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 underlined 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.ffff. Colorado adopted

this APEN exemption in 2004, prior to EPA's promulgation of the Other

Solid Waste Incinerator (OSWI) Rules in late 2005. This exemption no

longer makes sense as all ACDs are subject to the OSWI Rules, which

triggers Colorado's definition of incinerator, therefore 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> 12/8/2010 8:42 AM >>>

Dena,

Following up on our earlier discussions, exchange of information and

draft comments on several APEN revisions, this is to seek further

clarification from the Colorado Air Quality Division on its

interpretation of several categories of sources whose exemption from

APEN filing were submitted to EPA in 1997 and 2003.

For each of the APEN exemptions listed below, the underlined text

represents the type of clarification on the basis of 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: "Ventilation of emissions

from mobile sources operating within a tunnel, garage, or building."

EPA deems that the interpretation of this exemption as applicable to

ventilation of emissions "from mobile sources operating within a

tunnel,

garage or building for transportation purpose" would 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 mobile sources is

expressed in the letter's following text:

 As noted above, in the case of the Hyundai facility, the vehicles

 being tested on the chassis dynamometer are being used for testing

 purposes and have not yet been introduced into commerce. 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 REVISIONS FOR A FUTURE

RULEMAKING, HOWEVER COLORADO REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE CURRENT RULE

LANGUAGE. COLORADO APPLIES THIS EXEMPTION SPECIFICALLY 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 Number 3)

"[Emergency power generators that:] have a rated horsepower of less

than

260;"

EPA would like confirmation of its understanding, from yesterday's

discussions, that this category of emergency power generators is not

intended to have any limitations to the engines' hours of operation.

COLORADO'S RESPONSE:

COLORADO REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THIS EXEMPTION. COLORADO'S REGULATION 3,

PART A, SECTION II.D.1.ttt(i) ONLY CITES 260 HP; YET THE SUPPORTING

CALCULATIONS USED TO DERIVE THE 260 HP RELY UPON EPA'S MEMO EXPLAINING

THAT EMERGENCY GENERATORS OPERATE LESS THAN 500 HOURS PER YEAR.

APEN Provision A-II.D.1.xxx. (Regulation Number 3)

"Deaerator/vacuum pump exhausts."

EPA would like confirmation of its understanding, from yesterday's

discussions, that the APEN filing exemption for this category of

sources

is applicable solely to the emissions from the engine that powers the

deaeration/vacuuming process, and not to the emissions of pollutants

(if

any) from the deaeration/vacuuming process itself.

If this EPA understanding of the exemption's applicability accurately

reflects the Colorado's interpretation then we are confused the State

interpretation of the applicability of this exemption 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 emissions activities

as support of this exemption. The provision's reference to

"exhausts,"

rather than "exhaust" seems to imply applicability of the exemption to

multiple emission sources such as both the deaerator/vacuum engine and

the deaerating process. Similarly, the Colorado reference to the
"Oxygen scavenging (de-aeration) of water" as an activity associated

with trivial emissions (according to EPA White Paper No. 2) seems to

indicate that the trivial emission levels are associated with the

oxygen

scavenging process rather than with the emissions from 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 identified. Also, please

extend EPA's appreciation to the Division's staff for its continuing

cooperation on a tight time frame.

COLORADO'S RESPONSE: 

FOR CLARIFICATION, A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THIS

EXEMPTION REVEALS THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THE EXHAUST FROM THE

ENGINES POWERING DEARATOR AND VACUUM PUMPS, BUT INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE

EMISSIONS FROM THE DEAERATION/VACUUMING PROCESS ITSELF. THE

JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS EXEMPTION WAS BASED ON EPA HAVING 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 PART 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 THAT PERMITTING

AUTHORITIES HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW EXEMPTIONS OF SOURCES DEEMED TO BE

TRIVIAL OR INSIGNIFICANT. ATTACHMENT A OF WHITE PAPER 1 SPECIFIES THAT

EMISSIONS FROM DEAERATION ARE TRIVIAL. SEE THE REFERENCE BELOW.

"OXYGEN SCAVENGING (DE-AERATION) OF WATER."

NOTE THAT COLORADO DOES PERMIT ACTIVITIES SUCH AS SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION

UNITS (SVEs OR AIR STRIPPERS), AND DOES NOT ALLOW SVEs 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/ 

___________________________________________