From: EBERSOLE Gerald Subject: FW: SSSSSS applicability questions from Uroboros Date: April 15, 2016 at 8:48:23 AM PDT To: "eric@uroboros" Cc: FELDON Leah , MONRO David , PALERMO Jaclyn , DECONCINI Nina , HAMMOND Joni Hi Eric, I  approve  an  extension  of  /me  for  Uroboros  to  provide  the   informa/on  requested  in  DEQ’s  April  13,  2016  leCer.   The  original  deadline  was  April  18,  2016.  The  new  deadline  is  May  2,   2016.   Someone at DEQ will get back to you on your other questions as soon as possible. Let  me  know  if  you  have  any  ques/ons. Jerry  Ebersole Ac/ng  NWR  AQ  Manager (503) 229-5160 Ebersole.Gerald@deq.state.or.us From: Eric Lovell [eric@uroboros.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:19 PM To: EBERSOLE Gerald Subject: SSSSSS applicability questions from Uroboros Gerald  Ebersole Interim  Air  Quality  Manager,  Northwest  Region,  Oregon  DEQ Sent  by  email  April  14,  2016   Jerry, In  reviewing  NESHAP  6S  qualifica/ons,  as  revised  by  the  recent  EPA   and  DEQ  leCers,  I  must  request  a  couple  of  further  clarifica/ons.   A. No%fica%on  and  applica%on  %meline.   EPA’s  original  intent  in  SSSSSS  was  to  allow  120  days  aYer  a  source  or   furnace  became  subject  to  SSSSSS  rules  to  submit  an  Ini/al   No/fica/on,  as  follows: 1. According  to  NESHAP  SSSSSS  page  73205  sec/on  63.11456   No/fica/ons  and  Records,  para  (1):  “  …if  you  start  up  your  affected   source  before  December  26,  2007,  you  must  submit  an  Ini;al   No;fica;on…within  120  days  aBer  your  affected  source  becomes   subject  to  the  standard.”    And, 2. Page  73183,  Summary  of  Changes  Since  Proposal,  No/fica/ons:   “We  have  revised  63.11456  to  simplify  the  sec;on  and  clarify  that  the   deadline  for  submiLng  the  Ini;al  No;fica;on  is  120  aBer  the  furnace   becomes  subject  to  the  rule,  regardless  of  whether  the  furnace  is   exis;ng  or  new.” EPA’s  current  posi/on  reversed  the  SSSSSS  authors’  original  posi/on  in   2007  that  exempted  periodic  furnaces  as  used  in  the  manufacture  of   stained  glass.  This  original  interpreta/on  was  in  place  unchallenged  for   nine  years  for  six  regulatory  agencies:  EPA,  and  Oregon,  Puget  Sound,   Pennsylvania,  Indiana  and  West  Virginia.  See  SSSSSS  page  73186  B.1.   Comments  and  Responses:     “Response:  ABer  reviewing  the  emissions  inventory  in  support  of  the   lis;ng  decisions  made  pursuant  to  sec;ons  112(c)(3)  and  112  (k)  and   available  informa;on,  we  have  concluded  that  the  glass   manufacturing  area  source  category  was  listed  based  on  emissions   from  rela;vely  large  manufacturing  plants  that  operated  con;nuous   glass  furnaces.  Periodic  furnaces  were  not  included  in  the  inventory.”,   and   “Therefore,  we  have  revised  63.11448  to  specify  that  periodic  or  pot   furnaces  are  not  subject  to  the  final  Glass  Manufacturing  NESHAP.  We   believe  this  revision  will  address  most  of  the  concerns  of  the  stained   glass  manufacturing  sector…”   If  indeed  the  NESHAP  authors  originally  intended  back  in  2007  to  use   the  80+  year  old  standard  glass  industry  term  ‘con/nuous  furnace’  (for   furnaces  that  melt  and  process  glass  in  a  con/nuous  flow)  to  define   use  for  pot  furnaces  or  day  tanks  that  are  idled  in  the  hot  state   between  uses,  it  was  certainly  an  unfortunate  choice  of  terminology,   and  not  backed  up  by  terminology  throughout  the  SSSSSS  rule.       In  addi/on  to  the  above  specific  references,  NESHAP  rules  and  even   the  Ini/al  No/fica/on  Example  provided  with  SSSSSS  rules  are   sprinkled  with  terminology  unique  to  construc/on  and  use  of  actual   con/nuous  furnaces,  with  terms  like  ‘Glass  pull  rate’  and  ‘tons/day’  or   ‘tons/hour’,  which  only  can  apply  to  con/nuous  flow  furnaces.  Each  of   the  author’s  use  of  such  terms  further  support  their  inten/on  at  that   /me  that  con/nuous  furnaces  were  what  the  glass  industry  has  always   called  them    –  con/nuous  flow  furnaces.     Even  the  EPA  leCer  to  DEQ  dated  April  12ij,  2016  refers  to  ‘some   confusion’  that  this  has  caused,  although  it  is  debatable  whether  the   confusion  was  within  the  glass  industry  or  revisionist  history  by   current  holders  of  the  regulator’s  offices.   Again,  Uroboros  Glass  does  not  dispute  the  need  to  revise  or  change   SSSSSS  qualifica/ons  in  some  meaningful  way  now.  Our  concern  is   over  the  /ming  of  the  effec/ve  date  for  those  revisions.  Lacking  any   guidance  from  DEQ  in  this  situa/on,  I  am  inclined  to  interpret  our   furnaces  as  pre-­‐2007  built,  newly  subject  furnaces,  for  which  SSSSSS   provides  a  120  day  period  for  “Ini/al  No/fica/on.  If  you  choose  to   dispute  this  interpreta/on,  please  make  that  clear  by  reply  to  this   leCer.  This  is  my  third  request  on  this  point.   Further,  NESHAP  SSSSSS  63.11450  Compliance  Dates,  (c)  and  (d),  page   73201,  clearly  provide  for  a  two  year  period  for  achieving  compliance   with  emission  limits.  I  won’t  wear  you  out  with  a  discussion  of  this   point,  but  it’s  preCy  clear  in  the  SSSSSS  rules.  This  differs  significantly   from  the  current  DEQ/Uroboros  agreement  for  cadmium  and  chrome   use.  Once  you  have  gathered  the  necessary  informa/on  from  us  in  the   next  few  days,  we  would  appreciate  some  guidance  on  this  point  as   well.   Ques%ons  regarding  ‘capacity’:     To  comply  with  your  request  for  informa/on,  we  must  complete   several  ques/ons  about  capacity  or  furnace  HAP  capacity.  NESHAP  6S   rules  are  preCy  clear  that  melted  glass  poundage  that  do  not  contain   glass  HAPS  are  not  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the  annual  HAP  melt   capacity  of  a  furnace,  nor  should  cullet  remelt  poundage.  We  think   that  our  smallest  furnaces  might  fall  below  the  50  tpy  quan/ty   requirement  based  on  this  specifica/on.     See  page  73187-­‐8  Comment  and  response  re:  furnaces  that  melt  both   HAP  containing  and  HAP  free  glasses.  So,  before  we  can  answer  your   ques/ons  on  individual  furnace  HAP  glass  capacity,  would  you  please   confirm  that  DEQ  agrees  with  this  interpreta/on?       Ques/on  #5  requests  ‘current  produc/on  levels’.  As  you  know  we  are   in  a  65%  suspended  situa/on,  so  our  current  produc/on  levels  are   very,  very  low.  Once  emission  control  equipment  is  cer/fied,  we  would   expect  to  return  to  2015  produc/on  levels.    Is  your  intent  to   determine  our  actual  current  produc/on  levels  of  HAP  containing   poundage  or  ??   In  addi/on  to  the  above,  we  are  already  repor/ng  to  DEQ  HAP  lbs   actually  used  weekly.  By  combining  that  confiden/al  but  likely  publicly   available  informa/on  with  separate  reports  on  total  melt  pounds  for   individual  furnaces  also  made  publicly  available,  it  would  be  possible   for  an  enterprising  reader  to  reverse  engineer  our  proprietary   formulas.  These  formulas  are  unique  to  our  business  and  are  key   intellectual  property  assets,  as  they  have  been  for  glass  makers  for   millennia.  AYer  I  see  how  these  separate  reports  might  stack  up  if   combined,  I  might  have  to  ask  you  for  a  change  in  the  way  this  data  is   reported  to  beCer  prevent  such  an  unintended  leak  of  our  intellectual   property.   Further,  the  various  slants  at  the  capacity  ques/on  embodied  in   ques/ons  2,3,4,5,and  6  will  require  considerable  research  of  day  to   day  produc/on  records  to  report  accurately.  We  do  not  know  if  we   can  complete  your  requests  by  the  end  of  the  day  Monday.  There   were  only  3  business  days  allowed  for  this  purpose.  If  it  appears  we   cannot  complete  it  per  your  ini/al  request,  may  we  request  some   addi/onal  /me?     Sincerely, Eric  Lovell     Eric Lovell President     2139 N. Kerby Ave Portland, OR 97227 503-284-4900 x 201 T 503-284-7584 F