Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0522
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-08-12T04:00Z

----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 10:30 AM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov>                                                                                             
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                                                                                             
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>, "Higgins, Cortney" 
<Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Johnson, Nancy"                  |
  |<Nancy.Johnson@hq.doe.gov>, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter 
Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                           |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/05/2010 09:33 AM                                                                                                                       
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RE: FW: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group                                                                                        
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

“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.”

These appear to be non-emergency engines.  And I'm sure if we looked through 
more comments we would find more.

I'm making a simple point here - I and EPA don’t have the time/resources to 
catalogue all the cats and dogs out there that perform differently - I accept 
the fact that they exist - and would prefer that we do the appropriate thing - 
and carve out a rule for "limited use" engines below a certain number of hours 
to treat like emergency engines.  EPA, in its proposal, didn't propose any 
relief for limited engines, so it's not surprising that the record is of 
limited help here in refining the appropriate answer.

Let us not forget that in 2005, limited use major source emergency engines of 
ANY size had NO requirements whatsoever, so I would think that treating these 
engines like emergency engines is a very cautious and protective approach. We 
are talking about a very limited number of hours, perhaps 30-50 hours, for 
example, and only operating periodically over the years.

EPA is reconsidering what it calls "emergency" demand-side engines anyway 
[that label appears odd to me]- so I don't know why EPA shouldn't start 
building a record around a more robust solution for this issue, and then take 
comment in the future.

At a minimum, EPA should write in the preamble its latest thoughts on limited 
use engines, and what possibly should be done to collect more information 
about them, and do this in concert with the "emergency"
demand side engines.

-----Original Message-----
From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:20 AM
To: Bromberg, Kevin L.
Cc: Kymn, Christine J.; Higgins, Cortney; Johnson, Nancy; 
Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; Tsirigotis.Peter@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: Re: FW: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group

Hi Kevin,
Thanks for passing this information along.  One of the examples that Jim cited 
is a fire pump engine, which would be an emergency engine, and therefore 
wouldn't have emission limits.  Do you have any more information/data 
regarding the typical size of these limited use engines, and the number of 
hours per year that they are normally operated?  The issue with black start 
engines is that they only operate for ~10 minutes to start up the turbine - do 
you have any information/data to show that these other limited use engines are 
operated in a similar fashion?

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:  (919) 541-2469
Fax:       (919) 541-5450
king.melanie@epa.gov

|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>

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

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

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

|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>

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

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

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

|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>

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

  |08/04/2010 02:31 PM
|

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

|------------>
| 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.

 [attachment "0242-2 API RICE NESHAP Comments_060309.pdf" deleted by Melanie 
King/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "0155-1 INGAA RICE NESHAP Comments_060309.pdf" 
deleted by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US]