American Petroleum Environmental Services Air Contaminant Discharge Permit 26-3021 Response to Comments DEQ issued a public notice on May 19, 2017 requesting public comment on DEQ's draft air quality permit for American Petroleum Environmental Services, Inc. DEQ mailed notice to property owners within at least one mile of the facility, and included additional zip codes and neighborhood associations where DEQ anticipated there would be interest. DEQ also provided public notice through publication m two local newspapers, posting of the notice on DEQ's website, and through email; subscribers ofDEQ's email notification list received a message about the proposed permit issuance and the chance to comment. The comment period closed at 5 p.m. on July 3, 2017. The following response to comments combines like topics and comments to minimize duplicates. Comments are paraphrased to address the main point and are not included verbatim. All written and oral (transcribed) comments are included as an addendum to this document. Comments relating to other facilities are not addressed by the responses below. Some of the following comments are verbatim, combined, or paraphrased with similar comments to reduce redundancy. 1. Comment The DEQ should issue American Petroleum Environmental Services (APES) an immediate Cease and Desist order (ORS 468.115(1)) requiring them to shut down until they can reduce emissions below levels that may be harmful to the residents in the area. DEQ should shut the facility down using the authority in OAR 340-216-0082 (permit revocation). DEQ should deny the permit renewal until all neighborhood concerns are met. DEQ response In order to issue a cease and desist order under Oregon Revised Stahite (ORS) 468.115, DEQ would need to determine that air pollution from APES was causing "an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons," and the Governor would need to direct DEQ to enter such an order. DEQ has authority under Oregon Admmistrative Rule (OAR) 340-216-0082(4) to revoke an air quality permit if it finds that the pemiittee's activities are seriously endangering public health, safety or the environment. DEQ has not determined APES to be in violation of its air quality permit. Results of air sampling conducted by DEQ and EPA have not shown concentrations of air pollutants to exceed levels that would result in serious danger to public health, safety, or the environment. We therefore conclude that a cease and desist order is not appropriate at this time. 2. Comment DEQ should regulate the emissions of toxic air pollutants (e.g., dioxin, hexavalent chromium, lead) and prohibit the burning ofPCB containing oil. DEQ should require APES to meet the 1 I Page health-based benchmarks and implement the draft proposal under the Cleaner Air Oregon fi'amework that is currently in the works. DE 0 response The draft permit includes applicable existing requirements under current environmental rules and laws as related to toxic air pollutants. The permit cannot be used to create new emission standards unsupported by existing mle. The draft permit uses less than 2 parts per million (ppm) as the PCB limit for used oil combusted on site. EPA considers 2-ppm to be the quantifiable level ofPCB's in used oil. DEQ proposes to modify the "less than 2 ppm" to "non-PCB containing oil" to mitigate confusion. The health based benchmarks m the current DEQ rules are goals for air quality, but not enforceable standards a facility can be held to. Stricter requirements under a new industrial air toxics program, known as Cleaner Air Oregon, are currently under development and will be presented to the Environmental Quality Commission for review and adoption in 2018. Requirements that have not been adopted by the EQC cannot be implemented by DEQ. Cleaner Air Oregon may or may not address operations at APES. APES must comply with any applicable Cleaner Air Oregon requirements when the rules are adopted. APES will not be grandfathered out of the Cleaner Air Oregon rules ifDEQ issues this air quality renewal permit. APES has been operating under an expired permit with outdated permit conditions. The renewal permit contains current requirements that APES must comply with. DEQ intends to issue the renewal permit. 3. Comment The draft permit is inadequate to protect public health and does not set strict enough standards. DEQ should establish stricter requirements in the air quality permit. DEQ should require 24 hour per day, 7 day per week stack monitoring for all pollutants. Monitoring and reporting should be more frequent. Allow DEQ access at ALL times. DEQ response As stated above in response to Comment 2, the draft permit is based on current DEQ rules. Continuous full spectrum monitoring is not practicable to implement. In lieu of this type of monitoring, the permit requires APES to complete stack testing to verify emissions. Testing will be completed by a 3rd party testing company that must follow EPA Reference Methods. The 3rd party testing company must submit plans to DEQ for review and approval prior to testing. DEQ representatives will attend the stack test to verify the proper EPA test methods are used. The testing will be completed under representative conditions, meaning the testing will be conducted under the worst case operating conditions. Representative testing will challenge a piece of emissions control equipment called a thermal oxidizer. If the thermal oxidizer can 2 | Page meet the destruction efficiency required under that operating scenario, it will be able to under any future scenario. Operating parameters, like contaminant concenteation in the used oil, flow rate, process temperature, etc., will be included as monitoring conditions in the permit. APES renewed air quality permit requires periodic stack testing to verify continued conb'ol of emissions. 4. Comment DEQ should not allow APES to emit concentrations of S02 that are 10 times that of other oil refineries in the United States. DEQ response Current environmental law does not limit the concentration of Sulfur Dioxide emissions from the processes at APES. Therefore, the draft permit does not address the concentration of Sulphur Dioxide (SO^) in air emissions. Instead, the permit contains a Plant Site Emission Limit (PSEL) for S02. PSELs are limits on the overall amount of emissions from activities at a facility in a year. The burning of fuel in the oil heater and the regeneration of the oil filtration system are sources of S02 emissions. By comparing the inlet sulfur concentration to the outlet sulfur concentration 862 emissions, a total amount ofS02 emissions is determined. The difference between the inlet and outlet concentrations represents the total sulfur remaining in the system after one complete filtration cycle. During filter regeneration, the remaining sulfur is converted to SOs. 5. Comment An independent investigation into overall compliance including emissions from the facility and removal of TOs in 2006. Independent stack testing should be required and paid for by APES. An independent investigation into DEQ's implementation of the permitting program and compliance with regulations should be conducted. DEQ response The thermal oxidizer removed from the facility in 2006 was not required by permit, only acknowledged in the review report, and not required for facility operation. The removal of the control equipment was a violation because the previous owner failed to notify DEQ the device was being removed. DEQ could not legally cite APES for the violation because the removal occurred under previous ownership. APES is required to have stack testing conducted by a certified stack testing company. The proposed permit requires periodic stack testing; see response to Comment 4, above. DEQ's permitting programs are periodically evaluated by EPA as part of implementing federal requirements. DEQ often consults with the Oregon Department of Justice and DEQ's Office of Compliance and Enforcement, and the EPA to ensure the air quality program is implementing regulations consistently and according to state statute and administrative rules. 3]Page 6. Comment DEQ should require a higher standard than 97% control for the thermal oxidizer. DEQ response DEQ drafts permits requiring facilities to maintain compliance 100% of the time. The thermal oxidizer is likely to exceed the 97% control efficiency stated m the permit, but 97% is considered typically achievable control technology, which is the mle DEQ is implementing, and allows a small buffer zone for compliance. Commenters are correct that 97% control allows 3 times the amount of emissions that 99% control would allow; however, 99% does not control 3 times as many emissions compared to 97% control. EXAMPLE: Facility A emits 10 tpy VOC. 99% control allows 0.1 tpy VOC emissions. 97% control allows 0.3 fpy VOC emissions. 7. Comment Reclassify APES as a Title V source. Require best available control technology. Eliminate odors, not just mitigate DEQ response Title V permittmg is triggered for specific emission levels and/or being subject to regulations that require Title V permitting. Sources with emissions less than 100 tons/year of criteria pollutants, less than 10 tons/year of any individual Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) and less than 25 tons/year of combined HAPs are not subject to Title V permitting unless there is a federal regulation (New Source Performance Standards or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) that requires the facility to get a Title V permit. Title V permits do not add requirements not supported by rule, and are no more stringent than the ACDP permits. Facilities may be subject to best available control technology if they make a major modification (with a significant increase in emissions) to the facility. DEQ carmot require more stringent standards in permits than are required by rule. Although not required by rule, in 2016, DEQ initiated a Typically Achievable Control Technology (TACT) analysis of APES emission control devices for the fi-ont plant cooking operation.