[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61476-61482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23392]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7828-8]
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
MACT); 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) website 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
[[Page 61477]]
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, refer to as the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, and section 111(d) of
the Clean 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 32 such documents added to
the ADI on September 17, 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.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on September 17, 2004; 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 number Category Subparts Title
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M040016................................. MACT.................................... EEEE, FFFF.............................. Application of Multiple
MACT Standards.
M040025................................. MACT.................................... SSSS.................................... Streamlining NSPS Subpart
TT/NESHAP Subpart SSSS.
M040017................................. MACT.................................... PPPP.................................... Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
Used in Chemical Welding
Process.
M040018................................. MACT.................................... GGG..................................... Alternative Monitoring
Parameters for Carbon
Adsorbers.
M040019................................. MACT.................................... EEE..................................... Waivers & Alternative
Monitoring for
Incinerator/ Scrubber.
M040020................................. MACT.................................... EEE..................................... Waivers & Alternative
Monitoring for Condenser/
Absorber & Scrubber.
M040021................................. MACT.................................... EEE..................................... Waivers & Alternative
Monitoring for Condenser/
Absorber & Scrubber.
M040022................................. MACT.................................... EEE..................................... Waivers & Alternative
Monitoring for Condenser/
Absorber & Scrubber.
M040023................................. MACT.................................... GG...................................... Automated Dynamic Pressure
Monitoring for Inorganic
HAPs.
M040026................................. MACT.................................... MMMM, XXXX.............................. Rubber Tire Manufacturing.
M040024................................. MACT.................................... S....................................... Hot Condensing Scrubber/
Tank and Hotwell Control
Devices.
M040027................................. MACT.................................... AAAA.................................... Definition of Landfill Gas
Treatment.
ACT..................................... AAAA.................................... Definition of Landfill Gas
Treatment.
Z040002................................. NESHAP.................................. C....................................... Incineration of Beryllium-
Containing Waste.
0400019................................. NSPS.................................... TT...................................... Streamlining NSPS Subpart
TT/NESHAP Subpart SSSS.
0400020................................. NSPS.................................... Dc...................................... Monthly Monitoring of Fuel
Usage.
0400021................................. NSPS.................................... GG...................................... Approval of New Test Port
Location.
0400022................................. NSPS.................................... Dc, Da, D............................... Classification of
Petroleum-Derived Fuel.
0400023................................. NSPS.................................... CCCC.................................... Alternative Operating
Parameter Monitoring.
0400024................................. NSPS.................................... Dc...................................... Applicability to Fuel
Heaters.
0400025................................. NSPS.................................... BB...................................... Alternative Monitoring for
Scrubber.
0400026................................. NSPS.................................... NNN..................................... Alternative Monitoring.
0400027................................. NSPS.................................... Dc, Db.................................. Carbon Burn-Out Process.
0400028................................. NSPS.................................... WWW..................................... Definition of Landfill Gas
Treatment.
0400029................................. NSPS.................................... Kb, VV, III, NNN, RRR................... Ethanol Manufacturing
Plant.
0400030................................. NSPS.................................... QQQ..................................... Junction Box Tight Seal &
Infrequently Used Drain.
0400031................................. NSPS.................................... QQQ..................................... Junction Box Tight Seal &
Infrequently Used Drain.
0400032................................. NSPS.................................... WWW..................................... Definition of Landfill Gas
Treatment.
0400033................................. NSPS.................................... WWW..................................... Changes In Monitoring and
Recordkeeping Procedures.
0400034................................. NSPS.................................... GG...................................... Custom Fuel Sulfur
Monitoring Schedule.
[[Page 61478]]
0400035................................. NSPS.................................... GG...................................... Custom Fuel Sulfur
Monitoring Schedule.
400036.................................. NSPS.................................... CCCC.................................... Air Curtain Incinerator
for Clearing Dead Trees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [M040016]
Q: May the Ashland Specialty Chemical Company facility located at
Neville Island in Pittsburgh, subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
of 40 CFR part 63 and potentially subject to future Miscellaneous
Organic NESHAP (MON) and Organic Liquids Distribution NESHAP (OLD)
standards, avoid being subject to the MON and OLD standards by taking
enforceable limits and becoming a minor source?
A: Per the EPA guidance memorandum entitled, ``Potential to Emit
for MACT Standards--Guidance on Timing Issues,'' dated May 16, 1995, a
facility that is subject to a MACT standard is not necessarily a major
source for future MACT standards. For example, if after compliance with
a MACT standard, a source's potential to emit is less than the 10/25
tons per year applicability level, EPA will consider the facility to be
an area source for a subsequent standard.'' Consistent with this
guidance, EPA would consider the Company to be an area source for
purposes of determining the applicability of the MON and OLD if the
Company takes an enforceable limit which makes the facility a minor
source of HAPs prior to the compliance dates of the MON and OLD
standards.
Abstract for [M040017]
Q: Methyl ethyl ketone is used to soften plastic parts at the
Sonoco Products plant in Union, South Carolina, so that they can be
joined or welded together in a process that does not leave any
nonvolatile residual material on the joined parts. Is this process
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP?
A: No. Applicability of MACT subpart PPPP depends on the mass of
coating solids remaining on the joined pieces to determine an emission
limit. Since this process does not involve any mass of coating solids,
the provisions of MACT subpart PPPP do not apply to the operation.
Abstract for [M040018]
Q1: May the Abbott Laboratories facility in North Chicago,
Illinois, that is subject to the pharmaceutical MACT standard of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGG, establish an alternative monitoring parameter for
regenerating its carbon adsorption beds that is based on load?
A1: No. EPA will not approve an alternative monitoring parameter
that does not also recognize the critical factor of time and include
minimum regeneration frequencies.
Q2: May the Abbott facility establish 212 degrees F as a minimum
temperature to which the bed is heated during regeneration?
A2: Yes. Based on the manufacturer's recommendation and temperature
data collected during the performance test, the facility may establish
212 degrees F as a minimum temperature to which the bed is heated
during regeneration.
Q3: May the Abbott facility establish 170 degrees F as the maximum
temperature to which the bed is cooled, measured within 15 minutes of
completing cooling?
A3: Yes. Based on the manufacturer's recommendation and temperature
data collected during the performance test, the facility may establish
170 degrees F as the maximum temperature to which the bed is cooled,
measured within 15 minutes of completing cooling.
Q4: May the Abbott facility use an alternative minimum regeneration
stream flow rate of 4,877 lb/hr to maintain a methylene chloride
emissions control efficiency of 98 percent?
A4: No. The facility may not use an alternative minimum
regeneration stream flow rate of 4,877 lb/hr to maintain a methylene
chloride emissions control efficiency of 98 percent. The flow rate
during the performance test was 5,419 lb/hr. A flow rate of 4.877 lb/hr
is based on the facility's assumption that 90percent of the performance
test rate is appropriate to sufficiently maintain a 98+ percent
methylene chloride emissions control efficiency. EPA can find no
support for this assumption.
Abstract for [M040019]
Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to
establish an Operating Parameter Limit (OPL) on the maximum solids
content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and
either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level for the fluid bed
incinerator at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana?
A1: Yes. Provided the Title 5 permit is rewritten to include an
operating condition requiring the use of once through scrubber water,
EPA will waive the requirement.
Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum scrubber water pH?
A2: Yes. Provided that the facility includes a water pH of 6.5--9.0
and a requirement to use once through water in its Title 5 permit, and
provided that the facility's Title 5 permit is rewritten to include an
operating condition requiring the use of once through scrubber water,
EPA will waive the requirement.
Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to analyze the No. 2 fuel oil
for regulated constituents?
A3: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement based upon the historical
data provided by the facility. However, the facility must continue to
analyze the No. 2 fuel oil for principal organic hazardous constituents
(POHCS).
Q4: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring for the sludge waste
feed rate if the facility continuously monitors the feed rate to the
presses and monitors on a monthly basis the ash percentage after the
presses?
A4: Yes Provided that the facility also measures the density of the
solids before the press on a monthly basis, EPA will approve the
requested alternative monitoring for the sludge waste feed rate.
Abstract for [M040020]
Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to
establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the maximum solids
content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and
either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level at the condenser/
absorber for the T149 Trane incinerator at the Eli Lilly, Tippecanoe
Laboratories facility in Shadeland, Indiana?
A1: Yes. Because the maximum solids content of the scrubber
solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber
tank volume or liquid level are being measured at the Hydro-Sonic
scrubber, this OPL does not need to be measured at the condenser/
absorber.
Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum pressure drop across the condenser/absorber?
A2: No. Because some hydrochloric acid (HCl) removal occurs at the
condenser/ absorber through the liquid
[[Page 61479]]
to gas interface, EPA will not waive the requirement to establish an
OPL on the minimum pressure drop.
Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum liquid feed pressure at the condenser/absorber?
A3: No. Because some HCl removal occurs at the condenser/absorber
through the liquid to gas interface, it is appropriate to establish an
OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure to ensure that the feed is at
least the amount present during the performance test.
Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?
A4: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to
the air pollution control system (APCS) at the condenser/absorber, not
at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber. Thus, it is appropriate to establish an
OPL on the pH of the caustic/water solution as it enters the condenser/
absorber to ensure that the pH of this solution is at least that of the
solution used during the performance test.
Q5: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum liquid to gas ratio or the minimum liquid and maximum flue gas
flow rates for the condenser/absorber?
A5: No. The justification provided in your request that ``the
condenser/absorber is not the HCl/Cl2 control device'' is insufficient.
However, EPA approves the facility's subsequent request to set the
minimum liquid feed rate at the level recommended by the manufacturer
or lower, if demonstrated during the comprehensive performance test
(CPT).
Q6: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure
drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent
differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation
developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
A6: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its CPT plan if
it maintains a minimum equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches.
If Lilly still wants to develop a site-specific model, it must submit
all supporting data to U.S. EPA for review and approval.
Abstract for [M040021]
Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to
establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop across the condenser/
absorber for the T03 and T04 Trane incinerators at the Eli Lilly,
Tippecanoe Laboratories facility in Clinton, Indiana?
A1: No. Because some hydrochloric acid (HCl) removal occurs at the
condenser/absorber through the liquid to gas interface, EPA will not
waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop.
Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum liquid feed pressure at the condenser/absorber?
A2: No. Because some HCl removal occurs at the condenser/absorber
through the liquid to gas interface, it is appropriate to establish an
OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure to ensure that the feed is at
least the amount present during the performance test.
Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum liquid to gas ratio or the minimum liquid and maximum flue gas
flow rates for the condenser/absorber?
A3: No. The justification for the source's original request that
the condenser/absorber is not the HCl/Cl2 control device is
insufficient. However, EPA approves the facility's alternate request
made in a follow up conversation that the minimum liquid feed rate be
set at the level recommended by the manufacturer.
Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?
A4: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to
the air pollution control system (APCS) at the condenser/absorber.
Thus, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the pH of the caustic/
water solution as it enters the condenser/absorber to ensure that the
pH of this solution is at least that of the solution used during the
performance test.
Q5: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure
drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent
differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation
developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
A5: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its CPT plan if
it maintains a minimum equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches.
If Lilly still wants to develop a site-specific model, it must submit
all supporting data and involve U.S. EPA in the development of the
model.
Q6: Will EPA approve annual calibrations as an alternative to the
requirement to conduct daily zero and high-level calibration drifts on
several instruments?
A6: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.
Q7: Will the U.S. EPA waive the requirement for immediate repair of
a CMS found at 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(I)?
A7: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.
Abstract for [M040022]
Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to
establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the minimum liquid feed
pressure at the condenser/absorber for the T49 Trane incinerator at the
Eli Lilly Tippecanoe Laboratories facility in Shadeland, Indiana?
A1: Yes. Because the condenser/absorber uses a flow distributor
plate rather than spray nozzles, EPA waives the requirement to
establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the minimum liquid feed
pressure.
Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
maximum solids content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum
blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level at
the condenser/absorber?
A2: No. The facility must establish an OPL somewhere in the air
pollution control system (APCS), since it recycles some water. The most
appropriate location for this OPL is at the condenser/absorber.
Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the
minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?
A3: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to
the APCS at the condenser/absorber, not at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber.
Thus, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the pH of the caustic/
water solution as it enters the condenser/absorber to ensure that the
pH of this solution is at least that of the solution used during the
performance test.
Q4: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure
drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent
differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation
developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
A4: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its
comprehensive performance test plan if it maintains a minimum
equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches. If Lilly still wants to
develop a site-specific model, it must submit all supporting data and
involve EPA in the development of the model.
Q5: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL for the
minimum scrubber water pH at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
A5: Yes. Because the facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up
water to the APCS at the condenser/absorber, not at the Hydro-Sonic
scrubber.
Q6: Will EPA approve annual calibrations as an alternative to the
requirement to conduct daily zero and
[[Page 61480]]
high-level calibration drifts on several instruments?
A6: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.
Q7: Will the U.S. EPA waive the requirement for immediate repair of
a CMS found at 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(I)?
A7: Eli Lilly withdrew this request. Recent revisions of the
General Provisions changed these requirements in a way that is suitable
to Eli Lilly.
Abstract for [M040023]
Q: Will EPA approve an automated dynamic pressure monitoring system
for a 3-stage high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, under 40
CFR part 63, subpart GG, standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities, for the Honeywell plant in South Bend, Indiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves the automated dynamic pressure monitoring
system for a 3-stage HEPA filter. The system eliminates the need for
manual observations, recordkeeping, and equipment adjustments. To
maintain the manufacturer's recommended pressure drop, the automated
design includes velocity pressure sensors and a motor-controlled lineal
air flow rate which ensures that the pressure drop is not exceeded.
Abstract for [M040024]
Q: Are the hot condensing scrubber/hot condensing tank and the
hotwell at the Wausau-Mosinee Paper magnesium-based sulfite pulp mill
in Brokaw, Wisconsin, air pollution control devices covered by the pulp
and paper Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart S?
A: Yes, they are considered control devices. Although EPA did not
name the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) control systems needed to meet
specific emission reduction for a sulfite mill, any technology that
reduces HAP emissions is considered a MACT control option regardless of
why the technology was installed. The hot condensing scrubber and its
auxiliary tank and the hotwell all reduce emissions of methanol, a HAP.
Thus, the vents, wastewater and condensate streams from these control
devices must be controlled per 40 CFR 63.444(c)(2).
Abstract for [M040025] and [0400019]
Q: If a facility is subject to the metal coil surface coating
requirements of both 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 60,
subpart TT, and uses thermal incinerators or catalytic oxidizers to
comply, would EPA find streamlining of these two monitoring
requirements acceptable?
A: Yes. EPA concludes that for facilities using thermal
incinerators, the MACT subpart SSSS effluent gas monitoring
requirements may be streamlined with the similar subpart TT monitoring
requirements. Also, EPA determines that for facilities using catalytic
oxidizers, either of the MACT subpart SSSS monitoring requirements may
be streamlined with the NSPS subpart TT monitoring requirements.
Abstract for [M040026]
Q1: Does Trelleborg Wheel Systems operate a ``rubber processing
affected source'' as described in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT
standard at 40 CFR 63.5982(b)(4)?
A1: Yes. Trelleborg mixes the raw materials for solid rubber tires
in a Banbury mixer to produce mixed rubber compound. EPA concludes that
this constitutes a rubber processing affected source.
Q2: Are the adhesives that Trelleborg uses to hold layers of mixed
rubber compound to a steel rim ``cements and solvents'' as defined in
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT standard at 40 CFR 63.6015 or a
``rubber to metal coating'' as defined in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts
Coating NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.3981?
A2: Even though the adhesives meet the definition of ``cements and
solvents,'' EPA concludes that the adhesives are more correctly
designated as a rubber to metal coating because the definition of
rubber to metal coating explicitly describes Trelleborg's use of the
adhesives.
Q3: Does Trelleborg operate a ``tire production affected source''
as described in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT standard at 40 CFR
63.5982(b)(1)?
A3: One defining characteristic of ``cements and solvents'' is
their use as process aids in the production of rubber tires. EPA
concludes that the organic compounds in Trelleborg's mixed rubber
compound are integral components of the product, and do not merely
facilitate or assist the production of rubber tires. Therefore, EPA
concludes that Trelleborg's adhesive coating lines and tire production
operations do not meet the definition of a tire production affected
source.
Abstract for [M040027], [M040028], [0400028] and [0400032]
Q1: What is the definition of ``treatment'' under NSPS subpart WWW
at 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
A1: EPA has determined that compression, de-watering, and filtering
the landfill gas down to at least 10 microns is considered
``treatment'' under NSPS Subpart WWW, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). EPA
made the same determination under ADI Control Numbers 0200019, 0200028,
and 0300121, available on the ADI website.
Q2: Do the municipal solid waste landfill regulations apply to the
gas once treatment has occurred?
A2: No. Once landfill gas has been treated, NSPS subpart WWW no
longer applies to the treated gas. However, all gas before treatment,
and respective control equipment, would be subject.
Abstract for [Z040002]
Q: The Duratek Services facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, proposes
to sort and repackage wastes for off-site disposal and will incinerate
secondary wastes which are incidental to the primary sorting operation.
The wastes which are sorted and repackaged will include some beryllium
machine shop waste. Will the facility be subject to the NESHAP subpart
C requirements?
A: If any beryllium-containing waste will be incinerated, the
incinerator will be subject to NESHAP subpart C. If the company can
confirm that emissions from incinerating the waste will be in
compliance with the standard, a waiver from emission testing
requirements may be appropriate.
Abstract for [0400020]
Q: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, the use of
monthly fuel usage monitoring for the new package boiler at the ISG
facility in Steelton, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the use of monthly fuel usage monitoring
and recording rather than daily monitoring as required by subpart Dc
due to the fact that the new package boiler is only permitted to
combust pipeline-quality natural gas as fuel.
Abstract for [0400021]
Q: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, new test port
locations for conducting the oxygen traverse and gas sampling for the
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Marsh Run facility in Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the new test port location and reduced
amount of oxygen traverse data in the exhaust stack from the turbine,
provided that the oxygen range for the 8 traverse points does not
exceed 0.5 percent oxygen and the average oxygen content is greater
than 15 percent.
Abstract for [0400022]
Q1: Will the combustion of a fuel produced during the
polymerization of distillates from petroleum refining operations at the
Resinall facility in
[[Page 61481]]
Severn, North Carolina be regulated under the NSPS subpart Dc?
A1: Yes. Because the fuel is derived from petroleum and is
described as having properties similar to those of lightweight fuel
oils, it is considered equivalent to oil under NSPS subpart Dc. Under
NSPS subpart Dc, the same SO2 standard will apply whether the fuel is
classified as No. 2 fuel oil or residual oil. If the fuel does not meet
the No. 2 fuel oil criteria, it would be classified as residual oil.
Q2: Will this fuel be considered a ``fossil fuel'' as defined in
NSPS subparts D and Da?
A2: Yes. Based on the description provided by the company, the fuel
appears to meet the definition of fossil fuel provided in NSPS Subparts
D and Da in that it is a liquid fuel derived from petroleum for the
purpose of creating useful heat.
Abstract for [0400023]
Q: Grupo Antolin Kentucky, in Lexington, Kentucky, proposes to
maintain baghouse inlet temperature and pressure drop to ensure
continuous compliance with lead emissions standards. Are these proposed
operating parameters sufficient to ensure compliance with the lead
standards in NSPS subpart CCCC?
A: Yes. Maintaining temperature and pressure drop in accordance
with the conditions mentioned in this letter will ensure reasonable
assurance of compliance with NSPS subpart CCCC.
Abstract for [0400024]
Q: Natural gas-fired fuel heaters at a Gulfstream Pipeline facility
in Florida will heat glycol which will be used to heat natural gas
prior to its use in combustion turbines as fuel. Will the heaters be
subject to NSPS subpart Dc?
A: Yes. Because the fuel heaters will heat a heat transfer medium
(glycol), they will be steam generating units subject to NSPS subpart
Dc.
Abstract for [0400025]
Q: Will EPA allow continuous monitoring of fan amps and the total
scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the required monitoring
parameters under NSPS subpart BB, for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic
scrubber at a MeadWestvaco Coated Board facility in Alabama?
A: Yes. Because the dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric
pressure, the proposed monitoring is an acceptable alternative to the
NSPS subpart BB requirement to monitor the pressure loss of the gas
stream and the scrubbing liquid supply pressure.
Abstract for [0400026]
Q: Are proposed alternative monitoring procedures at an Eastman
Chemical facility in Tennessee, regarding flow indicator location,
acceptable for two process units which may comply with the NSPS subpart
NNN by using either a flare or boilers?
A: Yes. The proposed alternatives meet the intent of NSPS subpart
NNN by ensuring that affected vent streams are directed to the
combustion device used to control VOC emissions.
Abstract for [0400027]
Q: A proposed carbon burn-out unit with a heat input of 95.57
mmBtu/hr will be used to burn fly ash and heat feedwater going to
electric utility steam generating units at a Progress Energy facility
in North Carolina. Will the carbon burn-out unit be a steam generating
unit subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A: Yes. The carbon burn-out unit will be an affected facility
subject to NSPS subpart Dc and will be subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of that standard. No NSPS subpart Dc emission limits will
be applicable to the combustion of fly ash since fly ash is not
considered ``coal'' under this rule. However, if the heat input exceeds
100 mmBtu/hr, the carbon burn-out unit will be subject to NSPS subpart
Db and will be subject to the emission limits for ``coal'' as defined
in NSPS subpart Db because the definition includes fly ash.
Abstract for [0400029]
Q: Do the NSPS subparts Kb, VV, III, NNN, and RRR apply to any of
the Liquid Resources of Ohio facilities in Medina, Ohio, a plant that
manufactures ethanol from waste beverages and distills ethanol from
waste alcohol containing beverages?
A: NSPS subparts Kb and VV apply to all affected operations at the
plant. NSPS subpart NNN applies only to the distillation of waste
alcohol containing beverages. NSPS subparts III and RRR do not apply to
any facilities at this plant.
Abstract for [0400030]
Q1: Are covers on junction boxes at the Marathon Ashland Petroleum
facility in St. Paul Park, Minnesota, required to be equipped with a
gasket or other type of seal in order to satisfy the ``tight seal''
requirements for junction box covers in NSPS subpart QQQ?
A1: Yes. The tight seal requirements in 40 CFR 60.692-2(b)(2)
implicitly require that all junction box covers be equipped with a
gasket and clamp. [This determination has been superseded by
determination number 0400031, summarized below.]
Q2: May infrequently used drains be equipped with a tightly sealed
cap or plug in lieu of the water seal controls required by 40 CFR
60.692-2(a)(1)?
A2: Yes. Tightly sealed caps or plugs may be used on drains that
are not used more than twice in a two month time frame. However, all
other drains must be equipped with water seals.
Q3: Do hatches and valves satisfy the ``tightly sealed cap or
plug'' requirement under 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(4)?
A3: Yes. Any type of cap or plug which provides a gas tight barrier
to the atmosphere meets the requirements of 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(4).
Abstract for [0400031]
Q1: In a December 4, 2003 letter, EPA determined that a gasket is
required to satisfy the ``tight seal'' requirements for junction box
covers under 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ. Would another type of seal
which prevents leaks to the atmosphere, such as external caulking,
satisfy these requirements?
A1: Yes. Any type of seal that prevents detectable leaks around the
edges is sufficient to comply with the ``tight seal'' requirements in
40 CFR 60.692-2(b)(2).
Q2: Are drains which are not open to the atmosphere more than 24
hours per month used infrequently enough to allow the usage of a
tightly sealed cap or plug in lieu of the water seal requirements in 40
CFR 60.692-2(a)(1)?
A2: Yes. Drains open less than 24 hours per month are used
infrequently enough to forgo the water seal requirements.
Abstract for [0400033]
Q1: Will EPA grant the request of the Central Disposal Systems
facility in Lake Mills, Iowa, for flexibility under NSPS, subpart WWW,
to modify the design of its collection and control system?
A1: The facility may make changes to the design of the collection
and control system by submitting a revised collection and control
system design plan to and receiving approval from the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR). The facility must then follow the revised
design plan if approved by IDNR.
Q2: Will EPA allow use of a temporary collection system, leachate
collection system, and leachate recirculation system until final grades
are achieved?
A2: The facility may use these types of collection systems if they
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.759 and are approved in the design
plan.
[[Page 61482]]
Q3: Will EPA exempt leachate recirculation piping, temporary
horizontal collection trenches, and leachate sump/riser connections
from the oxygen/nitrogen, temperature, and pressure requirements under
NSPS subpart WWW?
A3: No. The facility states that these gas collection systems are
not part of the Landfill NSPS collection and control system. However,
it appears that these gas collection systems would be part of the
Landfill NSPS collection and control system if they are collecting gas
from an area, cell, or group of cells if the initial solid waste has
been in place for a period of five years or more (if active), or two
years or more (if closed or at final grade). Although an exemption will
not be granted, the facility may still propose an alternative
monitoring procedure.
Q4: Will EPA allow the facility to exclude dangerous areas from the
surface monitoring?
A4: 40 CFR 60.753(d) allows for dangerous areas to be excluded.
These areas will be reviewed by IDNR as part of the facility's surface
monitoring design plan.
Q5: Will EPA allow the facility to apply the surface monitoring
requirement only to closed portions of the landfill?
A5: No. Surface monitoring is required in all areas that collection
systems are required.
Q6: Will EPA allow the facility to widen the spacing between
surface monitoring intervals from 30 meters to 60 meters in areas that
will have a final cover in place with a geomembrane component?
A6: No.
Q7: Will EPA allow higher oxygen levels in gas wellheads if
temperatures are maintained below 38 degrees C?
A7: Yes. Higher values may be set if the facility demonstrates that
the elevated parameters do not cause fires or significantly inhibit
anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.
Q8: Will EPA allow the facility to place the surface monitoring
probe inlet as close as possible, 5 to 10 centimeters from the ground,
but further away when there are materials that could clog the probe
tip?
A8: No.
Q9: Will EPA allow a variance to the 10-day window that 40 CFR
60.755(c)(4)(ii) allows to adjust the cover and/or collection system?
A9: No. Because this is not an alternative monitoring request, EPA
Region 7 does not have the authority to allow this.
Q10: Will EPA allow the facility to not perform surface monitoring
during the winter quarter?
A10: No. The facility is apparently concerned that the flame
ionization detector will not work unless the ambient air is above
freezing. There are days during each quarter that are warm enough to do
surface monitoring. The facility has not proposed any alternative
monitoring.
Q11: Will EPA allow the facility to record the flow to the flare
instead of the presence of a pilot flame?
A11: No. The regulations require continuous records of the flare
pilot flame. EPA notes that it does understand that the lack of flame
at the flare is not necessarily a violation.
Q12: Will EPA approve a final cover design that includes the use of
a geomembrane or synthetic cover and that may have positive pressure at
wellheads under certain conditions?
A12: Yes. Positive pressure under these circumstances is allowed by
40 CFR 60.753(b)(2). Pressure limits should be included in the design
plan for approval by IDNR.
Abstract for [0400034]
Q: Will EPA approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring
schedules under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for natural gas-fired
turbines at three Basin Electric Power Cooperative facilities in
Wyoming?
A: Yes. Based on an EPA directive dated August 14, 1987, EPA will
approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural
gas-fired turbines at the facilities in question.
Abstract for [0400035]
Q: Will EPA approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring
schedules under NSPS subpart GG, for two natural gas-fired emergency
turbine generators at the LaBarge Black Canyon Dehydration Facility in
Sublette County, Wyoming?
A: Yes. Based on an EPA directive dated August 14, 1987, EPA will
approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural
gas-fired turbines at the facility in question.
Abstract for [0400036]
Q: The California Parks and Recreation Department owns and operates
an air curtain incinerator that burns clean wood for the purpose of
clearing dead trees at state parks. Is this unit subject to NSPS
subpart CCCC?
A: No. The activity of this unit is neither commercial nor
industrial, and does not burn commercial and industrial waste as
defined in 40 CFR 60.2265.
Lisa C. Lund,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-23392 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P