From: "Broome, Shannon S." <shannon.broome@kattenlaw.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/29/2012 06:27 PM

Subject: RE: Flexibility in using Methods 1 and 2

Rochelle,

Thanks for meeting with us by phone. Here's the language that we were discussing.

40 C.F.R. § 63.1510(d)(2):

(2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system at least once each calendar

year to ensure that each system is operating in accordance with the operating

requirements in §63.1506(c) and record the results of each inspection. This inspection

shall include a volumetric flow rate measurement taken at a location in the ductwork

downstream of the hoods that is representative of the actual volumetric flow rate

without interference due to leaks, ambient air added for cooling, or ducts from other

hoods. The flow rate measurement must be performed in accordance with paragraphs

(d)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section. As an alternative to the flow rate measurement

specified in this paragraph, the inspection may satisfy the requirements of this

paragraph, including the operating requirements in §63.1506(c), by including

permanent total enclosure verification in accordance with (d)(2)(i) or (iv) of this

section.

(i) Conduct annual flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1 and 2 in

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, or conduct annual verification of a permanent

total enclosure using EPA Method 204, or

(ii) As an alternative to annual flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1

and 2, measurement with EPA Methods 1 and 2 can be performed once every

five years, provided that:

(A) A flow rate indicator consisting of a pitot tube and differential

pressure gauge (Magnehelic®, manometer, or other differential

pressure gauge)) is installed with the pitot tube tip located at a

representative point of the duct proximate to the location of the Method
1 and 2 measurement site; and

(B) The flow rate indicator is installed and operated in accordance with

the manufacturer’s specifications; and

(C) The differential pressure is recorded during the Method 2

performance test series; and

(D) Differential pressure readings are recorded daily, and maintained at

or above 90 percent of the pressure differential indicated by the flow

rate indicator during the most recent Method 2 performance test series;

and

(E), An inspection of the pitot tube and associated lines for damage,

plugging, and leakage and operational integrity is conducted at least

once per year; or.

(iii) As an alternative to annual flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1

and 2, measurement with EPA Methods 1 and 2 can be performed once every

five years, provided that:

(A) Daily measurements of the capture and collection system’s fan

revolutions per minute (RPM) are made by taking three measurements

with at least five minutes between each measurement, and averaging

the three measurements; and

(B) Readings are recorded daily and maintained at or above 90 percent

of the RPM measured during the most recent Method 2 performance

test series.

(iv) As an alternative to the annual verification of a permanent total enclosure

using EPA Method 204, verification can be performed once every five years,

provided that:

(A) Negative pressure in the enclosure is directly monitored by a

pressure indicator installed at a representative location;

(B) Pressure readings are recorded daily or the system is interlocked to

halt material feed should the system not operate under negative

pressure;

(C) When there are readings outside the range specified in the OM&M

plan, the facility investigates and takes steps to restore normal

operation, which may include initial inspection and evaluation,

recording that operations returned to normal without operator action, or

other applicable actions; [Note -- this language is modeled on 40 CFR

64.7(d).]

(D) An inspection of the pressure indicator for damage and operational

integrity is conducted at least once per calendar year.

You asked us to review whether Method 204 would be applicable to the system in question.

 Our consultant indicates the following:

The system in question, a thermal chip dryer (“TCD”), is a permanent piece of operating

equipment in which water and oils are driven off of aluminum chips (chips) so the chips can

be safely fed into the melting furnaces as clean charge for re-use. This equipment consists of

a rotary drum dryer with stationary hoods enclosing either end of the drum. The chips are fed

into one end of the drum and are discharged from the other end of the drum. Air is drawn
countercurrent to the chip flow through the chip discharge chute.

The capture and collection system meets the criteria for a permanent total enclosure found in

Section 6 of Method 204. Section 6 establishes the criteria of a permanent total enclosure by

reference to Sections 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5

5.1 Any NDO shall be at least four equivalent opening diameters from each VOC

emitting point unless otherwise specified by the Administrator.

...

5.3 The total area of all NDOs shall not exceed 5 percent of the surface area of the

enclosure's four walls, floor, and ceiling.

5.4 The average facial velocity (FV) of air through all NDOs shall be at least 3,600

m/hr (200 fpm). The direction of air flow through all NDOs shall be into the

enclosure.

5.5 All access doors and windows whose areas are not included in section 5.3 and are

not included in the calculation in section 5.4 shall be closed during routine operation

of the process.

EPA, Method 204 – Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total

 Enclosure. In addition, Section 6.2 requires that “[a]ll VOC emissions must be captured and

contained for discharge through a control device.”

The TCD meets the criteria for classification as a permanent total enclosure under Method 204

as described below:

Section 5.1

All natural draft openings (NDOs) are at least four equivalent diameters from the VOC

emitting point. In the drying process the chips are heated by the gases leaving the

rotary drum (drum) so that the water is driven off first. Then, the oils start to vaporize

and combust above the bed of chips in the drum. This volatilization of the water and

oils takes place approximately 10 to 20 feet into the 45 foot long drum. The nearest

NDO is the chip feed point, which is 10 inches tall by 36 inches wide, with an

equivalent diameter of 19.8 inches. Using the minimum distance of 10 feet, this

places this NDO at least six diameters from the nearest evolution point of VOCs in the

drum.

Section 5.3

The total percentage of NDOs is 0.33 %, which is within the PTE criteria of below 5%.

 The total surface area of the drum and stationary hoods is calculated to be 1,295
square feet. The total openings of the NDOs are calculated to be 4.33 square feet.

Section 5.4

According to Method 204 Section 8.3, The criteria of 200 FPM equates to a pressure

inside the permanent total enclosure of 0.007 inches water column negative pressure.

 The TCD system exhaust is controlled by a pressure transducer, with a normal set

point range between 0.04 and 0.12 inches water column negative to ensure the

direction of air flow through the NDOs is into the enclosure.

Section 5.5

The TCD system is kept closed at all times while in operation for personnel safety.

 Entry through bolted access hatches can only be made with the system locked out,

cooled down and atmosphere tested per the plant confined space entry procedures.

Section 6.2

The permanent total enclosure is operated under a negative pressure at all times and all

emissions are routed to a thermal oxidizer.

I also want to mention again what is in our comments on proposed 40 C.F.R. §

63.1506(c)(1) to “meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates as published” in

the 23rd or 27th edition of the ACGIH Manual. Our comments expressed two concerns

regarding this section that we discussed on the call. First, the ACGIH manual does not

provide minimum exhaust rates applicable to our member’s totally enclosed collection

system. We suggest removing “minimum exhaust rates” from § 63.1506(c)(1). Second, the

23rd and 27th editions of the ACGIH manual each contain several hundred pages of guidelines

for a wide variety of collection systems. EPA recognized the concern raised in the comments

and agreed to consider whether it would be appropriate to state its intent in the response to

comments that covered sources must only comply with the Manual where it is applicable to

their system. The Forum was particularly concerned with the IBR in § 63.1502 and staff

indicated that this was not intended to actually incorporate the documents by reference as

requirements but to include them for reference. You agreed to consider statements that would

clarify its intent.

Finally, as noted in our comments, proposed 40 C.F.R. § 63.1506(a)(5) proposes to

incorporate the general operating provisions of Part 63. Sources subject to Subpart RRR

already must comply with more stringent operating requirements through the development,

submittal, and approval of an OM&M plan. In developing the original Subpart RRR

standards in 2000 and the revision in the litigation following the issuance of the standards,

EPA did not include the general duty because the OM&M plan was intended to satisfy that

requirement. As explained in the comments, the general duty should apply for SSM but not

day to day operation, which is covered by the OM&M plan. The approval of the OM&M

plan and following it should satisfy the general duty as discussed when the original rule was

issued and revised.

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions regarding the comments we

submitted.
Best regards,

SHANNON S. BROOME 

Partner

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

San Francisco Bay Area Office: p / (415) 360-5455 f / (415) 704-3151 c / (510) 816-1710

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 / Oakland, CA 94612-3572

Washington, DC Office: p / (202) 625-3715 f / (202) 295-1125

2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118

shannon.broome@kattenlaw.com / www.kattenlaw.com

CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any

tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose

of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of

the intended recipient.  Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is

strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently

delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

From: Rochelle Boyd [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:16 PM

To: Broome, Shannon S.

Subject: Re: Flexibility in using Methods 1 and 2 

Hi Shannon, I wanted to get back with you. I have set up a conference line for next Wednesday,

 September 26th at 10:30 am EST to 12:00 pm to discuss your comments regarding Methods 1 and 2.

The call-in number is 919-541-4332. I plan to have my project team call in as well. Since my initial email request, we have drafted some additional language to allow for another alternative. Since this is

 preliminary language, it is also subject to change in the final rule. Thanks

(2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system at

 least once each calendar year to ensure that each system is

 operating in accordance with the operating requirements in

 §63.1506(c) and record the results of each inspection. This

 inspection shall include a volumetric flow rate measurement

 taken at a location in the ductwork downstream of the hoods

 that is representative of the actual volumetric flow rate

 without interference due to leaks, ambient air added for

 cooling, or ducts from other hoods. The flow rate measurement

 must be performed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2)(i),

 (ii), or (iii) of this section.

(i) Conduct annual flow rate measurements using EPA Methods 1

 and 2 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, or

(ii) As an alternative to annual flow rate measurements using

 EPA Methods 1 and 2, measurement with EPA Methods 1 and 2 can

 be performed once every five years, provided that:

(A) A flow rate indicator consisting of a pitot tube and

 differential pressure gauge (Magnehelic®, manometer, or other

 differential pressure gauge)) is installed with the pitot tube

 tip located at a representative point of the duct proximate to

 the location of the Method 1 and 2 measurement site; and

(B) The flow rate indicator is installed and operated in

 accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications; and

(C) The differential pressure is recorded during the Method 2

 performance test series; and

(D) Differential pressure readings are recorded daily, and
 maintained at or above 90 percent of the pressure differential

 indicated by the flow rate indicator during the most recent

 Method 2 performance test series; and 

(E), An inspection of the pitot tube and associated lines for

 damage, plugging, and leakage and operational integrity is

 conducted at least once per year; or. 

(iii) As an alternative to annual flow rate measurements using

 EPA Methods 1 and 2, measurement with EPA Methods 1 and 2 can

 be performed once every five years, provided that: 

(A) Daily measurements of the capture and collection

 system’s fan revolutions per minute (RPM) are made by taking

 three measurements with at least five minutes between each

 measurement, and averaging the three measurements; and 

(B) Readings are recorded daily and maintained at or above 90

 percent of the RPM measured during the most recent Method 2

 performance test series.

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

From: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: shannon.broome@kattenlaw.com

Date: 09/05/2012 09:13 AM

Subject: Re: Flexibility in using Methods 1 and 2

I have to make a correction to the draft language I sent to you on yesterday. Daily is the minimal

 frequency we can allow for a parametric monitor. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

From: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: shannon.broome@kattenlaw.com

Date: 09/04/2012 05:10 PM

Subject: Flexibility in using Methods 1 and 2
Hi Shannon, I am following up on your comment in regards to allowing industry some flexibility in

 complying with the annual testing requirements for Methods 1 and 2. As clarified in the interpretation

 letter dated 8/18/2006 by Michael Alushin of EPA, these methods are to be done annually and have been

 required prior to our proposal in February. We have tried to address the issue of flexibility by allowing an

 alternative. We would like to receive any comments on this draft language by C.O.B. Thursday, Sept.

 6th, if possible. This is not a mandatory request but I wanted to provide you the opportunity to review

 this draft. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

(ii) As an alternative to annual flow rate measurements

 using EPA Methods 1 and 2, measurement with EPA Methods

 1 and 2 can be performed once every five years,

 provided that,

(A) a flow rate indicator consisting of an S-type Pitot

 tube and differential pressure gauge (Magnehelic,

 manometer, or differential pressure gauge) is installed

 with the Pitot tip located at a representative point of

 the duct proximate to the location of the Method 1 and

 2 measurement site,

(B) the flow rate indicator is installed and operated in

 accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications,

(C) the differential pressure is recorded during the

 Method 2 performance test series,

(D) differential pressure readings are recorded daily, and maintained at or above 90% of the pressure

 differential indicated by the flow rate indicator

 during the most recent Method 2 performance test

 series, and 
(E) an inspection of the Pitot tube and associated lines

 for damage, plugging, and leakage is performed at least

 once per year.