[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57453-57456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28632]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7102-2]
Recent Posting of Agency Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to
Applicability and Monitoring for Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database
System
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
552(a)), and the Clean Air Act provisions for judicial review (42
U.S.C. 7607(b)), this notice announces interpretations of applicability
and alternative monitoring decisions that have been made by the EPA
under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
DATES: Comments on any of the documents posted on the ADI database
system must be submitted on or before January 14, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to the attention of Maria Malave;
Mail Code 2223A; Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division,
Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460 or send via E-mail to [email protected].
[[Page 57454]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of the complete
document posted on the ADI database system is available on the Internet
through the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) at: http://es.epa.gov/oeca/eptdd/adi.html. The document may be located by date,
author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this
notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by
email at: [email protected]. For technical questions about
the individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions,
refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or
in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the
document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NSPS (40 CFR part 60) and the NESHAP (40 CFR parts 61 and 63)
provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of
whether certain actions constitute the commencement of construction,
reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these
inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR
60.5 and 61.06. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from
the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g),
63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written response to these
inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring. Further, EPA
responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP
regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category.
These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources for
which a regulation is applicable, or clarification of the applicable
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP regulatory
interpretations pertaining to applicability determinations and
alternative monitoring, and posts them on the Applicability
Determination Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. The ADI is an
electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and
memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart,
citation, or by string word searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 24 of such documents added to
the ADI on August 31, 2001. The subject, author, recipient, and date
(header) of each letter and memoranda is listed in this notice, as well
as a brief abstract of the letter or memoranda. Complete copies of
these documents may be obtained from the ADI at: http://es.epa.gov/oeca/eptdd/adi.html.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on August 31, 2001, the
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document
which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also
included a summary of each abstract identified with its control number
after the table.
ADI Determinations Uploaded on August 31, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Category Subpart Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A010001.............................. Asbestos............... M Single family house with
asbestos containing floor
tile.
A010002.............................. Asbestos............... M State authority regarding
single-family house with
asbestos.
M010012.............................. MACT................... N Applicability to process
without chromic acid use.
M010013.............................. MACT................... S Alternative monitoring for
pulp & paper closed vent
systems.
M010014.............................. MACT................... S, A Alternative monitoring/
inspection for closed vent
systems.
M010015.............................. MACT................... T Halogenated solvent cleaning
alternative method of
compliance.
M010016.............................. MACT................... S Alternative monitoring for
pulp & paper closed vent
systems.
M010017.............................. MACT................... B Circumvention & case-by-case
MACT determinations.
Z010003.............................. NESHAP................. H, I Application of Subpart H to
DOE owned, NRC licensed
facility.
Z010004.............................. NESHAP................. H Alternative method of
determining compliance
under Subpart H.
0100039.............................. NSPS................... Kb Subpart Kb application to
wastewater detoxification
tanks.
0100040.............................. NSPS................... A, B, Ce Alternative monitoring of
HCI emissions-hospital
incinerator.
0100052.............................. NSPS................... Db Alternative monitoring for
burning pulp mill stripper
off gases.
0100041.............................. NSPS................... RR Subpart RR testing/waiver
exemption.
0100042.............................. NSPS................... GG Subpart GG alternative
monitoring plan.
0100043.............................. NSPS................... A, Dc Shorter sampling time for
initial performance
testing.
0100044.............................. NSPS................... A Modification issues for
dense pack turbine project.
0100045.............................. NSPS................... Da Approval of RATA schedule
for Subpart Da boiler.
0100046.............................. NSPS................... GG Approval of alternative
monitoring plan under
Subpart GG.
0100047.............................. NSPS................... WWW Use of a natural attenuation
factor.
0100048.............................. NSPS................... GG Request for alternative
monitoring under Subpart
GG.
0100049.............................. NSPS................... A, Db Commencement of
construction.
0100050.............................. NSPS................... Dc, A Request for alternative fuel
usage recordkeeping plan.
0100051.............................. NSPS................... GG Request for custom fuel
monitoring schedule under
Subpart GG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for (A010001):
Q1. Does the asbestos NESHAP regulation apply to single family
homes?
A1. The asbestos NESHAP program applies to ``facilities'' which
include, institutional, commercial, public, industrial, or residential
structures, i.e., apartments, condominiums, cooperatives. A single
family residence or a residential building having four or fewer
dwelling units is not subject to the asbestos NESHAP requirements.
Q2. If asbestos containing floor tile and mastic were removed by a
jackhammer, would the resulting friable asbestos waste material be
subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulations?
A2. If a contractor removes greater than 160 square feet of
asbestos
[[Page 57455]]
containing material (ACM) by using a jackhammer, the resulting waste
material is subject to the asbestos NESHAP. However, in your situation,
the asbestos NESHAP would not apply. The ``All Other Asbestos
Projects'' citation from the COMAR may apply to your situation.
Q3. What is the definition of ``hand pressure''?
A3. There is no definition for ``hand pressure'' in the asbestos
NESHAP regulations. There is a reference to ``hand pressure'' under the
definition for regulated asbestos containing material. In a July 1992
applicability determination, the Agency wrote that vinyl asbestos tile
in good condition, if subject to certain forces, i.e., mechanical,
weather or aging can be weakened to the point where it can become
friable because it can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by
hand pressure. Using the jackhammer on asbestos containing tile has a
high probability for significant fiber release. The tile becomes
regulated asbestos containing material and subject to the asbestos
NESHAP because using a jackhammer grinds or abrades the normally non-
friable material.
Abstract for (A0100020):
Q: Why would a State and not the EPA have jurisdiction over
asbestos in the case of a single-family home?
A: Single-family homes are not considered ``facilities'' under the
asbestos NESHAP, thus no Federal laws or regulations are implicated. In
addition, the State in this case has an equivalent asbestos NESHAP
program, to which EPA generally defers. Thus, the State takes the lead
in implementing the asbestos NESHAP program in the State. The
determination letter provides further guidance on technical issues.
Abstract for (M010012):
Q. A facility operates a tank to produce a protective conversion
coating on magnesium parts using an anodic process but no chromic acid
is added to the tank. Is the tank subject to the Chromium NESHAP?
A. No. Chromium anodizing is defined under Subpart N 40 CFR 63.341
as the electrolytic process by which an oxide layer is produced on the
surface of a base metal for functional purposes using a chromic acid
solution. Because the facility does not use a chromic acid solution in
the tank, EPA has concluded that this process is not an anodizing
process that is regulated by the Chromium NESHAP.
Abstract for (M010013):
Q. Can continuous monitoring of vacuum indication on the negative
pressure sections for both the Low Volume High Concentration (LVHC) and
High Volume Low Concentration (HVLC) gas collection systems be used
instead of conducting the 30-day inspections required by MACT for
closed vent systems specified in 40 CFR 63.453(k)(2)?
A. Yes. EPA will approve an alternative monitoring method proposed
to continuously monitor vacuum indication on the negative pressure
sections for both the LVHC and HVLC collection systems with an
additional requirement to perform a visual area survey once a quarter
after loss of vacuum.
Abstract for (M010014):
Q. Will EPA approve a proposal to inspect the closed-vent and
closed collection systems once every calendar month, with at least 14
days elapsed time between inspections, instead of once every 30 days as
specified in 40 CFR 63.453(k) and (l)?
A. Yes.
Abstract for (M010015):
Q. Will EPA approve an ``alternative standard'' in accordance with
40 CFR 63.464(d) for measuring compliance with 40 CFR Part 63, subpart
T?
A. Yes. EPA will approve an alternative method of compliance that
includes additional monitoring parameters.
Abstract for (M010016):
Q. Can amperage loading on the scrubber fan be used instead of gas
scrubber vent gas inlet flow rate measurements to ensure compliance
with the HAP removal requirements of 40 CFR 63.445?
A. Yes, provided the appropriate monitoring values for the vent gas
motor amperage established during the initial performance test are
approved by the designated regulatory agency.
Abstract for (M010017):
Q: What is the time period that EPA considers when acting on an
application for a new synthetic minor permit or a change to an existing
synthetic minor permit for purposes of circumvention of 112(g)?
A: The EPA views any new construction, any proposal for new
construction, or any relaxation of synthetic minor limits within 5
years of the initial permit as evidence of a potential phased
construction for a source.
Abstract for (Z010003):
Q: Will a facility which is both owned by the Department of Energy
(DOE) and licensed and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) be subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart H?
A: Yes. Subpart H applies to any facility which is owned or
operated by the DOE.
Abstract for (Z010004):
Q: Are high-volume air samplers an acceptable alternative to
continuous stack monitoring for demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR
Part 61, subpart H?
A: Yes. The proposal meets the criteria specified in 40 CFR
61.93(b)(5).
Abstract for (0100039):
Q. Is NSPS subpart Kb applicable to three existing 100,000 gallon
wastewater detoxification tanks?
A. No. For reasons other than those submitted by the company, EPA
agrees that NSPS subpart Kb does not apply to the tanks. See the letter
below for EPA's discussion of all pertinent and specific information
used in this determination. The letter also addresses and discusses why
the reasons submitted by the company to try to support this decision
were not used.
Abstract for (0100040):
Q1: Does the Federal hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator
(HMIWI) section 111(d)/129 plan, subpart HHH, allow the use of
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining
compliance with the HCl emissions limitation instead of the stipulated
methods--monitoring sorbent flow rates and use of EPA Reference Test
Method 26?
A1: Yes, 40 CFR 62.14452(l) allows use of CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the HCl emissions limitation, providing the HMIWI
owner/operator: (1) Determines compliance using a 12-hour rolling
average, calculated each hour as the average of the previous 12
operating hours (not including startup, shutdown, or malfunction); (2)
determines the measured HCl concentrations on an adjusted basis, 7
percent oxygen, dry; and (3) operates the CEMS in accordance with
applicable EPA performance specifications, quality assurance and
quality control requirements under appendices B and F of 40 CFR part
60.
Q2: Because EPA has not promulgated performance specifications,
quality assurance and quality control requirements for hydrogen
chloride CEMS, can EPA now approve a request for use of CEMS to
determine HCl emission rates and compliance with subpart HHH?
A2: Yes, providing the alternative HCl monitoring request includes
or references acceptable performance specifications (PS), and quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements. EPA has determined that
the proposed use of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) CEMS manual, Revision No. 6, January 1996 will
provide acceptable PS and QA/QC requirements.
[[Page 57456]]
Abstract for (0100041):
Q: Will EPA grant a facility a testing waiver/extension for its
reconstructed 3L coating line and associated thermal oxidizer where the
facility would be required to test the same line to show compliance
with other State and federal regulations within a ``short'' period of
time?
A: No. EPA will not grant a testing waiver/extension because the
eighteen months between the required subpart RR compliance test and the
deadline date for the MPCA test is too long.
Abstract for (0100042):
Q1: Will monitoring of fuel nitrogen content be required if natural
gas is the only fuel fired in each turbine?
A1: No.
Q2: Will daily monitoring of sulfur be required if only pipeline
quality natural gas is fired?
A2: No. The monitoring schedule from U.S. EPA's national guidance
for subpart GG, dated August 14, 1987, should be used for sulfur
monitoring when natural gas is fired.
Abstract for (0100043):
Q: May the sampling time for Method 9 opacity testing while burning
fuel oil in a boiler be reduced to one hour per boiler?
A: Yes. In this particular case, the shorter test sampling time may
be reduced to one hour for Boilers 4 and 5 while burning fuel oil
because the construction permit is so restrictive that 3 hours of
initial performance testing would consume a significant portion of the
annual operating time allowed for these boilers while burning fuel oil.
Abstract for (0100044):
Q: Does the installation of Dense Pack turbine blades constitute a
modification?
A: Probably not. Although such a project would constitute a
nonroutine physical change under PSD, it would not be a modification
under PSD (as well as NSPS) if there were not an associated emissions
increase as defined under the respective PSD and NSPS rules.
Abstract for (0100045):
Q: Will EPA allow a reduced frequency of Relative Accuracy Test
Audits (RATAs) for an infrequently operated boiler?
A: Yes. In this particular case, the boiler is operated only 8 days
per year as a peaking unit. EPA believes that it is reasonable to
provide for some reduction in quality assurance testing for the
continuous emissions monitors, as long as the boiler meets acid rain
program requirements at 40 CFR Part 75, and operates as a peaker.
Abstract for (0100046):
Q: Will EPA relieve a facility that uses only pipeline quality
natural gas of the nitrogen monitoring requirements?
A: Yes.
Q: May a facility use the sulfur monitoring requirements in
sections 2.3.1.4 and 2.3.3.1 of Appendix D to Part 75 in lieu of 40 CFR
60.334(b) and 60.335(a)?
A: Yes.
Q: Is a nitrogen CEM a permissible alternative to the monitoring
requirements at 40 CFR 60.334(a) and 60.335(c)(2)?
A: Yes.
Abstract for (0100047):
Q: May a landfill use a natural attenuation factor for fugitive
landfill gas control for the purpose of State fee reports and emission
inventories?
A: No. Natural attenuation was evaluated during the rulemaking
process for 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Analysis by the U.S. EPA
determined that there was insufficient oxygen and residence time for
aerobic biofiltration to be a significant removal pathway.
Abstract for (0100048):
Q1: Is nitrogen monitoring of either natural gas or landfill gas
required?
A1: Nitrogen monitoring of landfill quality natural gas is not
required. Nitrogen monitoring of landfill gas will be waived if EPA
receives adequate information that the landfill gas in question
contains very little fuel-bound nitrogen.
Q2: Will EPA permit a facility not to perform sulfur monitoring
when natural gas and landfill gas are used?
A2: No. However, this particular facility provided data on the
sulfur content of each type of fuel. This data showed that the sulfur
content was minimal. Therefore, the facility may begin at semi-annual
testing.
Abstract for (0100049):
Q: Did Tenneco commence construction when it internally obligated
funds for the purpose of modifying a boiler prior to June 19, 1984,
thereby not triggering NSPS, subpart Db applicability?
A: No. For the purposes of subpart A, there was no contractual
obligation to construct an affected facility.
Q: Does the installation of sampling ports on a boiler constitute
commencement of construction?
A: No. The ports were installed to gather data for planning and
design work, or other unrelated activities, which does not constitute
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification.
Abstract for (0100050):
Q: Will EPA grant Tyson Foods an alternative fuel usage
recordkeeping plan under subpart Dc?
A: Yes. The specific recordkeeping requirements for the facility
are included in Attachment A to the response letter.
Abstract for (0100051):
Q1: Will EPA approve the waiver of monitoring fuel bound nitrogen
for facilities using only pipeline quality natural gas?
A1: Yes.
Q2: What should the sulfur monitoring schedule be for peaking-only
units that use only natural gas and operate only during the summer
months?
A2: These types of peaking units test once per month during the
initial ozone season (May-September). If this shows little variability,
then sulfur monitoring should be conducted once per season thereafter.
Abstract for (0100052):
Q: A company intends to burn stripper off gases (SOGs) from pulping
processes in a boiler subject to subpart Db, which would cause the
facility to exceed the subpart Db NOX emission limits. The
company requests permission to use an alternative monitoring procedure
for NOX which will consist of correcting the continuous
NOX monitoring data by subtracting the NOX
contribution from burning SOGs. Is this acceptable?
A: No. Since the combustion of SOGs in the boiler is not exempt
from NSPS subpart Db, the proposed alternative monitoring procedure is
not acceptable. However, EPA's OAQPS has agreed to initiate rulemaking
to amend the subpart Db regulation to allow the establishment of an
alternative NOX standard for pulp mills, similar to the
provision in 40 CFR 60.44b(f) for chemical manufacturing plants and
petroleum refineries which combust byproduct/waste.
Dated: November 6, 2001.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 01-28632 Filed 11-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P