### Re: **APEN SIP Revisions APEN SIP Revisions**  **APEN SIP Revisions**

**- EPA**  **' s Request for Clarification**  **s Request for Clarification Dena Wojtach**  **Dena Wojtach to:**  **Crystal Freeman 12/13/2010 05:16 PM**  **Cc: "Stefanie Rucker", Dena.Wojtach**  **History: This message has been forwarded.** 

Crystal, Colorado provides the following responses (IN CAPS) to your inquiry below. Please note that we cannot see any text und erlined below - to which you make reference.
Additionally, you've inquired about the air curtain destructor (ACDs) APEN exemption in Reg 3, Part A, Section II.D.1.fff f. Colorado adopted this APEN exemption in 2004, prior to EPA's promulg ation of the Other Solid Waste Incinerator (OSWI) Rules in late 2005. This exemption no longer makes sense as all ACDs are subject to the O SWI Rules, which triggers Colorado's definition of incinerator, ther efore ACDs can no longer make use of this APEN exemption.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you, Dena
Dena Wojtach Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment Air Pollution Control Division Regulatory, Compliance & Support Unit Supervisor (303)692-3147 dena.wojtach@state.co.us
>>> <Mastrangelo.Domenico@epamail.epa.gov> 12/8/201 0 8:42 AM >>>

Dena,
Following up on our earlier discussions, exchange o f information and draft comments on several APEN revisions, this is t o seek further clarification from the Colorado Air Quality Divisio n on its interpretation of several categories of sources wh ose exemption from APEN filing were submitted to EPA in 1997 and 2003.
For each of the APEN exemptions listed below, the u nderlined text represents the type of clarification on the basis o f which EPA would consider proposing approval of the APEN exemption.

APEN Provision A-II.D.1.ppp. (Regulation Number 3)
Provision's language submitted by Colorado: "Ventil ation of emissions from mobile sources operating within a tunnel, gara ge, or building."

EPA deems that the interpretation of this exemption as applicable to ventilation of emissions "from mobile sources opera ting within a tunnel, garage or building for transportation purpose" woul d remove ambiguities of the type addressed by the August 16, 2010 letter (attached below)from EPA Region 5 , to the Michigan DNRE

. The specific language

expressing EPA interpretation of the engines as mob ile sources is expressed in the letter's following text:

As noted above, in the case of the Hyundai facil ity, the vehicles being tested on the chassis dynamometer are bein g used for testing purposes and have not yet been introduced into c ommerce. Thus, the emissions from the engines are not created while the vehicle is used for transportation purposes.

(See attached file: EPA 8-16-10 position on mobile engines.pdf)

COLORADO'S RESPONSE: COLORADO WILL CONSIDER EPA'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE REVI SIONS FOR A FUTURE RULEMAKING, HOWEVER COLORADO REQUESTS APPROVAL OF T HE CURRENT RULE LANGUAGE. COLORADO APPLIES THIS EXEMPTION SPECIFICA LLY TO EMISSIONS FROM A VEHICLE, FOR WHICH THE VEHICLE IS MOVING FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION THROUGH A TUNNEL, GARAGE OR BUILDING

.

APEN Provision A-II.D.1.ttt(i). (Regulation Numbe r 3)
"[Emergency power generators that:] have a rated ho rsepower of less than 260;"
EPA would like confirmation of its understanding, f rom yesterday's discussions, that this category of emergency power generators is not intended to have any limitations to the engines' ho urs of operation.

COLORADO'S RESPONSE: COLORADO REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THIS EXEMPTION. COLO RADO'S REGULATION 3, PART A, SECTION II.D.1.ttt(i) ONLY CITES 260 HP; YE T THE SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS USED TO DERIVE THE 260 HP RELY UPON EP A'S MEMO EXPLAINING THAT EMERGENCY GENERATORS OPERATE LESS THAN 500 HOU RS PER YEAR.
APEN Provision A-II.D.1.xxx. (Regulation Number 3)
"Deaerator/vacuum pump exhausts."
EPA would like confirmation of its understanding, f rom yesterday's discussions, that the APEN filing exemption for thi s category of
sources is applicable solely to the emissions from the engi ne that powers the deaeration/vacuuming process, and not to the emissi ons of pollutants (if any) from the deaeration/vacuuming process itself.
If this EPA understanding of the exemption's applic ability accurately reflects the Colorado's interpretation then we are confused the State interpretation of the applicability of this exempti on on one side and, on the other side, the wording of the provision as well as State's reference to the white paper no.2 list of trivial e missions activities as support of this exemption. The provision's refe rence to "exhausts," rather than "exhaust" seems to imply applicability of the exemption to multiple emission sources such as both the deaerato r/vacuum engine and the deaerating process. Similarly, the Colorado re ference to the" Oxygen scavenging ( de

- aeration ) of water " as an activity associated

with trivial emissions (according to EPA White Pape r No. 2) seems to indicate that the trivial emission levels are assoc iated with the oxygen scavenging process rather than with the emissions f rom engines powering the de-aeration of water.
EPA would appreciate clarification of these issues, and will be glad to discuss any questions or problems that may identifi ed. Also, please extend EPA's appreciation to the Division's staff f or its continuing cooperation on a tight time frame.

COLORADO'S RESPONSE: FOR CLARIFICATION, A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE HI STORY OF THIS EXEMPTION REVEALS THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THE EX HAUST FROM THE ENGINES POWERING DEARATOR AND VACUUM PUMPS, BUT INT ENDED TO APPLY TO THE EMISSIONS FROM THE DEAERATION/VACUUMING PROCESS ITS ELF. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS EXEMPTION WAS BASED ON EPA H AVING APPROVED A SIMILAR EXEMPTION (REG 3, PART A, SECTION II.D.1.ii .) FOR VACUUM SYSTEMS.

AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THIS EXEMPTION APPEARS TO RELATE IN PART ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF INSIGNIFICANT EMISSION UNITS IN ATTACHMENT A OF EPA’S “WHITE PAPER FOR STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF P ART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS” ISSUED ON JULY 10, 1995 AND IN EPA’S “WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM” ISSUED ON MARCH 5, 1996. THE EPA STATED T HAT PERMITTING AUTHORITIES HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW EXEMPTIONS OF S OURCES DEEMED TO BE TRIVIAL OR INSIGNIFICANT. ATTACHMENT A OF WHITE PA PER 1 SPECIFIES THAT EMISSIONS FROM DEAERATION ARE TRIVIAL. SEE THE REF ERENCE BELOW.
"OXYGEN SCAVENGING (DE-AERATION) OF WATER."

NOTE THAT COLORADO DOES PERMIT ACTIVITIES SUCH AS S OIL VAPOR EXTRACTION UNITS (SVEs OR AIR STRIPPERS), AND DOES NOT ALLOW S VEs TO MAKE USE OF THE EXEMPTION IN REG 3, PART A, SECTION II.D.1.xxx.

Domenico

___________________________________________ Domenico Mastrangelo Air Quality Planning Unit EPA Region 8 Air Program (8P-AR) 1595 Wynkoop Denver, CO 80202-1129 303-312-6436 (voice); 303-312-6064 (fax); mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov/

___________________________________________