[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41256-41261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7783-5]
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); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.
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 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 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 section 111(d) of the Clean and Air Act
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 33 such documents added to
the ADI on April 2004. 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.
[[Page 41257]]
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on (date); 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Category Subpart Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A040001.......................... Asbestos............ M.................. Application of Solvent to Floor
Mastic.
A040002.......................... Asbestos............ M.................. Application of Solvent to Floor
Mastic.
C040001.......................... CFC................. F.................. Safe Disposal of Appliances.
M040001.......................... MACT................ T.................. Switching to non-HAP Solvent.
M040002.......................... MACT................ T.................. Modifications to Alt. Monitoring
Method.
M040003.......................... MACT................ RRR................ Alt. Monitoring Based on Scrap
Inspection Program.
M040004.......................... MACT................ EEE................ Alt. Monitoring for Automatic
Waste Feed Cutoff.
M040005.......................... MACT................ O.................. Alt. Monitoring for Aeration Room
Vent.
M040006.......................... MACT................ RRR................ Test Waiver for Secondary Aluminum
Ring Crusher.
M040007.......................... MACT................ GGG, U............. Basing Parametric Monitoring
Levels on Old Test Data.
M040008.......................... MACT................ MMM................ Compliance & Parameters Based on
Old Emission Test Data.
M040013.......................... MACT................ GGG................ Off-site Interim Wastewater
Storage Facilities.
M040012.......................... MACT................ GGG................ Off-site Interim Wastewater
Storage Facilities.
M040009.......................... MACT................ RRR................ Alt. Test Duration--Secondary
Aluminum Scrap Shredder.
M040010.......................... MACT................ NNNN............... Non-household Floor Cleaning and
Vacuuming Equipment.
M040011.......................... MACT................ HH................. Leak Detection on Ancillary
Equipment for Alt. Monitoring.
M040014.......................... MACT................ NNN................ Binder Switch from Formaldehyde to
Acrylic.
M040015.......................... MACT................ YYYY............... Stationary Gas Turbines.
0400001.......................... NSPS................ GG................. Alt. Nitrogen & Sulfur
Monitoring\Use of CEMS.
0400002.......................... NSPS................ Dc................. Alt. Fuel Usage Recordkeeping &
Reporting.
0400003.......................... NSPS................ Db,Dc.............. Boiler Derate.
0400004.......................... NSPS................ Db................. Alt. Opacity Monitoring.
0400005.......................... NSPS................ QQQ................ Modification\Reconstruction of
Aggregate Facilities.
0400006.......................... NSPS................ Db................. Alt. Opacity Monitoring.
0400007.......................... NSPS................ Dc................. Carbon Burn-Out Unit.
0400008.......................... NSPS................ Db................. Monitoring Requirements.
0400011.......................... NSPS................ OOO................ Non-metallic Mineral Production
Line.
0400012.......................... NSPS................ GG................. Custom Fuel Sulfur Monitoring
Schedule.
0400013.......................... NSPS................ GG................. Alt. Measurement of SO2.
0400014.......................... NSPS................ GG................. Custom Fuel Sulfur Monitoring
Schedule.
0400015.......................... NSPS................ Ka, Kb............. Modification of Storage Tanks.
0400016.......................... NSPS................ OOO, UUU........... Applicability to Lime Plants.
0400017.......................... NSPS................ UUU................ Sand Reclamation at Foundries.
0400018.......................... NSPS................ OOO................ Adding Grinding Circuit to Stand-
Alone Screening Operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract for [M040001]
Q: Will the Associated Spring facility remain subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart T, if it permanently stops using hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) solvent and switches to a non-HAP solvent?
A: No. The Associated Spring facility no longer uses one of the
listed solvents. Based on its commitment to continue in that mode for
the forseeable future, EPA has determined that the facility is no
longer subject to the halogenated solvent National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
Abstract for [M040002]
Q: Will EPA approve revisions to an alternative monitoring method
under 40 CFR 63.8(f) for complex continuous web cleaning machines
subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart T at the
Alcoa Mill Products' Davenport Works facility?
A: Yes. EPA will approve an alternative monitoring method to
replace the specific monitoring requirements previously approved under
NSPS subpart T.
Abstract for [M040003]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring program for the
Alcoa, Lafayette, Indiana secondary aluminum smelter subject to the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRR?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the alternative monitoring program because
the scrap inspection program includes, among other requirements, that
the facility make it clear to suppliers that it will not accept painted
dealer extrusion scrap.
Abstract for [M040004]
Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring for the 32 rotary kiln
incinerators at the Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan facility? 40 CFR
63.1206(c)(3) requires that a hazardous waste incinerator have an
automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) that immediately and automatically
cuts off hazardous waste feed under certain conditions. Dow requests
that EPA allow continued feed of certain waste streams while the
process information management system (PIMS), part of the AWFCO, is
down. 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) allows EPA to approve alternative
monitoring.
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring request. When the
PIMS is down, hourly rolling average concentrations will be
interrupted. However, the continuous monitoring systems will read and
electronically record instantaneous real time data of each monitored
parameter, and Dow Chemical will base compliance on this data. Dow can
continue to burn wastes as long as the instantaneous operating
conditions do not exceed the operating parameters established under the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), and must stop feeding
containers or lab packs and new liquids. In the event of an AWFCO
[[Page 41258]]
while the PIMS is down, the kiln will be fed only auxiliary fuel until
the MACT parameters are within range and the PIMS has resumed
operation. Triggering the AWFCO on instantaneous data at the MACT
limits is more conservative than the hourly and the 12-hour rolling
average limits the MACT allows. The PIMS does not control the operation
of the kiln nor does it directly impact emissions. Continued operation
with limited feeds will minimize any excess emissions from complete
shutoff of the feed.
Abstract for [M040005]
Q: Will EPA approve the alternative monitoring request at the Cook,
Incorporated sterilization facility in Ellettsville, Indiana for the
dry bed reactors on the aeration room vent to comply with 40 CFR part
63, subpart O?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring request. Cook
proposes to monitor the aeration room vents control equipment using a
gas chromatograph (GC), and will conduct bag sampling at the dry bed
system outlet on a weekly basis, measure the ethylene oxide
concentration in the sample using the GC, and record the results. The
facility will comply with the 1 ppmv standard at 40 CFR 63.362(d).
Cook's request includes a description of the dry bed reactors,
satisfactory performance specifications and quality assurance
procedures for the GC, and complete performance test results, and the
test results show compliance with the standard.
Abstract for [M040006]
Q: May the ring crusher at the Wabash Alloys secondary aluminum
facility in Wabash, Indiana obtain a waiver of the performance testing
required for scrap shredders to demonstrate compliance with the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology particulate matter (PM) emission standard
of 40 CFR 63.1505(b)(1)?
A: Yes. The facility has demonstrated that it is technically
infeasible to use Method 5 to measure emissions. Method 9 visible
emissions readings were taken for three runs, and each run was
continuous for at least one hour. Visible emissions were 0 percent
opacity at the transition from the crusher to the conveyor throughout
all three runs. The opacity standard for scrap shredders with air
pollution control devices, 40 CFR 63.1505(b)(2), is 10 percent. This
facility's scrap shredder is uncontrolled. Since the visible emissions
readings showed uncontrolled opacity far below the limit for a
controlled source, this provides assurance that the ring crusher is in
continuous compliance with the PM standard.
Abstract for [M040007]
Q: May the Dow Chemical Midland, Michigan facility use data from an
April 15, 1988, performance test to establish alternative parametric
monitoring levels for monitoring compliance with the pharmaceutical
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and the Group
I polymer and resins NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG and U?
A: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that represents
current operation, and resubmit a request to establish alternative
parametric levels.
Abstract for [M040008]
Q1: May the Dow Chemical facility in Midland, Michigan use data
from an April 15, 1988 performance test to demonstrate compliance with
the pesticide active ingredient National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM?
A1: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that
represents current operation.
Q2: May the facility use data from a pharmaceutical Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the pesticides NESHAP?
A2: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that
represents current operation.
Q3: May the facility use the Title V renewable operating permit
flexible group requirements as the pesticides MACT control device
limits?
A3: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that
represents current operation and resubmit a request to establish
parametric levels. The proposed Method 25A may be insufficient to
capture emissions from chlorinated, oxygenated and nitrogenated
compounds. Dow must perform simultaneous Method 25 and Method 25A
tests. Testing must be at maximum (worst case) operating conditions,
including steady and non-steady state conditions.
Abstract for [M040009]
Q: May the Wabash Alloys secondary aluminum facility in Cleveland,
Ohio demonstrate compliance under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR by
conducting a test consisting of three runs, each with a duration of one
hour, in place of the required three three-hour test runs?
A: Yes. The larger processing rate achieved during a one hour run
will better represent maximum operations and emissions. This approval
is granted provided that an adequate sample is obtained during a one
hour run, and it applies only to continuous processes.
Abstract for [M040010]
Q: Is the Tennant facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which makes
non-household floor cleaning and vacuuming equipment for the service
industry, subject to the large appliance surface coating Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT), 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN?
A: Yes. During development of the standard, EPA visited a facility
that makes products similar to those made by the Tennant facility. The
background document for the proposed standard lists non-household
vacuum cleaners and sweepers as examples of a large appliance, and
lists the Tennant facility as a potential major source subject to MACT
subpart NNNN. The final rule exempts household waxers and polishers
that fall under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3639.
However, the non-household products made by Tennant fall under SIC code
3589. There are no statements in the Federal Register or rulemaking
record that would lead one to believe that there was an intent to
exclude the equipment in Tennant's product line from MACT subpart NNNN.
Abstract for [M040011]
Q: Will EPA approve the alternative monitoring of quarterly visual
inspections of equipment in ethylene glycol jacket water service
(considered ``in VHAP service'') as a substitute for Method 21 under 40
CFR part 63, subpart HH at Chevron's Carter Creek Gas Plant in
Evanston, Wyoming?
A: Yes. EPA has determined that quarterly visual inspections of
equipment in jacket water service at a gas plant is an acceptable
substitute for Method 21.
Abstract for [M040012]
Q: Do the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5) of the
pharmaceutical Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), subpart
GGG, apply to off-site interim wastewater storage facilities that store
but do not treat affected wastewaters, or that are not major sources as
defined in section 112(a) of the Clean Air Act?
A: Yes. The language of the regulation and the background documents
clarify that the intent is not simply to regulate offsite facilities
that manage and treat affected wastewaters, and allow unregulated
transfer of wastewaters and residuals from other types of facilities.
It is also not the intent of the rule to
[[Page 41259]]
prohibit such transfer as long as the transferee certifies that it will
manage and treat the wastewater in accordance with the rule. These are
technical compliance requirements, not threshold applicability issues.
As originally promulgated, MACT subpart GGG did not allow off-site
treatment of wastewater containing 50 ppmw or more of partially soluble
hazardous air pollutants. However, MACT subpart GGG has been amended to
allow such transfers, as long as the transferee certifies that the
wastewater or residual will be managed and treated in accordance with
the rule. While the requirements of MACT subpart GGG apply to owners or
operators of pharmaceutical manufacturing operations that are major
sources, the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5) apply to any
transferee. The transferee must certify in writing to the EPA that the
transferee will comply with those requirements. Lacking that
certification, the owner or operator of the subject pharmaceutical
operation may not transfer the wastewater or residual. By providing the
certification, the transferee voluntarily accepts the compliance
responsibility in 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5)(ii) and 63.1256(a)(5)(iv). If
the facility decides to accept subject wastewater and residual from an
affected source, the request for this applicability determination does
not substitute for the required written certification.
Abstract for [M040013]
Q1: Facility A that is subject to the pharmaceutical Maximum
Achievable Control Technology, subpart GGG, sends affected wastewater
to Facility B that is an off-site, non-treatment certified facility.
Facility B intends to send the wastewater to Facility C, another off-
site non-treatment facility. Must Facility B ensure that Facility C is
certified before sending the wastewater?
A1: Yes. By providing the original certification, Facility B has
accepted responsibility for compliance with 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5)(ii),
which does not allow transfer of affected wastewater without a
certification. However, if Facility C is under the control of the
entity that submitted the certification for Facility B, no new
certification is needed because a transferee is bound by the
certification no matter which facility it uses.
Q2: Do the certification requirements of 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5) apply
to temporary sites where drums or tankers are stored but never opened
or unloaded?
A2: Yes. After the transferee has certified that it will comply, 40
CFR 63.1256(a)(5)(ii) requires that it must do so no matter where it
stores the affected wastewater.
Abstract for [M040014]
Q: Is a facility that switches from a formaldehyde binder to an
acrylic binder still subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN?
A: No, the facility no longer meets the definition of a ``wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility'' as defined in 40 CFR 63.1381, and
therefore is no longer subject to the standard.
Abstract for [M040015]
Q: Is a turbine at the Wisdom Generating Station near Spencer,
Iowa, that commenced construction prior to the proposed date of the
Turbine Maximum Achievable Control Technology, subpart YYYY, considered
an existing source?
A: Yes, the facility is an existing facility if construction was
``commenced'', as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, prior to the date the rule
was proposed.
Abstract for [0400001]
Q1: May Reliant Energy's Portland Station facility use a certified
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to monitor and record
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in lieu of continuous
monitoring of a water-to-fuel ratio under New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) subpart GG if it has the following characteristics: It
is a simple cycle combustion turbine, with dry low NOX
burners with water injection; it is permitted to burn only natural gas
or No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content not to exceed 0.05% by
weight; and it is an Acid Rain affected unit required to monitor and
report emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 75?
A1: Yes. This request is consistent with the EPA guidance
memorandum dated March 12, 1993, approving the use of CEMS for
NOX as an alternative to monitoring the water to fuel ratio.
The facility is required to report excess NOX emissions as
required in 40 CFR 60.7.
Q2: May Reliant Energy's Portland Station facility waive the
requirement to correct CEMS results to International Standards
Organization (ISO) standard day conditions since the permitted
NOX limits are considerably more stringent than the
applicable NSPS subpart GG limit?
A2: Yes. Because the proposal would ensure compliance with the
applicable ISO-corrected NSPS subpart GG standard under reasonably
expected ambient conditions, except conditions that might occur with
very high ambient temperature, EPA approves this waiver of the
requirement to correct CEMS results to ISO standard day conditions on a
continuous basis when ambient temperature is no higher than 105 degrees
F.
Q3: May the facility waive the nitrogen monitoring requirement of
40 CFR 60.334(b)(2) for natural gas?
A3: Yes. EPA developed a National Policy dated August 14, 1987,
that waives the nitrogen monitoring requirement for pipeline quality
natural gas.
Q4: May the facility waive the nitrogen monitoring requirement of
40 CFR 60.334(b)(1) for fuel oil?
A4: Yes. The facility may waive the nitrogen monitoring requirement
because a certified NOX CEMS is being used to satisfy
NOX emissions monitoring requirements.
Q5: May the facility waive the sulfur content monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2) for natural gas and in lieu thereof
use 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D section 2.3.1.4 ``Documentation that a
Fuel is Pipeline Natural Gas''?
A5: Yes. The facility may waive the sulfur content monitoring
requirements because this request is consistent with the intent of
National Policy. However, the facility will be required to report
excess emissions under 40 CFR 60.7(c).
Q6: May the facility waive the sulfur content monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2) for fuel oil and in lieu thereof
use 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D section 2.2 to monitor sulfur content of
fuel oil?
A6: Yes. The facility may waive the sulfur content monitoring
requirements because the unit in question is permitted to burn only
natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content not to
exceed 0.05% by weight.
Abstract for [0400002]
Q: Will EPA allow Conoco Phillips under New Source Performance
Standards subpart Dc to maintain fuel usage records on a monthly basis
and submit reports on an annual basis for a boiler at its Chatom Gas
Treating & Processing facility which uses only natural gas as a fuel?
A: Yes. The alternative recordkeeping and reporting frequencies are
acceptable.
Abstract for [0400003]
Q: Will EPA approve a proposal under New Source Performance
Standards subpart Db to derate a boiler at North Carolina Baptist
Hospital which consists of limiting the combustion air flow by
[[Page 41260]]
welding a mechanical stop to limit the travel of the inlet valve
dampers?
A: No. The proposed derate does not meet the criteria specified in
other proposals approved by EPA. In order to be an acceptable derate, a
permanent physical change must be made. The proposed method is not
considered permanent and could be reversed rather easily.
Abstract for [0400004]
Q: May the U.S. Sugar Corporation facility in Clewiston, Florida
use EPA Method 9 instead of a continuous opacity monitoring system for
a boiler with an annual capacity factor of ten percent when firing
distillate oil under New Source Performance Standards subpart Db?
A: Yes. The proposed alternative monitoring is acceptable and is
consistent with alternative opacity monitoring procedures approved for
other similar operations with a low annual capacity factor for
distillate oil.
Abstract for [0400005]
Q: Should the installation costs of two oily wastewater storage
tanks at the Hunt Refining Company in Tuscaloosa, Alabama be considered
when determining if a modification or reconstruction of aggregate
facilities has occurred under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
subpart QQQ?
A: No. Since the two storage tanks are not affected facilities
under NSPS subpart QQQ, the costs of the tanks are not considered. The
tanks, which are subject to the NSPS subpart Kb emission standards at
40 CFR 60.112b, are not oil water separators and are not part of an
aggregate facility.
Abstract for [0400006]
Q: May the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (LM Aero) facility in
Marietta, Georgia, use an alternative monitoring procedure based on EPA
Reference Method 9 data instead of using a continuous opacity
monitoring system while firing distillate oil under New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Db ?
A: No. The proposed alternative monitoring procedure does not limit
the annual capacity factor while firing distillate oil to ten percent
or less and, thus, is not acceptable under NSPS subpart Db.
Abstract for [0400007]
Q: A proposed carbon burn-out unit at Progress Energy's Roxboro
Plant will be used to burn fly ash and heat feedwater going to electric
utility steam generating units. Will the carbon burn-out unit, subject
to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Dc, be a
modification of the existing electric utility steam generating units or
a new stand-alone affected facility?
A: The carbon burn-out unit will be a new steam generating unit
affected facility subject to NSPS subpart Dc.
Abstract for [0400008]
Q: May an owner/operator of a 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db boiler
demonstrate compliance with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
standard on a 30-day rolling average during the ozone season, perform a
cylinder gas audit during the 45-day period prior to the onset of the
ozone season annually, rather than 3 of 4 calendar quarters each year,
and perform the relative accuracy test audit (RATA) test once every 5
years, rather than every year?
A: No. Compliance must be demonstrated not only during the ozone
season, but for the entire year as long as the boiler is operating.
Also, Appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 requires that a RATA be performed on
an annual basis, at a minimum, and that cylinder gas audits be
conducted in three of four calendar quarters. The NSPS does not provide
for alternative schedules for implementing the auditing procedures
needed to assure that quality continuous emission monitoring system
data is collected.
Abstract for [0400011]
Q: Are the 20-inch discharge elevator 64010, E/W belt 64020, N/S
belt 64030, E/W belt 64040, and pellet building supply elevator 64050
in the water softener pellet line at the Morton Salt facility in
Rittman, Ohio subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
subpart OOO?
A: Yes. EPA indicated in a clarification of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOO, published at 62 FR 62953 (November 26, 1997), that all facilities
listed in 40 CFR 60.670(a)(1) are subject to NSPS subpart OOO as long
as crushing or grinding occurs anywhere at a non-metallic mineral
processing plant. Moreover, based on the diagram submitted by Morton
Salt, we conclude that the belt conveyors and bucket elevators in
question are connected together to the crushers within the pellet
system production line.
Abstract for [0400012]
Q: Will EPA approve the use under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG of
custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural gas-fired turbines
which are used to drive natural gas liquids (NGL) pumps at Enterprise
Products' Rock Springs and Granger facilities?
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring
schedules for natural gas-fired turbines which are used to drive the
NGL pumps.
Abstract for [0400013]
Q: Will EPA waive for Exxon Mobil's Shute Creek Plant the inlet
measurements of fuel required by 40 CFR 60.334(b) and allow the outlet
sulfur dioxide (SO2) continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEM) measurements to be submitted as documentation of compliance with
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart GG?
A: Yes. EPA Region VIII approves the use of the SO2 CEM
in lieu of monitoring sulfur and nitrogen content of the fuel required
under NSPS subpart GG, because Exxon Mobil proposes monitoring
emissions directly and continuously and is required to do so under
their permit, and because the permit emission limits are below the
emission limitation according to 40 CFR 60.332.
Abstract for [0400014]
Q: Will EPA approve the use under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG of
custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural gas-fired turbines
at eight Williams Field Services facilities?
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring
schedules for natural gas-fired turbines at the eight facilities.
Abstract for [0400015]
Q: Does the addition of a floating roof coupled with a switch in
the material stored constitute a modification of a storage tank under
40 CFR 60.14(e)(4)?
A: Yes, if there is an increase in emissions to the atmosphere and
the change in storage materials is coupled with a change in vessel
design to make the vessel capable of accommodating the switch in
storage materials.
Abstract for [0400016]
Q: Is the processing of lime product at the Greer Lime Company in
Riverton, West Virginia, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO?
A: No, equipment used to process lime product is not subject to New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart OOO.
Q: Is a limestone dryer at the Greer Lime Company in Riverton, West
Virginia, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU?
A: No, limestone is not a listed mineral in the definition of a
``mineral processing plant,'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.730, and
therefore is not subject to NSPS subpart UUU.
[[Page 41261]]
Abstract for [0400017]
Q: Are sand reclamation processes located at foundries subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU?
A: Yes, calciners or dryers used for sand reclamation at a foundry
are subject to NSPS subpart UUU.
Abstract for [0400018]
Q: Would a stand-alone screening operation at the Lyons Evaporation
Plant in Lyons, Kansas, become subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO
if a new grinding circuit is added to the plant?
A: Yes, the stand-alone screening operation would become subject to
this NSPS with the addition of a grinding circuit because the facility
would meet the definition of a ``mineral processing plant'' as defined
in 40 CFR 60.671.
Abstract for [C040001]
Q: There are instances in which small appliances, motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC), and MVAC-like appliances arrive at a disposal
facility and the disposal facility is uncertain whether EPA would
consider these appliances subject to the disposal regulations of 40 CFR
82.156(f). Would the following circumstances result in appliances being
subject to the safe disposal regulations: (1) Receipt of an appliance
in which some components of the refrigerant circuit have been removed;
(2) receipt of portions of the refrigerant circuit (e.g., compressor);
(3) receipt of an appliance in which the entire refrigerant circuit has
been removed; or (4) receipt of an appliance which has previously been
through a process in which refrigerant would have been released or
recovered?
A: Activities (1) and (2), as described above, would be subject to
the safe disposal regulations. Activities (3) and (4), as described
above, would not be subject to the safe disposal regulations.
Abstract for [A040001]
Q: Is the use of solvent and a mechanical buffer to remove
asbestos-containing floor mastic subject to the Asbestos National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, subpart M?
A: Yes, because the application of solvent followed by the buffer
is considered abrading the floor mastic. This situation is
distinguishable from the facts in previous determinations cited in the
request for a determination.
Abstract for [A040002]
Q: Notwithstanding a prior determination, is the use of solvent and
a mechanical buffer to remove asbestos-containing floor mastic subject
to the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP), subpart M, under the specific circumstances
defined in the request for determination?
A: Yes, because the application of solvent followed by the buffer
is considered abrading the floor mastic. As defined in 40 CFR 61.141,
regulated asbestos-containing material can be a Category I non-friable
asbestos-containing material that will be or has been subjected to
sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading. Floor mastic, a Category I
material, is potentially subject if it is sanded, ground, cut or
abraded. While the use of solvent softens the floor mastic, the buffer
and pad abrade the floor mastic, making this subject to the Asbestos
NESHAP.
Dated: June 28, 2004.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-15533 Filed 7-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P