----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 10:30 AM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Johnson, Nancy" <Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|"'Bromberg, Kevin L.'" <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov>, Melanie

King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Kymn, Christine J."

<Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|08/04/2010 03:57 PM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|RE: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

I would agree that some practical form of relief should be provided for these

engines.

Nancy

From: Bromberg, Kevin L. [mailto:kevin.bromberg@sba.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:30 PM

To: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Higgins, Cortney; Kymn, Christine J.; Johnson, Nancy

Subject: FW: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group

These are the comments on limited use engines (see below). To respond to

EPA’s question about how limited use engines operate, this is all that we

know: API Comments 5.4.4, 6.2 and 6.18; INGAA Comment #7.

I can’t justify requiring performance tests for these engines when it is not

required for black start engines.

As stated below, some of these other engines “as a fire pumps or other

existing units located at a facility that may operate very little depending

upon demand” which are seldom if ever operated, appear to be

equally deserving of coverage as black start engines. And “some

transmission lines include small stations that run very infrequently – i.e.,

only operate when there is significant gas demand (or for routine engine

checks) and may not run at all or only a few hours in some years.” Again, the

emissions that result from testing could exceed the operating emissions for

these engines.

Kevin
From: Jim McCarthy [mailto:jamesmccarthy@comcast.net]

Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:26 PM

To: Bromberg, Kevin L.

Cc: 'Lisa Beal'; 'Jeffrey Panek'; toddm@api.org

Subject: RE: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group

Kevin,

This email follows-up on my brief response earlier this morning, and

references to API and INGAA comments on “limited use” follow. Comments were

submitted recommending Management / Work Practices rather than emission

standards and these engines DO exist.

API June 2009 comments (detailed comments are docket document no.

0242.2) include several references to “limited use” and “intermittent use”

engines, including comments 5.4.4, 6.2 and 6.18. If you search for “limited

use” in the attached file, you will find those comments, which note that EPA

should retain the limited use subcategory from the original NESHAP, and

recommend exemptions or work practices rather than emissions limits due to the

low operating time for these types of installations. The comments also note

that EPA has not adequately considered costs, control technology and emission

standard viability, etc for engines that run intermittently.

INGAA June 2009 comments (docket document no. 0155.1) only briefly discuss

“limited use” engines. Comment 7 discusses the need for additional

subcategories (see pdf page 38 of 94 in the attached INGAA

Comments) and includes the following regarding new a subcategory for limited

use engines:

“Other examples include existing engines with very little run time,

such as a fire pumps or other existing units located at a facility

that may operate very little depending upon demand. Depending on the

engine size, an emission standard will likely apply, – thus requiring

installation of controls on units that seldom if ever operate. Or, if

management practices apply, a frequency based on calendar hours would

require maintenance for an engine that has not operated (discussed

further in Comment 23). Thus, a subcategory may be warranted for

engines with limited use.”

The limited used category was in the original NESHAP and EPA appears to be

backing away from that subcategory. In addition to the comments, I believe

the issue has been raised in discussions with EPA, but it has been a lower

priority item as MACT floor, above the floor, urban versus rural, etc have

been higher priority during the limited time available in

meetings/discussions. The scenario discussed in the email this morning

discusses one example... some transmission lines include small stations that

run very infrequently – i.e., only operate when there is significant gas

demand (or for routine engine checks) and may not run at all or only a few

hours in some years. Those stations are important on high demand days, but

would require emission tests, potentially add-on controls, etc if emission

limits are included in the rule rather than work practices.

Thanks.