree-
ment .
Quarterly or con-
sistent with En-
forcement Agree-
ment .
B.
As specified by EPA.
Any other data elements in AIRS-
AFS that EPA specifies is necessary
to execute its oversight and moni-
toring requirements.
The EPA agrees to submit the following to the Department:
Description
A list of compliance inspections
EPA intends to conduct jointly
with the Department as part of
its Overview Plan.
Frequency
Annually or con-
sistent with En-
forcement Agree-
ment .
6
-------
Proposed revisions to the schedule
Of compliance inspections.
As needed.
Copies of all EPA compliance in-
spection reports and data.
Copies of all transmittal letters
under sections 113 or 114 by EPA.
EPA will review a percentage of
proposed permits using a priority
scheme which reflects new types
of sources being permitted and con-
troversial permits. For those permits
reviewed, EPA will respond to the
Department within the required
frequency only if changes or adverse
comments are necessary.
EPA will inform the Department of
citizens petitions which have been
filed with EPA within the 60-day
appeal period.
Within 60 days of
inspection or con-
sistent with En-
forcement Agreement.
Concurrent with
mailing letter or
consistent with
Enforcement Agreement.
Within 45 days or
consistent with En-
forcement Agreement.
Within 5 working
days of Region 8
receiving notifica-
tion of the petition.
C. The Department and EPA agree to the following procedures with
respect to confidentiality of information:
1. Any information obtained or used in the administration
of the program shall be available to the Department or
EPA ' upon request without restriction. If the
information has been submitted to the Department under
a claim of confidentiality, the Department must submit
the claim to EPA when providing the information.
2. If any information is submitted to the Department under
a claim of confidentiality and the Department's statutes
prohibits submitting that information to EPA, the
Department will require the information to be submitted
by the source directly to EPA.
-------
3. Any information obtained from the Department or from a
source and subject to a claim of confidentiality will be
treated by EPA in accordance with the regulations in 40
CFR Part 2.
V. SIGNATURES
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
By:
Date:
Dana K. Mount, P.E.
Director, Div. of Env. Engineering
Environmental Health Section
North Dakota Department of Health
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION VIII
By: Date: 7* ^ ^
(6ougla^ M, /^kle. Chief
Air~Programs Branch
Air, Radiation & Toxics Division
8
------- |