[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58028-58036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23367]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7376-3]
Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI)
Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative
Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR
part 60; the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), 40 CFR parts 61 and 63; and the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program, 40 CFR part 82.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability. 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 e-mail 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 General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP
in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain intended 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. Although the part 63 NESHAP
and Clean Air Act section 111(d) regulations contain no specific
regulatory provision that sources may request applicability
determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding
applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. 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 responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative
monitoring decisions. Furthermore, 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 to which the regulation applies, or
to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements
contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries
are broadly termed regulatory interpretations.
EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination
Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-
issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone
regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. 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, control number or by string word searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 55 such documents added to
the ADI between May 2002 and July 2002. The subject, author, recipient,
date and header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this
notice, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum.
Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through
the OECA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system between May 2002 and July
2002; 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 an abstract of each document identified with its
control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to
alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as
substitutes for the full text of the documents.
ADI Determinations Uploaded Between May 2002 and July 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Category Subpart Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M020003................... MACT...................... RRR...................... Opacity Monitoring
Alternative.
M020004................... MACT...................... LLL...................... Performance Test Waiver and
Alternative Monitoring.
0200002................... NSPS...................... WWW...................... Gas Extraction Well Operating
Temperature Increase
Requests.
0200003................... NSPS...................... Db....................... Duct Burner Applicability
Determination.
[[Page 58029]]
0200004................... NSPS...................... G, A..................... Monitoring and Excess
Emission Related Issues.
0200001................... NSPS...................... J, A..................... Alternative Monitoring for
Bypass of Sulfur Recovery/
Tail Gas Units.
0200005................... NSPS...................... Dc....................... Fuel Usage Recordkeeping.
0200006................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative Method for Sulfur
Analysis.
0200007................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative Method for Sulfur
Analysis.
0200008................... NSPS...................... NNN, A................... Alternative Monitoring
Approach.
0200009................... NSPS...................... BB....................... Alternative Monitoring
Proposals.
0200010................... NSPS...................... GG, A.................... Initial Test Extension.
0200011................... NSPS...................... GG, A.................... Initial Test Extension.
0200012................... NSPS...................... OOO...................... Initial Notification and
Report Submittal
Requirements.
0200013................... NSPS...................... Da....................... Alternative SO2 Monitoring
Proposal.
0200014................... NSPS...................... GG, A.................... Initial Test Extension.
0200015................... NSPS...................... GG, A.................... Initial Test Extension.
0200016................... NSPS...................... WWW, A................... Alternative Monitoring
Request for Landfill Gas
Vent Flare.
0200017................... NSPS...................... RR....................... Applicability to Process
Printing Machine.
0200018................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative ASTM Test Method
for Fuel Nitrogen Content.
0200019................... NSPS...................... WWW...................... Waiver of Initial Performance
Test.
0200020................... NSPS...................... A........................ Drift Test Waiver.
0200021................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0200022................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0200023................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative to ASTM Sulfur
Content Test Method.
0200024................... NSPS...................... Da....................... Use of Part 75 Relative
Accuracy Test Audits
Procedures.
0200025................... NSPS...................... Cc, B.................... Part 62 Landfill Regulations
and Superfund Sites.
0200026................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative Test Methods for
Monitoring Fuel Sulfur
Content.
0200027................... NSPS...................... WWW...................... Tier 2 Emissions Submission.
0200028................... NSPS...................... WWW, A................... Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill and Krysol Process.
0200029................... NSPS...................... Ce....................... Method 23 Sampling Time.
0200030................... NSPS...................... BB....................... Parallel Brown Stock Washer
Systems.
0200031................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Part 60 and Part 75
Continuous Emission
Monitoring Quality Assurance/
Quality Control
Inconsistencies.
0200032................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0200033................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternate Performance Test
Method for Gas Turbine.
0200034................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternate Performance Test
Method for Gas Turbine.
0200035................... NSPS...................... A, GG.................... Alternate Performance Test
Method for Gas Turbine.
0200036................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative Fuel Analysis for
Testing Nitrogen Content.
C020003................... CFC....................... F........................ Interpretation of Refrigerant
Disposal.
M020005................... MACT...................... R........................ Gasoline Vapor Combustion
Unit.
M020006................... MACT...................... S........................ Applicability to Mill without
Virgin Pulping or Bleaching.
M020007................... MACT...................... RRR...................... Stand-Alone Aluminum
Shredding Devices.
Z020001................... NESHAP.................... L, V..................... Tar Pitch Traps.
0200038................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative Monitoring
Procedures.
0200039................... NSPS...................... Dc....................... Fuel Usage Monitoring.
0200040................... NSPS...................... CCCC..................... Air Curtain Incinerator at
Residential Construction
Site.
0200041................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Initial Performance Testing
Using Base Load Only.
0200042................... NSPS...................... GG....................... Alternative Testing and
Monitoring.
0200043................... NSPS...................... H........................ Sulfuric Acid Plant as
Control Device.
0200044................... NSPS...................... A, Kb.................... Modification of Petroleum
Storage Vessels.
0200045................... NSPS...................... RR....................... Applicability to Electrode
Process Line.
0200046................... NSPS...................... A, Dc.................... Modification of a Small
Industrial, Commercial,
Institutional Steam
Generating Unit.
0200047................... NSPS...................... A........................ Replacement of Boiler Wall.
0200048................... NSPS...................... A........................ Reconstruction of Oil-Fired
Boiler.
0200049................... NSPS...................... VV....................... Equipment Leaks of Volatile
Organic Compounds at a
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry
Facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [M020003]
Q1: Is the monitoring that Gulf Coast Metals has proposed as an
alternative to installation of an opacity monitor or a broken bag
detector on two rotary furnaces at its secondary aluminum plant in
Hillsborough County, Florida acceptable?
A1: No. Because the company did not address several of the
submittal requirements in 40 CFR 63.1510(w), an alternative monitoring
approach cannot be approved at this time.
Q2: Can the initial performance test required for the rotary
furnaces be waived?
A2: Although the authority to approve performance test waivers
under 40 CFR part 63 has been delegated to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Region 4 recommends that the request be
denied since low opacity alone will not ensure compliance with the
applicable particulate mass emission standard.
Abstract for [M020004]
Q: May a Portland Cement facility use an alternative initial
performance testing and monitoring for inaccessible, totally enclosed,
and partially enclosed conveyor system transfer points (CSTPs) and
storage bins under NESHAP subpart LLL? This request includes
alternative initial performance testing and monitoring for sources
inside buildings.
A: A Portland Cement facility may use alternative initial
performance testing and monitoring for inaccessible, totally enclosed,
and partially enclosed CSTPs
[[Page 58030]]
and storage bins. However, for alternative initial performance testing
inside buildings, the EPA Regional Office has not been delegated the
authority to approve the request.
Abstract for [0200001]
Q1: Will EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan
to be used during bypasses of the sulfur recovery units to unmonitored
stacks?
A1: No. EPA will not approve this request because the alternative
monitoring plan would not make representative measurements of the
sulfur dioxide emissions during bypasses of the sulfur recovery units
to unmonitored stacks.
Q2: Will EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan
to be used during bypasses of the tail gas treating units to
unmonitored stacks?
A2: No. EPA will not approve this request because the alternative
monitoring plan would not make representative measurements of the
sulfur dioxide emissions during bypasses of the tail gas treating units
on sulfur recovery units to unmonitored stacks.
Abstract for [0200002]
Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the operating temperature of 55.0
degrees Celsius in 40 CFR 60.753(c)?
A: EPA will grant a waiver to 65.6 degrees Celsius for certain
wells that show high methane production, low oxygen, carbon monoxide
levels below 100 ppm, and no charred debris in the gas collection
system.
Abstract for [0200003]
Q: Is a duct burner (along with the associated heat recovery steam
generator) that is too small to be covered under NSPS subpart Da
covered by NSPS subpart Db?
A: Yes, if it meets the definition of an affected facility under
NSPS subpart Db. NSPS subpart Db was intentionally written to be very
broad in nature as to what constitutes an affected facility.
Abstract for [0200004]
Q1: What is the definition of excess emissions for reporting and
compliance purposes under NSPS subpart G?
A1: Excess emissions under NSPS Subpart G are defined as any three-
hour period during which the average nitrogen oxides emission rate
exceeds the 1.5 kilograms per metric ton (3.0 pounds per ton) emission
limit in 40 CFR 60.72(a)(1).
Q2: Do excess emissions constitute a violation of the standard in
NSPS subpart G?
A2: Under the ``any credible evidence'' provisions in 40 CFR
60.11(g), the continuous emission monitoring (CEMS) data used for
excess emission reporting can be used to cite violations for any three-
hour period(s) during which the CEMS data indicate that emissions would
have been in excess of the applicable standard had a performance test
been conducted.
Q3: If excess emissions do constitute a violation of the standard
in NSPS Subpart G, how are the averaging time and the duration of the
violation determined?
A3: Since the emission limit has an averaging time of three hours,
CEMS data must be averaged over a three-hour period in order to
determine whether the nitrogen oxides emission rate has exceeded the
applicable limit. A single three-hour period during which the average
emission rate exceeds the limit would be reported as three hours of
excess emissions. If there are consecutive, overlapping three hour
periods during which the average nitrogen oxides emission rate exceeds
the applicable limit, the duration of the excess emission period should
be determined based upon the number of hours between the beginning and
the end of the exceedance period.
Q4: Does 40 CFR 60.8(c) allow violations during nitric acid plant
startups, and, if so, are facilities exempt from enforcement for
violations of the standard during startup?
A4: Since NSPS subpart G does not include language specifically
indicating that the nitrogen oxides limit applies at all times,
facilities would be exempt from the limit during startup under the
provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(a). Although facilities are exempt from the
emission limit during startup, facility owners and operators could be
cited for a violation of 40 CFR 60.11(d) if steps to minimize emissions
are not taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
Q5: If 40 CFR 60.8(c) does provide an exemption from enforcement
during startups, is there any time limit associated with the exemption?
A5: Although NSPS subpart G does not specify a limit on the amount
of time that a facility is exempt from the nitrogen oxides emission
limit during startup, enforcement under the provisions in 40 CFR
60.11(d) can be pursued if steps are not taken to minimize emissions
during startup regardless of the duration of the excess emission
period.
Abstract for [0200005]
Q1: Are proposals to reduce the frequency for fuel usage
recordkeeping at National Linen Services and the University of West
Florida acceptable?
A1: Yes. The proposed alternative recordkeeping and reporting
frequencies are consistent with those that EPA has previously approved
for other facilities. If the University of West Florida does not have a
separate gas meter for its NSPS subpart Dc boiler, it will be necessary
to obtain approval for a way of apportioning the University's total gas
usage in order to determine the amount of fuel burned in the NSPS
subpart Dc unit.
Q2: Can future proposals for alternative fuel usage recordkeeping
frequencies be approved by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection without being submitted to EPA Region 4 for case-by-case
reviews?
A2: Yes. Based upon the history of previous EPA approvals, there is
no environmental benefit associated with submitting future proposals to
EPA for case-by-case reviews if records will be kept on at least
monthly basis, reports will be submitted on at least an annual basis,
and an appropriate apportionment approach will be used when the total
amount of fuel burned in multiple gas-fired units is measured with a
common gas meter.
Abstract for [0200006]
Q: Is the ASTM Test Method D5504-98 method an acceptable
alternative method for determining the sulfur content of the natural
gas burned in stationary gas turbines at four compressor stations
located in Florida?
A: Yes. The proposed alternative method is acceptable. Also, the
results of sampling conducted at one compressor station can be used for
turbines at multiple compressor stations provided that no new gas
enters the pipeline between the stations in question.
Abstract for [0200007]
Q: Is ASTM Test Method D5504-98 method an acceptable alternative
method for determining the sulfur content of the natural gas burned in
stationary gas turbines at four compressor stations located in Florida?
A: Yes. The proposed alternative method is acceptable. Also, the
results of sampling conducted at a compressor station in Florida can be
used for the turbines at a compressor station in Mount Vernon, Alabama,
provided that no new gas enters the system between these stations.
Abstract for [0200008]
Q: Is an alternative monitoring approach proposed by General
Electric Plastics (GEP) for a phosgene monitoring system on a
distillation operation at its plant in Burkville,
[[Page 58031]]
Alabama acceptable under NSPS subpart NNN?
A: Yes. GEP must obtain approval for an alternative monitoring
approach because NSPS subpart NNN does not specify monitoring
procedures for the type of control system used by the company. Issues
addressed in the approval letter include the measurement range of the
phosgene monitoring system, the basis for waiving the requirement to
correct analyzer results to three percent oxygen, acceptable procedures
for calculating three-hour average emission rates, and the analyzer
calibration frequency.
Abstract for [0200009]
Q1: Is the Georgia Pacific Corporation (GPC) proposal to monitor
scrubber liquid flow rate more acceptable than monitoring the pressure
drop for the scrubber installed on a lime kiln at a kraft pulp mill in
New Augusta, Mississippi to comply with NSPS Subpart BB?
A1: Yes. Based upon the design of the scrubber installed on the
lime kiln, the proposed alternative monitoring parameter will be a
better indicator of control device performance than pressure drop will
be.
Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to monitor the combustion
temperature of the power boiler used to destroy the total reduced
sulfur compounds contained in non-condensable gas streams at a kraft
pulp mill?
A2: Yes. Because the non-condensable gas streams generated at the
mill are burned in a power boiler, rather than an incinerator,
combustion temperature monitoring is not required under NSPS subpart
BB.
Abstract for [0200010]
Q1: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing extension
requested by the Gainesville Regional Utilities for Combined Cycle Unit
No. 1 at the J.R. Kelly Generating Station to comply with NSPS subparts
A and GG?
A1: Yes. Unit No. 1 will not be capable of operating until the
reinstallation of parts that were returned to the manufacturer for
repairs. Therefore, the deadline for completing an initial performance
can be extended for up to 720 operating hours following the restart of
the unit.
Q2: Can certification testing for the continuous emission
monitoring systems installed on Unit No. 1 be delayed for up to 30 days
beyond the completion date of the initial performance test on the unit?
A2: Yes. The proposed schedule for monitor certification is
consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR 60.13(c).
Q3: Can the requirement to provide notification at least 30 days
prior to conducting the initial performance test be waived?
A3: Conditional. Providing less than 30 days prior notification is
acceptable provided that it does not prevent the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection from observing the testing.
Abstract for [0200011]
Q: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing extension
requested by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) for Combined Cycle
Unit No. 1 at the J.R. Kelly Generating Station to comply with NSPS
subparts A and GG?
A: No. Because 40 CFR part 60 does not contain provisions for
extending the initial performance testing deadlines in 40 CFR 60.8(a),
GRU is technically in violation of the requirement to complete an
initial performance test within 60 days after reaching the maximum
firing rate on Unit No. 1. Because the turbine operating problems that
have delayed the performance testing are largely out of GRU's control,
it is recommended that a decision regarding whether to pursue
enforcement for missing the testing deadline be deferred until after
the testing is actually completed.
Abstract for [0200012]
Q: Must NSPS Subpart OOO sources in Kentucky submit notifications
and reports to U.S. EPA Region 4?
A: No. Because NSPS subpart OOO has been delegated to the Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection and to the Air Pollution
Control District of Jefferson County, submitting notifications and
reports to these agencies will be sufficient.
Abstract for [0200013]
Q: Is an alternative sulfur dioxide monitoring proposal for Units 1
and 2 at the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) Northside Generating
Station acceptable to comply with NSPS subpart Da?
A: No. In order for the alternative monitoring approach to be
approved, it must contain a provision for initiating daily as-fired
coal sampling in the event that the 30-day average sulfur dioxide
removal efficiency calculated ever drops below 80 percent. In addition,
it will be necessary for JEA to measure the pre-control sulfur dioxide
emission rate for at least 30 consecutive boiling operating days in
order to collect the data needed to satisfy the requirements for an
initial performance test.
Abstract for [0200014]
Q: Is an initial performance testing extension requested by the
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) for a combustion turbine at its
Brandy Branch installation acceptable to comply with NSPS subparts A
and GG?
A: No. Because 40 CFR part 60 does not contain provisions for
extending the initial performance testing deadlines in 40 CFR 60.8(a),
JEA is technically in violation of the requirement to complete an
initial performance test within 60 days after reaching the maximum
firing rate on Unit 1. Because the turbine operating problems that have
delayed the performance testing are largely out of JEA's control, a
decision regarding whether to pursue enforcement for missing the
testing deadline should be deferred until after the testing is actually
completed.
Abstract for [0200015]
Q: Is an initial performance testing extension requested by the
City of Tallahassee for Unit No. 8 at its Purdom Generating Station
acceptable to comply with NSPS subparts A and GG?
A: Yes. Unit Number 8 will not be capable of sustained operation
until the cause of vibrations during oil firing is identified and
corrected. Therefore, the deadline for completing an initial
performance can be extended for up to 720 operating hours following the
restart of the unit on oil.
Abstract for [0200016]
Q: Does a gas vent flare, which is sometimes referred to as a
``candle flare'' because it has a constant sparking device at the flare
tip, meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.18(f)(2)?
A: No. EPA does not consider open (or candle) flares with constant
sparking devices to be equivalent to the thermocouple, ultraviolet beam
sensor requirements for flares found at 40 CFR 60.18(f)(2).
Abstract for [0200017]
Q: Is a process printing machine subject to the NSPS subpart RR
regulations for pressure sensitive tape and label materials coating?
A: Yes. The printing machine meets the definition of ``precoat''
under 40 CFR 60.441(a).
Abstract for [0200018]
Q: Will EPA approve ASTM Test Method D5762-01 to monitor nitrogen
content for turbines?
A: Yes. This test method has the necessary reproducibility and
repeatability and accuracy to be used in lieu of ASTM Test Method D3228
for the monitoring requirement under NSPS subpart GG.
[[Page 58032]]
Abstract for [0200019]
Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the initial performance test
required in NSPS subpart WWW, for landfill gas used in a large process
heater (more than 44 megawatts)? The landfill gas is to be compressed,
filtered, and refrigerated before being sent to the process heater.
A: Yes. EPA considers compressing, filtering, and refrigerating
landfill gas for use in an energy recovery project to be ``treatment''
under NSPS subpart WWW. Therefore, no initial performance test is
required.
Abstract for [0200020]
Q: Will EPA approve a 7-day drift test at less than 50% capacity
boiler operation to comply with NSPS subpart A?
A: If the normal operation of the boilers is to operate at less
than 50% capacity, EPA can approve a lower boiler operation in
accordance with statements made in the Agency's Emission Measurement
Center Guideline Document covering Appendix B, Performance
Specification 2, under the definition of ``normal'' load.
Abstract for [0200021]
Q1: Will EPA allow a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired
turbines to sample fuel sulfur content on a quarterly basis during the
next 12 months of operation with semiannual monitoring for all
subsequent years to comply with NSPS subpart GG?
A1: Yes, but only if pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR
72.2, is the only fuel being burned. The company must substantiate its
request with sulfur monitoring data below the sulfur standard, with
little variability. This data must be collected with a test method
approved under 40 CFR 60.335(d). The custom fuel monitoring schedule is
based on the schedule provided in a 1987 policy memorandum from the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
Q2: Will EPA waive the nitrogen fuel monitoring requirement for a
facility with combined-cycle natural gas-fired turbines proposes?
A2: Yes. EPA will not require monitoring of fuel nitrogen content
while pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR 72.2, is the only fuel
fired in the gas turbine. This is based on a 1987 policy memorandum
from OAQPS.
Abstract for [0200022]
Q1: Will EPA allow a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired
turbines to waive the water-to-fuel monitoring requirement in 40 CFR
60.334(a)?
A1: No. EPA will not waive the water-to-fuel monitoring requirement
in 40 CFR 60.334(a). However, EPA will allow the facility to use
certified CEMs to monitor NOX emissions as an alternative to
monitoring the water-to-fuel ratio to demonstrate compliance with
60.334(a).
Q2: Is it acceptable for a company with combined-cycle natural gas-
fired turbines to use ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to measure the fuel
sulfur content?
A2: No. The ASTM test methods that are accepted in 40 CFR 60.335(d)
have experimental results for repeatability or reproducibility which
ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 and ASTM Test Method D 5504-98 do not.
Q3: Is it acceptable for a company with combined-cycle natural gas-
fired turbines to use a custom fuel monitoring schedule?
A3: Yes, but only if pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR
72.2, is the only fuel being burned. The company must substantiate its
request with sulfur monitoring data below the sulfur standard and
showing little variability. This data must be collected with a test
method approved under 40 CFR 60.335(d). The custom fuel monitoring
schedule is based on the schedule provided in a 1987 policy memorandum
from the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards.
Abstract for [0200023]
Q: May the GPA Test Method 2377-86 be used in lieu of approved ASTM
test methods for analyzing the sulfur content of natural gas?
A: Yes. The GPA test method entitled ``Test for Hydrogen Sulfide
and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes'' (GPA
Standard 2377-86) is an alternative method that EPA has approved for
other facilities that combust pipeline quality natural gas.
Abstract for [0200024]
Q1: May the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements
of part 75 be used to satisfy NSPS QA/QC requirements for CEMs at a
boiler unit that operates as a peaker?
A1: Yes. NSPS subpart A requires Relative Accuracy Test Audits
(RATA) once every four consecutive calendar quarters for CEMs at a
continuously operated boiler unit. For an infrequently operated unit,
EPA's Acid Rain Program rules at part 75 may be used in lieu of NSPS
requirements, subject to certain conditions.
Q2: May low emission rate criteria adopted under part 75 rules be
used during the RATA?
A2: No. In this case, a problem with past RATA testing had been
addressed, so it is no longer necessary to rely on the low emission
rate provisions.
Q3: May we use diluent capping procedures of part 75?
A3: No. It is better to provide regulatory agencies with the actual
data, even when the F-factor used creates an inaccuracy in the emission
calculations. Moreover, during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, the source is not subject to the nitrogen oxide emissions
standards as set forth at Sec. 60.46a(c). The regulatory agencies will
review the data to determine whether the numbers, in fact, represent
excess emissions.
Abstract for [0200025]
Q: How is a landfill that is a Superfund site affected by the
Federal Plan for landfills, when it would otherwise be considered
subject to the Plan?
A: The site is governed by a Federal consent decree. Through the
incorporation of the Record of Decision (ROD), the consent decree
establishes the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) for the landfill in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The
ROD remedy included the installation of a landfill gas collection and
control system at the JDF. During future 5-year reviews of the remedy,
it may be appropriate to consider some aspect of Federal Plan
requirements to ensure that the selected remedy remains protective of
human health and the environment.
Abstract for [0200026]
Q1: Is it acceptable for a company with simple-cycle natural gas-
fired turbines to use an on-site sulfur gas chromatograph that uses
ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to measure the fuel sulfur content?
A1: No. The ASTM test methods that are accepted in 60.335(d) have
experimental results for repeatability or reproducibility which ASTM D
5504-94 and ASTM D 5504-98 do not.
Q2: Is it acceptable for a company to use the Gas Processors
Association (GPA) test method entitled ``Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and
Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes'' (GPA
Standard Test Method 2377-86) as a backup to using the on-site sulfur
gas chromatograph and ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to demonstrate
compliance with 40 CFR 60.333(b)?
A2: No. Based on the answer to the first question, EPA will not
allow the facility to use GPA Standard Test
[[Page 58033]]
Method 2377-86 as a backup test method.
Abstract for [0200027]
Q: How late will EPA accept the Tier 2 and Tier 3 testing options
contained in NSPS subpart WWW for municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills?
A: EPA cannot consider Tier 2 or Tier 3 testing after the NSPS
final compliance deadline.
Abstract for [0200028]
Q: Are landfill gases treated by the Krysol gas treatment process
subject to the NSPS subpart WWW for municipal solid waste landfills?
A: No. Gases that have been treated by the Krysol gas treatment
process, which includes compression, drying, and removal of CO2 and
other contaminants, are not subject. Nevertheless, any waste gases that
would be vented from the treatment process to the atmosphere, whether
vented to the on-site internal combustion engine, the thermal oxidizer,
or the open flare, must meet the appropriate control requirements.
Abstract for [0200029]
Q: Is the proposal to shorten the sampling time for dioxin testing
on the medical waste incinerators at the Children's Hospital and at
American 3CI from fours hours to one hour acceptable to comply with
NSPS subpart Ce?
A: Conditionally acceptable. Based upon the magnitude of the
applicable dioxin standard for the facilities in question, the
detection limit for a one-hour sample should be low enough for
verifying compliance. In order to reduce the possibility that a retest
will be needed, however, the testing contractor should verify this
using the actual detection limit for the laboratory that will be
analyzing the samples from these facilities.
Abstract for [0200030]
Q1: Do an existing and a new brown stock washer operating in
parallel constitute a single affected facility or two separate affected
facilities under NSPS subpart BB?
A1: Based upon the definitions in NSPS subpart BB, the parallel
brown stock washers constitute a single affected facility.
Q2: If the parallel brown stock washers constitute a single
facility, how would modification and reconstruction issues be addressed
when the new brown stock washer is installed?
A2: For reconstruction, if the existing brown stock washer is
permanently taken out of service, the cost of the new brown stock
washer must be considered when determining whether reconstruction has
occurred. For modification, an increase in the brown stock washer
system throughput or the total reduced sulfur emission rate following
the installation of the new brown stock washer would constitute a
modification which would trigger the applicability of NSPS subpart BB.
Abstract for [0200031]
Q: The Berkshire Power, LLC's Agawam, Massachusetts facility is
subject to NSPS subpart GG and to the federal Acid Rain requirements in
part 75. How should the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MDP) resolve some 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 75 CEM
requirement inconsistencies?
A: EPA Region 1 recognizes that for facilities with very low
NOX emission limits in their New Source Performance (NSR) /
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, some of the
relative accuracy limits and ranges in parts 60 and 75 may not be
appropriate. After consultation with OAQPS, EPA Region 1 has tried to
provide reasonable alternatives in this letter.
Abstract for [0200032]
Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS
Subpart GG for a facility?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the custom fuel monitoring schedule
according to an August 14, 1987, national policy which allows the EPA
Regional Offices to approve NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring
schedules on a case-by-case basis. In this case, approval is based on
the understanding that there is no fuel-bound nitrogen and that the
available free nitrogen does not appreciably contribute to
NOX emissions.
Abstract for [0200033]
Q: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method
for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS Subpart GG?
A: Yes, but only if the probe is designed and conforms to the tests
specified in EPA Guideline Document GD-031.
Abstract for [0200034]
Q: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method
for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS subpart GG?
A: Yes, but only if the probe is designed and conforms to the tests
specified in EPA Guideline Document GD-031.
Abstract for [0200035]
Q1: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method
for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS Subpart GG?
A1: Yes. However, EPA must approve modifications to test methods
prior to their use. In this case, EPA approves the modification because
it believes that this is a minor modification that will generate
acceptably accurate data.
Abstract for [0200036]
Q: Will EPA allow an alternative fuel analysis method for testing
nitrogen content in distillate fuel to comply with NSPS subpart GG?
A: Yes. EPA will allow an alternative fuel analysis method, but
only if the method can be shown to determine the nitrogen content with
an accuracy of within 5 percent. In this case, information the facility
submitted to EPA from its laboratory failed to demonstrate that the
alternative method could meet the precision criteria.
Abstract for [C020003]
Q1: At what point in the final disposal process is a final disposal
facility violating 40 CFR 82.156(f) if a charged small appliance is
found by an EPA inspector during a compliance inspection?
A1: EPA believes that a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f) occurs if a
charged appliance is found after the last reasonable inspection point
in the disposal process. EPA also believes that the ``final step'' in
the disposal process may occur even though the disposal facility has
not staged an appliance for destruction or placed an appliance in a
staging area for destruction.
Q2: Under what circumstance is a statement of evacuation the only
verification required under 40 CFR 82.156(f) by a final disposal
facility before the final step in the disposal process can occur
without violating 40 CFR 82.156(f)? According to the final rule
preamble (58 FR 28704) a certification accepted ``in good faith''
relieves the disposal facility of its liability. If however, the entity
``knows or should know that refrigerant remains in the appliance,'' it
will still be held liable.
A2: The Agency believes that verification statements of evacuation
accepted in good faith by a disposal facility satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2).
Q3: Is a verification statement required for each and every
appliance accepted by the final disposal facility if the facility has a
contract with a supplier stipulating that all refrigerant will be
removed from appliances prior to delivery? Is a long term (more than 1
shipment) contract all that is required
[[Page 58034]]
under 40 CFR 82.156(f) as verification of refrigerant evacuation?
A3: If the final disposal facility chooses not to recover remaining
refrigerant from appliances, verification must include a signed
statement of evacuation from the person from whom the appliance is
received. Final disposal facilities may also accept statements of
evacuation for shipments of appliances. Regular suppliers to a final
disposal facility, with whom long-standing business relationships are
maintained, may sign a contract that stipulates that one party has the
responsibility to remove refrigerant from equipment before delivery to
the facility.
Q4: Is a statement of evacuation accepted under 40 CFR
82.156(f)(2), which is missing any information listed as required in 40
CFR 82.156(f), a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2)? Does a violation of
40 CFR 82.156(f) occur if a company has or may have the missing
information in other company records?
A4: The Safe Disposal Program regulations require that certain
specific information must be included as part of any statement of
evacuation. 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2) is very clear concerning the
information that must be part of any statement of evacuation. Any
information required by the regulation that is missing from a statement
of evacuation is a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2).
Q5: Are there any circumstances under which a final disposal
facility would be violating the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f) if an empty small appliance is found
by an EPA inspector in a staging area during a compliance inspection?
A5: For empty appliances, as for all appliances, the disposal
facility must recover the refrigerant or obtain a signed statement
which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2) from the person
delivering the appliance. This statement must be obtained prior to
placing the appliance in the final staging area for disposal.
Abstract for [M020005]
Q: Would EPA classify the John Zink Gasoline Vapor Combustion Unit
as a thermal oxidization system or a flare?
A: In previous applicability determinations for similar units, EPA
has determined that these types of units should be classified as
thermal oxidation systems. Therefore, these units are subject to the
temperature monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 63.427(a)(3). EPA had
only intended for the flare monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
63.427(a)(4) to apply to open flame flares.
Abstract for [M020006]
Q: If a facility purchases fibers (wood pulp, cotton, fiber glass,
burlap, and hemp) and additives to produce a variety of paper products,
but the paper mill neither produces virgin pulp nor operates a bleach
system, is it subject to NESHAP subpart S?
A. No. If the paper mill does not contain a pulping or bleaching
system as defined 40 CFR 63.441, then the mill does not contain an
affected source as defined under NESHAP subpart S, and the facility is
not subject to NESHAP subpart S.
Abstract for [M020007]
Q: Does NESHAP subpart RRR apply to stand-alone aluminum shredding
devices where no further processing or charging is done on-site or at
another facility?
A: No. The stand-alone aluminum shredding device would not meet the
definition of ``aluminum scrap shredder'' at 40 CFR 63.1503 and would
not be subject to NESHAP subpart RRR.
Abstract for [Z020001]
Q: Are tar pitch traps in metallurgical coke plants subject to 40
CFR part 61, subparts L and V?
A: Based on the information submitted in this case, the tar
decanter pitch traps are not subject to either NESHAP subpart L or
NESHAP subpart V as the amount of benzene in the stream is not high
enough to qualify as ``in benzene service'' under NESHAP subpart V and
the equipment is not a tar decanter, tar intercepting sump or tar
storage tank as understood by NESHAP subpart L.
Abstract for [0200038]
Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring procedures under subpart
GG for stationary gas turbines used for peaking purposes?
A: Yes. EPA will approve alternative monitoring procedures
consistent with its 1987 Policy on custom fuel monitoring plans.
Approval in this case is contingent on the fact that only clean fuels
will be combusted (as specified in State permits) and that a certified
Continuous Emission Monitoring system will be used.
Abstract for [0200039]
Q: Will EPA allow QVC, Inc. to do monthly rather than daily fuel
usage monitoring under NSPS subpart Dc?
A: Yes. Under circumstances such as those in this case, EPA has
allowed the use of monthly rather than daily fuel usage monitoring for
very small boilers combusting natural gas as the primary fuel.
Abstract for [0200040]
Q: Does EPA consider an air curtain incinerator located at a
residential construction site a commercial or industrial facility under
NSPS subpart CCCC?
A: No. EPA has determined that an air curtain incinerator located
at a residential construction site is not considered an industrial or
commercial ``facility'' since the incinerator is not permanently
located at the site. Neither is the residential construction site
itself a permanent industrial or commercial ``facility''. Therefore,
NSPS subpart CCCC, the commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration regulations, do not apply to the air curtain incinerator
at the residential construction site.
Abstract for [0200041]
Q: Will EPA allow a source to conduct the initial NOX
performance testing at base load only instead of at all four loads
under NSPS subpart GG?
A: Yes. EPA will allow the testing to be conducted at base load
only under the following conditions: the turbine burns pipeline natural
gas, the NOX CEM system provides a continuous record of
emissions, and the base load is the peak load.
Abstract for [0200042]
Q1: Will EPA allow a source to conduct the initial NOX
performance testing at base load only instead of at all four loads
under NSPS subpart GG?
A1: Yes. EPA will allow the testing to be conducted at base load
only under the following conditions: the turbine burns pipeline natural
gas, the NOX CEM system provides a continuous record of
emissions, and the base load is the peak load.
Q2: Will EPA approve the use of a CEM to monitor NOX
emissions on a source which uses water injection to control
NOX and be required to continuously correct the data to ISO
standard ambient conditions?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of a CEM, and the source does not
have to correct the CEM data to ISO standards because it has
demonstrated that the emissions are well below the standard.
Q3: Will EPA allow semiannual monitoring frequency for sulfur
content under a custom fuel monitoring plan?
A3: Yes. If the source has demonstrated low data variability and
sulfur content results which are below the standard and follows a
schedule.
Abstract for [0200043]
Q: Is a sulfuric acid plant that is installed as a control device
for sulfur dioxide emissions from a molybdenum
[[Page 58035]]
ore roasting operation subject to NSPS subpart H?
A: No. The definition for ``sulfuric acid production unit'' in NSPS
subpart H does not include facilities where a sulfuric acid plant is
used ``primarily'' to control sulfur dioxide emissions. However, this
determination is subject to reevaluation if a significant change occurs
at the facility in question. In addition, EPA Region 7 clarifies and
corrects a previous determination for this facility made with input
from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA). In a letter to
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) dated June 3, 1996, EPA
stated that the exemption in the definition of ``sulfuric acid
production unit'' in NSPS subpart H applied to acid plants used only as
an emission control device and that the introduction of any elemental
sulfur would change the acid plant from an emission control device to a
sulfuric acid production process. The guidance provided by OECA at that
time was derived from a narrow application of the regulation, without
any research into the background documents or the process chemistry
involved in acid production plants, both for production and process
control. Therefore, this interpretation supercedes and corrects the
previous one.
Abstract for [0200044]
Q1. Does a change in liquid service of a storage vessel at a
facility from a low vapor pressure material (stormwater or diesel fuel)
to a high vapor pressure material (crude oil or gasoline) constitute a
modification under 40 CFR 60.14?
A1. In recent determinations, EPA found the activity of a petroleum
vessel storage facility changing the type of petroleum product stored
(i.e., diesel fuel to gasoline) was equivalent to the use of an
alternative fuel and exempted from the definition of modification as
provided in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4). These determinations were based on the
assumption that petroleum products were essentially equivalent and,
therefore, any petroleum storage vessel could reasonably accommodate an
alternative petroleum product. Please note that EPA's determinations
only pertained to petroleum storage vessels. A storage vessel
converting from water or other non-petroleum liquid storage over to
petroleum storage would not be exempted from the NSPS modification
definition. With regard to the example, EPA would find the activity of
a vessel changing from diesel fuel storage to gasoline storage was not
a modification as defined in 40 CFR 60.14 and, therefore, the vessel
would not be subject to the NSPS subpart Kb.
Q2. What are the specific criteria for determining whether a vessel
was designed to accommodate an alternative use? If the original
construction specifications are not available, how is such a
determination made?
A2. EPA did not develop any specific criteria for determining if a
fuel storage vessel could accommodate an alternative petroleum material
in these determinations. As described previously, EPA's determinations
centered on assuming that petroleum products are similar and that a
petroleum storage vessel could reasonably accommodate different types
of petroleum products. However, if EPA did receive a request for a
determination on a specific storage vessel significantly altering its
design to accommodate an alternative petroleum product, EPA may adjust
its determination considering the specific facts of the case.
Abstract for [0200045]
Q. Is the electrode process line of a facility that produces
medical EKG electrodes subject to the requirements of the NSPS subpart
RR?
A. Yes. Upon review, EPA finds that the electrode process line
would be subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart RR. The subpart's
applicability provision states the provisions of this subpart apply to
an affected facility whose coating line is used in the manufacture of
pressure sensitive tape and label materials. Pressure sensitive tape
includes ``any'' adhesive that coats a web substrate including adhesive
gels with pressure sensitive properties. Our understanding is that the
medical EKG electrode uses an adhesive gel and is applied to the skin
through pressure. Consequently, the Region has determined that NSPS
subpart RR is applicable to the process line producing these
electrodes.
Abstract for [0200046]
Q. A facility has modified two 13.9 MMBtu/hr wood-fired boilers.
Would the boiler modifications constitute a modification as defined in
NSPS subpart A, and thereby, make the facility subject to NSPS subpart
Dc?
A. No. The physical changes do not constitute a modification as
specified in 40 CFR 60.14. Thus, the boilers at issue are not subject
to the requirements of NSPS subpart Dc. The physical modifications of
the boilers increased their heat input capacity and likewise their
potential to emit for all pollutants; however, pollution prevention
controls were simultaneously instituted that in fact caused a reduction
of particulate matter emission rate. Sulfur dioxide emission rates were
increased by increasing the heat input capacity of the wood-fired
boilers; however, sulfur dioxide emissions from wood-fired boilers are
relatively small (.02 lb/MMBtu) and in fact are not covered by the
sulfur dioxide standard of NSPS subpart Dc that pertains only to units
using coal or oil fuel. Thus, the sulfur dioxide emission rates are not
applicable to these wood-fired boilers and the physical changes do not
constitute a modification.
Abstract for [0200047]
Q. A facility submitted an amendment application to its air
emissions license for the replacement of the existing tangential
overfire air system in Power Boiler No. 1 with an ``Opposed Wall''
system. Does this replacement constitute an NSPS modification as
defined in 40 CFR 60.14?
A. No. This project is not considered a modification and is exempt
from additional NSPS requirements. This system does not affect any of
the emission limits nor does it increase emissions nor increase the
production capacity of the boiler. Replacements such as this are not
considered modifications and are exempt from NSPS requirements.
Abstract for [0200048]
Q1. Do internal costs of engineering and installation constitute
``fixed capital costs'' even though a company would typically not
capitalize them, or are only external contractor and consultant fees
counted as fixed capital costs under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A?
A1. In a May 11, 1998 applicability determination pertaining to
reconstruction costs, EPA stated that the engineering, purchase and
installation costs, and contractor fees should be included in the
affected facility reconstruction costs (i.e., fixed capital cost) to
the extent that they are associated with reconstruction of affected
process equipment.
Q2. Do the repair and ultimate replacement of a rear boiler wall
constitute ``fixed capital costs'' even though these costs were
expensed?
A2. The failed repair attempts should not be included in fixed
capital costs; however, the costs of actual replacement of the rear
boiler wall should be included in the fixed capital costs.
Q3. What is meant by ``comparable entirely new facility'' in the
definition of reconstruction under NSPS subpart A? When evaluating the
costs associated with a comparable entirely new facility to replace the
boiler, should the cost of
[[Page 58036]]
installing a low NOX burner be included?
A3. The term ``comparable entirely new facility'' would consist of
a new boiler with identical components to the repaired boiler.
Reconstruction calculations do not include air pollution control
equipment; therefore, the source would not include the cost of
installing low NOX burners on the new facility unless they
are being added to the existing facility.
Abstract for [0200049]
Q. Is a Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
facility that produces heavy liquid chemicals only from heavy liquid
feed or raw material subject to the NSPS subpart VV?
A. Yes. The SOCMI facility is subject to NSPS subpart VV. However,
the facility only needs to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions of NSPS subpart VV since it meets the exemption definition
under 40 CFR 60.480(d)(3). In addition, the facility is exempt from the
SOCMI facility standard in 40 CFR 60.482 since it produces heavy liquid
chemicals only from heavy liquid feed or raw material as defined in 40
CFR 60.480(d)(3).
Dated: August 30, 2002.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 02-23367 Filed 9-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P