[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36141-36147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12358]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7925-5]
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 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. For example, these inquiries
may pertain 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 more than 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 42 such documents added to
the ADI on May 20, 2005. 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 36142]]
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on May 20, 2005; 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 on April X, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Category Subparts Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M050001............................ MACT.................. OOOO, JJJJ............ Laminators.
M050002............................ MACT.................. F, G.................. Gas Streams and Process
Vents.
M050003............................ MACT.................. EEE................... Alternative Span for CO
Monitors in High Oxygen
Applications.
M050004............................ MACT.................. GGG................... Carbon Adsorber Minimum
Regeneration Frequency.
M050005............................ MACT.................. EEE................... Alternative Monitoring for
Hazardous Waste
Incinerator.
M050006............................ MACT.................. LLL................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring Procedures.
M050007............................ MACT.................. JJJJ.................. Papermill Machinery.
M050008............................ MACT.................. EEEE, S............... Methanol Storage Tanks for
Pulp Bleaching.
M050009............................ MACT.................. OOOO.................. Carbon Fiber Manufacturing.
M050010............................ MACT.................. GGGGG................. Site Remediation--Threshold
Quantity of HAPs.
M050011............................ MACT.................. MM.................... Scrubber Pressure Drop
Monitoring Parameters.
M050012............................ MACT.................. MM.................... Early Particulate
Performance Test for
Recovery Furnace.
M050013............................ MACT.................. MM.................... Alternative Compliant
Operating Parameter Range.
M050014............................ MACT.................. MM.................... Compliant Scrubber Liquor
Flow Rate and Supply
Pressure.
M050015............................ MACT.................. MM.................... Testing to Establish
Parameter Operating Range.
M050016............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Aluminum Die Casting
Facility as Area Source.
M050017............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Alternative Reactive Flux
Injection Monitoring.
M050018............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Group 2 Furnaces at Area
Source.
M050019............................ MACT.................. MM.................... Pressure Drop Monitoring.
Z050001............................ NESHAP................ FF.................... Junction Box Tight Seal
Requirements.
Z050002............................ NESHAP................ M..................... Removal or Relocation of
Facility.
Z050003............................ NESHAP................ M..................... Polarized Light Microscopy
(PLM) and Point Count
Methods for Vermiculite
Insulation.
0400037............................ NSPS.................. VVV................... Polymeric Coating and
Sailcloth.
0400038............................ NSPS.................. NNN................... Fuel Ethanol Exemption
0500001............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0500002............................ NSPS.................. III................... Gas Streams and Process
Vents.
00500003........................... NSPS.................. Dc.................... Custom Fuel Usage
Monitoring.
0500004............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... New Test Port Locations.
0500005............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Oxygen Stratification
Testing.
0500006............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Extension of Time to Test.
0500007............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring/
Performance Testing.
0500008............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring/
Performance Testing.
0500009............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring/
Performance Testing.
0500010............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring. ]
0500011............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Units (FCCU) Compliance
Options.
0500012............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring/
Performance Testing.
0500013............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Monitoring,
Recordkeeping, and
Reporting.
0500014............................ NSPS.................. K, Ka, Kb............. Installation of Floating
Roofs.
0500015............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring/
Performance Testing.
0500016............................ NSPS.................. KKK, HH............... Injection of Processed
Natural Gas into Wells.
0500017............................ NSPS.................. Da, Db, Dc, D......... Autoflame Control System
Technology for Boiler
Derate.
0500018............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring/
Performance Testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [0400037]
Q1: Are various coating/lamination lines at the Dimension Polyant
Sailcloth manufacturing company in Putnam, Connecticut subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart VVV?
A1: EPA has reviewed the processes and has clarified which
processes at this facility are covered by NSPS subpart VVV and which
are not.
Q2: If the affected facility uses less than 95 Mg of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) emissions VOC per 12-month period, is it subject
only to the requirements of NSPS subpart VVV in 40 CFR 60.744(b),
60.747(b) and 60.747(c)?
A2: EPA has determined that as long as the amount of VOC used on
each coating line is less than 95 Mg per 12-month period from the NSPS
subpart VVV-covered activities on that coating line, the facility is
subject only to the requirements of 40 CFR 60.744(b), 60.747(b), and
60.747(c).
Abstract for [0400038]
Q: Will EPA waive the requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
NNN, for the Penn Mar Ethanol facility in York,
[[Page 36143]]
Pennsylvania, as this is a fuel ethanol production facility?
A: Yes. Consistent with previous EPA Region V determinations, EPA
Region III waives the NSPS subpart NNN requirements for fuel ethanol
facilities that do not in any way produce beverage alcohol.
Abstract for [0500001]
Q: Will EPA allow the use of fuel supplier certifications under 40
CFR part 60, subpart GG, for numerous shipments of distillate oil to
the Easton Utilities turbines in Easton, Maryland?
A: Yes. EPA will allow the use of fuel supplier certifications
under NSPS subpart GG on the sulfur and nitrogen content of distillate
oil for stationary gas turbine fuel.
Abstract for [M050001]
Q: Is the Shawmut facility in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts,
subject to either Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart
OOOO, the fabric coating MACT, or MACT subpart JJJJ, the paper and
other web coating MACT? It laminates fabrics and other textiles to
plastic films, fabrics to foams, as well as foams to fabrics, using a
rotogravure roll in its adhesive lamination process to apply adhesive
and laminators at ambient temperature and without drying ovens.
A: EPA has determined that because the existing and proposed
laminators will operate at ambient temperature and without drying
ovens, the adhesive lamination process is not subject to MACT subpart
OOOO. EPA also has determined that the adhesive lamination process
meets the definition of web coating line in MACT subpart JJJJ and
therefore, it is subject to the standard.
Abstract for [M050002]
Q: Are gas streams from vents off of tanks collecting condensed
steam, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants from
carbon adsorption regeneration systems at the Sunoco Chemicals phenol
plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania subject to the process vent
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subparts F and G?
A: Yes. These gas streams meet all of the criteria for process
vents outlined in 40 CFR 63.107. The total resource effectiveness (TRE)
factor needs to be calculated after the last recovery device. For these
systems, this point is after the gas streams from the tanks collecting
condensed steam combine with the vent stream off of the carbon
adsorption systems, but prior to the flash back preventers which are
directly upstream of the catalytic incinerator.
Abstract for [0500002]
Q: Are gas streams from vents off of tanks collecting condensed
steam, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants from
carbon adsorption regeneration systems at the Sunoco Chemicals phenol
plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania subject to the process vent
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart III?
A: Yes. These gas streams meet the definition for vent stream in 40
CFR 60.611. The total resource effectiveness (TRE) factor needs to be
calculated after the last recovery device. For these systems, this
point is after the gas streams from the tanks collecting condensed
steam combine with the vent stream off of the carbon adsorption
systems, but prior to the flash back preventers which are directly
upstream of the catalytic incinerator.
Abstract for [0500003]
Q: Will EPA approve the use of monthly fuel usage monitoring under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for the new package boiler at ISG's
Steelton, Pennsylvania facility?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the use of monthly fuel usage monitoring
and recording rather than daily monitoring as provided by NSPS subpart
Dc because the new package boiler is only permitted to combust very
clean pipeline-quality natural gas as fuel.
Abstract for [0500004]
Q: Will EPA approve new test port locations for conducting the
oxygen traverse and gas sampling under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for
the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Marsh Run facility in Louisa,
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
under NSPS subpart GG 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 [0500005]
Q: Will EPA approve fewer sampling points for measuring oxygen
stratification from stationary gas turbines under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, if an identical turbine station at Old Dominion Electric
Cooperative's Louisa, Virginia facility has already been tested?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the request for a reduced number of oxygen
stratification testing points under NSPS subpart GG because the
facility has already tested identical turbines with identical exhaust
gas stack configuration.
Abstract for [0500006]
Q: Will EPA allow different start-up dates under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, for Old Dominion Electric Cooperative's new Marsh Run
facility in Fauquier County, Virginia; one start-up date for its
stationary gas turbine on natural gas fuel and one separate start-up
date for its stationary gas turbine on distillate oil combustion?
A: Yes. EPA will allow separate start-up dates to test the
emissions of its stationary gas turbines under NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [M050003]
Q: Will EPA waive the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE,
appendix section 6.3.4, regarding adjustments to carbon monoxide (CO)
monitor spans when monitoring in high oxygen environments, for the
Solite Corporation lightweight aggregate kilns in Arvonia and Cascade,
Virginia?
A: No. EPA will not waive the provisions of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) subpart EEE. Failure to account for a high
oxygen correction factor would adversely affect the facilities' ability
to demonstrate compliance with the CO emission standard. Several
alternative approaches are discussed.
Abstract for [M050004]
Q: May the Abbott Laboratories facility in North Chicago, Illinois,
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, establish an alternative
monitoring parameter for regenerating its carbon adsorber? (For the
active mode with the processes running, the minimum regeneration
frequency is 51 minutes. For the idle mode when only storage tanks
operate, the facility proposes to decrease this frequency to 14
days.)A: Yes. EPA will allow the facility to establish an alternative
monitoring parameter under Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
subpart GGG. However, rather than 14 days, EPA approves a minimum
regeneration frequency of 7 days, which the facility has shown to be
adequate. The facility must maintain records of when the adsorber
operates in the active and idle modes.
Abstract for [0500007]
Q1: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG for the fuel sulfur content of pipeline quality
natural gas at Allegheny Energy Supply Company's St. Joseph Generating
facility near New Carlisle, Indiana?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the custom fuel monitoring schedule based on
its August 14, 1987 guidance, ``Authority
[[Page 36144]]
for Approval of Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedules Under NSPS Subpart
GG.''
Q2: Will EPA waive the fuel bound nitrogen requirement for pipeline
quality natural gas under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A2: Yes. EPA waives the fuel bound nitrogen requirement based on
its August 1987 guidance for NSPS subpart GG.
Q3: Will EPA approve nitrogen oxides (NOX)emission
monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG using NOX
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) rather than monitoring
water-to-fuel injection rates?
A3: Yes. EPA approves NOX emission monitoring using CEMS
under NSPS subpart GG.
Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG
to make the International Standards Organization (ISO) correction for
NOX CEMS data that is used to determine compliance?
A4: No. EPA determines that under NSPS subpart GG, facilities using
NOX CEMS data to determine compliance must also maintain
records of the data necessary to correct the CEMS data to ISO
conditions (i.e., ambient temperature, ambient humidity and combustor
inlet pressure).
Q5: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG the initial
NOX compliance testing at full load rather than multiple
load points?
A5: Yes. Facilities that are using NOX CEMS to
demonstrate compliance may conduct the initial compliance demonstration
at ``peak load'' only, as that term is defined at 40 CFR 60.331(i),
rather than at multiple loads.
Q6: Will EPA approve the use of NOX CEMS the relative
accuracy test audit (RATA) data as an alternative performance test for
NOX under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A6: Yes. EPA approves the use of NOX CEMS RATA data
under NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [0500008]
Q1: Is it acceptable to use certified nitrogen oxides
(NOX) continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for the
initial compliance demonstration under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG,
rather than EPA Reference Method 20 for Ameren Energy Generating
Company's Elgin Energy Center in Elgin, Illinois?
A1: Yes. For facilities that burn pipeline quality natural gas,
this is acceptable under NSPS subpart GG.
Q2: Will EPA approve the use of certified NOX CEMS as an
alternative to the monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of certified CEMS as alternative
monitoring under NSPS subpart GG.
Q3: Will EPA approve the use of the procedures in 40 CFR part 75,
appendix D, section 2.3.1 as an alternative to the daily fuel sampling
required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A3: Yes. EPA approves the alternative under NSPS subpart GG,
provided that the natural gas meets the definition of pipeline natural
gas as that term is defined in the Acid Rain regulations at 40 CFR part
72 section 72.2.
Q4: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG requirement for
the fuel bound nitrogen determination for pipeline quality natural gas?
A4: Yes. EPA waives the fuel bound nitrogen determination under
NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [0500009]
Q1: Will EPA approve the use of the relative accuracy test audit
(RATA) data from nitrogen oxides (NOX) Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems(CEMS) at Aquila's Goose Creek Energy Center in
Deland, Illinois, as an alternative to EPA Reference Method 20 required
by 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for natural gas-fired turbines?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of certified NOX CEMS RATA
data for the initial compliance demonstration under NSPS subpart GG for
natural gas-fired turbines.
Q2: If using NOX CEMS for its initial performance test,
can a natural gas-fired turbine conduct its initial performance test at
one load rather than 4 loads, as required by 40 CFR 60.335(c)(2)?
A2: Yes. If a source is using data from a certified NOX
CEMS as its initial performance test, data only needs to be collected
at ``peak load,'' as defined at 40 CFR 60.331(i).
Abstract for [0500010]
Q: Will EPA approve the use of Gas Processors Associations Standard
(GPA) 2377-86 as an alternative to the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) method cited in 40 CFR 60.335 for measuring the sulfur
content of natural gas at Calpine's Zion Energy Center in Zion,
Illinois?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative measurement because: (1) It
has numerical repeatability, reproducibility and bias statements, and
has sufficient quality control requirements; (2) it is anticipated that
the sulfur level will be substantially below the 0.8 weight percent
allowed; (3) this method will not be used for performance tests; (4)
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of NSPS subparts A and GG
apply; and (5) if GPA Standard 2377-86 is revised in the future, this
portion of this approval is no longer valid and the owner/operator must
submit a new alternative monitoring request for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
with a copy of the revised GPA Standard.
Abstract for [0500011]
Q1: Will EPA allow Flint Hill Resources's fluid catalytic cracking
units (FCCU), operating without a scrubber, to comply with the 50 ppm
emission limit compliance option under the 40 CFR part 60, subpart J,
sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards for FCCU catalyst
regenerators?
A1: Yes. Because the 50 ppm emission limit compliance option is the
most stringent of all options available under 40 CFR 60.104(b), FCCU
feed hydrotreating and low-SOX catalyst additives may be
used to meet the 50 ppmv SO2 emission limit. However, as
determination of the inlet SO2 concentration is not possible
using low-SOX catalyst additives, the 90 percent reduction
portion of 40 CFR 60.104(b)(1) may not be chosen.
Q2: Can the compliance option chosen to comply with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J be changed in the case of a scheduled startup or shutdown of
the hydrotreater?
A2: Yes. The option chosen to comply with 40 CFR 60.104(b) may be
changed in the case of a scheduled startup or shutdown of the
hydrotreater as long as daily compliance tests demonstrating compliance
with that standard are started 7 days before the shutdown.
Abstract for [Z050001]
Q: Are covers on junction boxes at Marathon Ashland Petroleum's
facilities required to be equipped with a gasket in order to satisfy
the ``tight seal'' requirements for junction box covers under 40 CFR
part 61, subpart FF?
A: No. 40 CFR 61.346(b)(2)(1) requires that junction boxes prevent
leaks to the atmosphere in order to satisfy the ``tight seal''
requirements. However, consistent with a prior determination for
similar provisions under 40 CFR part 60, a gasket is not necessarily
required to achieve the tight seal.
Abstract for [0500012]
Q1: Is it acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG to conduct
the nitrogen oxides (NOX) initial compliance determination
at full load rather than at multiple load points at the Mirant Sugar
Creek, LLC Power Plant in West Terre Haute, Indiana?
A1: Yes. Facilities using certified NOX continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for the initial compliance
determination can make
[[Page 36145]]
this determination at peak load rather than multiple load points under
NSPS subpart GG.
Q2: Will EPA approve the use of NOX CEMS as an
alternative to the NOX monitoring required in 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG?
A2: Yes. Provided that these conditions are met: (1) Each gas
turbine must meet the emission limitation determined according to 40
CFR 60.332; (2) each NOX CEMS must meet the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification
2, and appendix F for certifying, maintaining and assuring quality of
the system; (3) the NOX CEMS must be used to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limitation determined at 40 CFR 60.332 on
a continuous basis; (4) recordkeeping requirements shall follow the
requirements specified at 40 CFR 60.7; (5) each NOX CEMS
must be operated in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(e); and (6) data
substitution methods or data exclusion methods provided for at 40 CFR
part 75 may not be used to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG.
Abstract for [M050005]
Q1: Does EPA approve 3M's requests to use the minimum atomization
header pressure for the rotary kiln's burners and lances as an
operating parameter limit to ensure good operation of each waste firing
system and to use the manufacturer's specifications to set the value of
the operating parameter limit under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
A1: Yes. EPA grants the request under Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) subpart EEE to use the minimum atomization header
pressure as an operating parameter.
Q2: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE
for a combined minimum blow down rate operating parameter limit as an
alternative to the requirement to establish separate minimum blow down
rate operating parameter limits for two low energy wet scrubbers that
use a common scrubber liquor tank?
A2: Yes. EPA grants the request under MACT subpart EEE for a
combined minimum blow down rate operating parameter limit.
Q3: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE
for a combined minimum scrubber liquor pH operating parameter limit for
the two low energy wet scrubbers in series that use a common scrubber
liquor tank?
A3: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart EEE for a
combined minimum scrubber liquor pH operating parameter limit.
Q4: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE, for the first of two low energy scrubbers in series, that EPA
waive the requirements to establish the following operating parameter
limits: a minimum pressure drop, a minimum liquid feed pressure, and
either a minimum liquid-to-gas ratio or a minimum scrubber liquor flow
rate and a maximum flue gas flow rate? Does EPA approve 3M's request to
approve the maximum outlet flue gas temperature from this wet scrubber
as an alternative monitoring requirement?
A4: Yes. EPA approves both requests under MACT subpart EEE.
Q5: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE, for the second of two low energy scrubbers, to waive the
requirement to establish a minimum pressure drop operating parameter
limit based on the manufacturer's specifications?
A5: Yes. EPA waives the requirement under MACT subpart EEE to
establish a minimum pressure drop operating parameter limit.
Q6: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE
to waive the monitoring requirement to establish a minimum scrubber
tank liquid level for a high energy wet scrubber?
A6: Yes. EPA waives the requirement under MACT subpart EEE to
establish a minimum scrubber tank liquid level.
Q7: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEE, for a minimum secondary power operating parameter limit for a wet
electrostatic precipitator as a representative and reliable indicator
that the control device is operating within the same range of
conditions as during the comprehensive performance test?
A7: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart EEE for a
minimum secondary power operating parameter limit.
Abstract for [0500013]
Q: Will EPA allow the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco manufacturing plant in
Franklin Park, Illinois, which has natural gas-fired boilers, to record
and maintain monthly records of fuel usage instead of the daily records
required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A: Yes. Based on past determinations, records of fuel usage for
natural gas-fired boilers may be kept on a monthly basis in
satisfaction of NSPS subpart Dc.
Abstract for [0500014]
Q: Magellan Pipeline Company installed floating roofs to existing
petroleum storage tanks in conjunction with changes in fuels stored at
five facilities in Minnesota. Are these considered modifications under
40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb?
A: Yes. Changing fuels alone would be exempt under 40 CFR
60.14(e)(4), and installing floating roofs alone would be exempt under
40 CFR 60.14((e)(5). However, when both actions take place in
conjunction, floating roofs must be part of the original construction
specifications for the storage tanks in order for the modifications to
be exempt. The company states that the original construction of the
roofs did not encompass a floating roof design. Therefore, the storage
tanks meet the criteria for modification under NSPS subparts K, Ka, and
Kb.
Abstract for [0500015]
Q1: Will EPA accept under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, the
replacement of the multiple load-testing requirements with a single
load test while operating the combustion turbine at maximum load
conditions at the Rocky Mountain Energy Center electric power
generation facility in Weld County, Colorado?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the waiver under NSPS subpart GG from
multiple load testing because, for combustion turbines equipped with
nitrogen oxides continuous emission monitoring systems (NOX
CEMS), the monitors will provide credible evidence regarding the unit's
compliance status on a continuous basis following the initial test.
Q2: Will EPA accept the waiver of the NOX monitoring
requirement for owners and operators of combustion turbines subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG without intermediate bulk storage for fuel?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the waiver under NSPS subpart GG because this
fuel does not contain fuel-bound nitrogen, and any free nitrogen that
it may contain does not contribute appreciably to the formation of
nitrogen oxides emissions.
Q3: Will EPA accept the waiver of the requirement under 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG to report NOX performance test results on an
ISO-corrected basis?
A3: Yes. EPA approves the waiver under NSPS subpart GG because the
level of compliance assurance provided in this case is sufficient.
Q4: Will EPA approve an alternative custom fuel (sulfur) monitoring
plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG for gas-fired combustion
turbines?
A4: Yes. EPA approves the request for an alternative fuel
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart GG because it is consistent with
EPA's August 1987 fuel monitoring policy.
[[Page 36146]]
Abstract for [0500016]
Q: Do natural gas storage facilities that inject processed natural
gas (i.e., liquids have been extracted) into depleted gas/oil wells or
other underground caverns and then extract natural gas liquids from the
gas upon withdrawal, fall under the ``natural gas processing plant''
definition of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK?
A: No. This type of facility does not meet the NSPS subpart KKK
definition of ``natural gas processing plant'' because it is not
extracting natural gas liquids from field gas, nor is it conducting
fractionation of mixed natural gas liquids to natural gas products.
NSPS subpart KKK would not apply to natural gas storage facilities that
inject processed natural gas into depleted gas/oil wells or other
underground caverns and then extract natural gas liquids from the gas
upon withdrawal.
Abstract for [Z050002]
Q: Is the removal of a facility from its foundation, followed by
relocation of the facility onto a new foundation, a demolition or
renovation for purposes of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A: Yes. This action constitutes a demolition under the regulatory
definition because load-supporting structural members of a facility
were taken out from the foundation when the facility was moved. The
letter explains how two prior determinations are consistent on this
issue and provides further regulatory clarifications related to this
NESHAP regulation.
Abstract for [M050006]
Q: Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, may the Mountain Cement
Company facility in Laramie, Wyoming, which has a material handling
process (bulk unloading system) housed entirely within a building/
closed structure, perform Method 22 observations for visual emissions
on the sides and roof of the building?
A: Yes. The facility can conduct Method 22 visible emissions
observations on each side of and the roof of the building under Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart LLL. The results of the
Method 22 observations of the building must show no visible emissions.
If visible emissions are detected during the Method 22 monitoring of
the building, a Method 9 reading will be required.
Abstract for [Z050003]
Q: Do current standard polarized light microscopy (PLM) and point
count test methods satisfy current minimum EPA regulatory requirements
under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, for analysis of vermiculite loose fill
insulation?
A: Yes. PLM and point count methods satisfy EPA's minimum
requirements under NESHAP subpart M for analysis of vermiculite loose
fill insulation. However, EPA plans to publish a new more accurate
method for analyzing vermiculite in the future, and is informing the
public to consider all vermiculite as asbestos-containing material.
Abstract for [M050007]
Q: Are size presses and on-machine coaters used by the paper
industry subject to the Paper and Other Web Coating Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ?
A: No. Both size presses and on-machine coaters that function as
part of the in-line papermaking system are used to form the paper
substrate and thus are not subject to the MACT subpart JJJJ
requirements.
Abstract for [M050008]
Q: Are methanol storage tanks used for the sole purpose of chlorine
dioxide generation for pulp bleaching at pulp and paper mills subject
to the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, or
are they subject to the Organic Liquids Distribution NESHAP, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEE?
A: Methanol storage tanks used for the sole purpose of chlorine
dioxide generation for pulp bleaching at pulp and paper mills are part
of the mills' chlorine dioxide generation equipment, and are,
therefore, a component of the bleaching system subject to NESHAP
subpart S. They are not, however, subject to NESHAP subpart EEEE.
Abstract for [M050009]
Q: Is the application of sizing to carbon fiber during its
manufacture at the Cytec Carbon Fibers facility in Rock Hill, South
Carolina subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO?
A: No. Carbon fiber manufacturing is a synthetic fiber
manufacturing process which is exempt from Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) subpart OOOO.
Abstract for [0500017]
Q: Will EPA approve the Autoflame Control System Technology to
derate a boiler for purposes of determining applicability of the NSPS
subparts for boilers (40 CFR part 60, subparts D, Da, Db, and Dc)?
A: No. EPA will not approve the Autoflame Control System Technology
because derate methods that are based solely on fuel feedrate control,
as the Autoflame Control System Technology is, are not acceptable
derate methods for determining the rated capacity of a boiler under
NSPS subparts D, Da, Db, and Dc.
Abstract for [0500018]
Q1: Will EPA allow Riverside Energy Center to conduct the initial
NOX performance testing at only 50 and 100 percent of
maximum operating load, instead of at all four loads as required under
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A1: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement under NSPS subpart GG to
conduct performance testing for nitrogen oxides (NOX) for
each turbine at four load levels under the following conditions: The
turbine burns natural gas; the NOX continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) data provides a continuous record of
NOX emissions; and the testing at 100 percent load is the
same as testing peak load.
Q2: Will EPA allow the facility under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG,
to test one of two combined cycle generating units to demonstrate both
units in compliance with NOX, CO and VOC emission limits
during startup and shut down, in lieu of testing all units?
A2: No. The plant is required under NSPS subpart GG to conduct a
performance test of each of the two identical gas turbines for purposes
of showing NSPS compliance.
Q3: Will EPA allow the facility under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG to
use NOX CEMS data in lieu of monitoring the water fuel
ratio?
A3: Yes. The plant may use NOX CEMS monitoring instead
of monitoring the water fuel ratio.
Abstract for [M050010]
Q: If the total quantity of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
contained in the remediation material that Connecticut Resources
Recovery Authority (CRRA) of Hartford, Connecticut will excavate,
extract, pump, or otherwise remove is less than 1 megagram per year
(Mg/yr), is it subject only to the recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGGGG?
A: Yes. EPA confirms that as long as CRRA's site remediation meets
the conditions of 40 CFR 63.7881(c), including that the areas to be
remediated, contain less than 1 Mg/yr of HAPs, the facility will be
subject only to the recordkeeping requirements of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) subpart GGGGG.
Abstract for [M050011]
Q: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls,
[[Page 36147]]
Minnesota to monitor, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, the scrubber
liquid supply pressure in lieu of the pressure drop across the wet
scrubber used to control emissions from the lime kiln?
A: Yes. EPA will allow this under Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) subpart MM, because for this particular scrubber,
liquid supply pressure is a better indicator of scrubber performance
and shall be monitored along with liquor flow rate to demonstrate
compliance.
Abstract for [M050012]
Q: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls,
Minnesota to demonstrate, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, compliance
using particulate emission tests conducted after the pulp mill
combustion Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) promulgation
date but before the compliance date?
A: Yes. EPA will allow this under MACT subpart MM on the condition
that the production rates achieved during the November 2003 tests
represent the highest production rates currently achievable.
Abstract for [M050013]
Q: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls,
Minnesota to set, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, a compliant wet
scrubber operating parameter range that is 10 percent lower than the
average value recorded during a performance test?
A: No. EPA will not allow this because Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) subpart MM requires that the compliant operating
parameter range be established using the arithmetic average of the
values recorded during a performance test.
Abstract for [M050014]
Q1: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls,
Minnesota to set, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, a minimum compliant
scrubber liquor flow rate at 425 gallons per minute (gpm) and a minimum
compliant scrubber liquor supply pressure at 308 pounds per square inch
(psi)?
A1: Yes. EPA will allow this because test data demonstrate
compliance with the particulate matter limit of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) subpart MM if these parameters are met.
Abstract for [M050015]
Q2: Will EPA allow the MeadWestvaco paper mill in Chillicothe, Ohio
to demonstrate continuous compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM,
using operating parameters for the smelt dissolving tank scrubber
pressure drop that were established during tests not conducted in
accordance with all the requirements of MACT subpart MM?
A2: No. EPA cannot consider approving under MACT subpart MM this
proposal for a compliant operating parameter range until the initial
performance test is conducted.
Abstract for [M050016]
Q: Is the Chicago White Metals die casting facility in Bensenville,
Illinois subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR if it is an area source
that only melts clean charge and internal scrap?
A: No. Under these facts, the facility in question is not subject
to subpart RRR. However, if the facility increases its emissions and
becomes a major source, or if the materials charged into the remelt
furnaces are anything other than clean charge, internal scrap, or
customer returns, then the furnaces will be subject.
Abstract for [M050017]
Q: May the Scepter secondary aluminum facility in Bicknell, Indiana
use an alternative reactive flux injection monitoring method under 40
CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: Yes. The facility may use an alternative reactive flux injection
monitoring method under Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
subpart RRR as long as the flux rate for the entire batch cycle for
each furnace is below that established during the performance tests.
Abstract for [M050018]
Q: Is the Commonwealth Industries facility in Uhrichsville, Ohio
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR if it is an area source which
reports having Group 2 furnaces?
A: The furnaces are not subject to the testing requirements of
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart RRR. However, they
are subject to the operating, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of MACT subpart RRR.
Abstract for [M050019]
Q: May the Wausau-Mosinee paper mill in Brokaw, Wisconsin monitor
the on/off status of the scrubber pumps instead of the pressure drop
across the venturi scrubbers under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM?
A: No. Pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate are critical
parameters for the performance of venturi scrubbers. EPA has already
approved monitoring the on/off status of the scrubber pumps in lieu of
monitoring the liquid flow rate.
Dated: May 26, 2005.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05-12358 Filed 6-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P