[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62304-62311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21625]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7990-6]
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/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The document may be
located by date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions
about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at:
(202) 564-7027, or by e-mail at: [email protected]. For technical
questions about the individual applicability determinations or
monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the
individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to
the author of the document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP
in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's
written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability
determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP
and 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 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 58 such documents added to
the ADI on August 19, 2005. The subject, author, recipient, date,
header and a brief abstract of each letter and memorandum are listed in
this notice. 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 August 19, 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 August 19, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Category Subpart Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M050020............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Treatment of New In-Line
Fluxer as a New Unit.
M050021............................ MACT.................. XXXX.................. Tire Retreading Operations.
M050022............................ MACT.................. HH, HHH............... Separating Single
Individual Surface Sites.
M050023............................ MACT.................. UUU................... Temporary Alternative
Monitoring Plan.
M050024............................ MACT.................. CC.................... Alternative Reporting
Period.
M050025............................ MACT.................. AA.................... Clarification of Cooling
Tower Requirements.
M050026............................ MACT.................. LLL................... Opacity Limit for
Commingled Emission
Streams.
M050027............................ MACT.................. LLL................... Opacity Limit for
Commingled Emission
Streams.
M050028............................ MACT.................. VVVV.................. Classification of a Resin
as a Production Resin.
M050029............................ MACT.................. A, T.................. Degreaser No Longer Using
Regulated Solvent.
M050031............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Holding Furnaces Regulated
as Group 2 Furnaces.
M050032............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Sweat Furnace.
M050033............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Die Caster Not Operating a
Scrap Dryer.
M050034............................ MACT.................. RRR................... Clarification of Visible
Emission Observations.
[[Page 62305]]
M050035............................ MACT.................. ZZZZ.................. Applicability of RICE to
Units Less than 500 Brake
Horsepower.
Z050004............................ NESHAP................ N..................... Glass-Melting Furnaces Used
for R&D Purposes.
Z050005............................ NESHAP................ C..................... Emission Test Waiver for
Incinerator.
Z050006............................ NESHAP................ FF.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Dual Purpose Valves.
0500019............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Clarification on Treatment
System.
0500020............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
for Boiler Fuel Usage.
0500021............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Processing Transmix.
0500022............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
for Boiler Fuel Usage.
0500023............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Recordkeeping Variance.
0500024............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Waiver of NOX Monitoring
During Boiler Startup.
0500025............................ NSPS.................. OOO, UUU.............. Processing of Fused Silica.
0500026............................ NSPS.................. LL.................... Relocation of Iron Ore
Concentrate.
0500027............................ NSPS.................. PPP................... Alternative Monitoring for
Scrubber.
0500028............................ NSPS.................. Db, Dc................ Fuel Supplier
Certifications.
0500029............................ NSPS.................. Db, Dc................ Boiler Derate Proposal.
0500030............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Monitoring
Proposals for Opacity and
SO2.
0500031............................ NSPS.................. BBB................... Tire Retreading Operations.
0500032............................ NSPS.................. DD.................... Use of Grain Storage
Capacity to Determine
Applicability.
0500033............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Enclosed Flare.
0500034............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Applicability of Percent
Reduction and Emission
Rate Limits.
0500035............................ NSPS.................. Kb.................... Alternative Method for
Defining Maximum True
Vapor Pressure.
0500036............................ NSPS.................. A, Db................. Wood Fired Boiler NOX
Limits and Required
Monitoring.
0500037............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Gas Turbines.
0500038............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Caustic Treating
Plant.
0500039............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Soil Vapor Stream/
Regenerator Vent Gas
Stream.
0500040............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0500041............................ NSPS.................. A, J.................. Temporary Alternative
Monitoring Plan.
0500042............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Sulfur Pits & Storage
Tanks, Liquid Sulfur
Loading Stations.
0500043............................ NSPS.................. A, J.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Heaters & Boilers.
0500044............................ NSPS.................. A, J.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Reformer Heater.
0500045............................ NSPS.................. A, J.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Loading Facility.
0500046............................ NSPS.................. A, J.................. Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Fuel Gas Streams.
0500047............................ NSPS.................. A, J.................. Alternate Span Value for
Sulfur Recovery Unit.
0500049............................ NSPS.................. VV.................... Alternative Monitoring for
Leak Detection.
0500050............................ NSPS.................. PPP................... Alternative Monitoring
Procedure for Scrubber.
0500051............................ NSPS.................. Db, Dc................ Boiler Derate Proposal.
0500052............................ NSPS.................. UUU................... Alternative Monitoring and
Test Waiver for Scrubber.
0500053............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Fuel Recordkeeping
Variance.
0500054............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
Frequency for Fuel Usage.
0500055............................ NSPS.................. KK.................... Waiver of Applicability for
Storage Silo Vents.
0500056............................ NSPS.................. UUU................... Applicability of Sand
Reclamation Processes in
Foundry I.
0500057............................ NSPS.................. LLL................... Alternative Monitoring
Request.
0500058............................ NSPS.................. Y..................... Charcoal Briquet
Manufacturing.
0500059............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Thermal Oxidizer-Heat
Recovery Steam Generators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [M050020]
Q: Is a new in-line fluxer at ALCOA's plant in Massena, New York,
considered a ``new source'' under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: Yes. EPA has determined that the proposed new in-line fluxer
would be considered a separate secondary aluminum processing unit
(SAPU) from the existing SAPU and therefore, a new emission unit or
``new source'' under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR.
Abstract for [Z050004]
Q: Would two new, continuous glass-melting furnaces, to be used for
research and development purposes at Corning's Sullivan Park facility,
be subject to the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart N?
A: Yes. Any glass-melting furnace that uses commercial arsenic as a
raw material is subject to the requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart
N.
Abstract for [0500019]
Q: Are combustion engines that process treated gas and that meet
the treatment system requirements in New Source Performance Standard
subpart WWW, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C), subject to the control
requirements in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B)?
A: No. As long as the treated gas meets the treatment system
requirement in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C), the combustion engines are
not subject to the control requirements in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B).
Abstract for [0500020]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring and recordkeeping
request by First Quality Tissue in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, for
monitoring and
[[Page 62306]]
recording natural gas usage by seven small boilers subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Dc?
A: Yes. EPA will approve monthly monitoring of fuel usage as
opposed to daily monitoring because of the small size of the boilers in
question and the very clean fuel they use.
Abstract for [0500021]
Q: Does the processing of transmix at the Heath Oil facility in Oil
City, Pennsylvania, subject the facility to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J?
A: No. If the facility does not process crude oil, does not have
the physical capability of processing crude oil, and only deals with
products that have already been produced by a petroleum refinery, then
the operation does not meet the definition of a ``petroleum refinery''
and is not subject to the New Source Performance Standard subpart J
requirements.
Abstract for [0500022]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative recordkeeping request, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for a small boiler burning only clean fuels at
the Kemp Foods facility in Lancaster, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the taking of monthly, rather than daily,
readings of natural gas usage for the small boilers at the Kemp Foods
facility under NSPS subpart Dc.
Abstract for [0500023]
Q: Will EPA allow, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, the U.S. Navy
to record boiler fuel usage on a monthly, rather than daily, basis at
seven boilers located in three locations in the Tidewater Region of
Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA agrees to the proposed recordkeeping frequency change
given that the seven small boilers in question combust only very clean
fuels and EPA has already granted this type of request in other areas
of the country to other facilities.
Abstract for [0500024]
Q: Will EPA waive, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, nitrogen oxide
(NOX) monitoring during boiler startups on mixed fuels for
the 5 spreader stoker boiler at the University of Virginia in
Charlottesville, Virginia?
A: No. EPA will not waive the requirement under NSPS subpart Db to
monitor NOX emissions. However, for the short period that
mixed fuels are being combusted, it will allow compliance to be
maintained with the coal standard rather than the natural gas standard.
Abstract for [0500025]
Q: Will 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO and UUU apply to a fused
silica crucible manufacturing process using grinding mills and dryers
and kilns at the Ceradyne facilities in Scottdale and Clarkston,
Georgia?
A: No. Because fused silica is not a nonmetallic mineral, the
processing of fused silica is not subject to New Source Performance
Standard subparts OOO and UUU.
Abstract for [0500026]
Q: If Tennessee Minerals LLC were to remove iron ore concentrate
from the site of an old mining/metallurgical operation in Copperhill,
Tennessee, would the operation be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
LL?
A: No. Because the proposed operation would not produce a metallic
mineral concentrate from ore, it would not meet the New Source
Performance Standard subpart LL definition of a metallic mineral
processing plant.
Abstract for [0500027]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP, monitoring
pressure at the water supply pump for a scrubber at the Owens Corning
facility in Fairburn, Georgia?
A: No. EPA will not approve this request for alternative
monitoring. To ensure ongoing compliance, it is necessary that the
water flow rate be monitored because it is possible that the pressure
at the pump outlet remains unchanged while the flow rate to the washing
system has decreased.
Abstract for [0500028]
Q: Will EPA allow, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db and Dc, a one-
time certification of fuel sulfur content for affected facilities that
use very low sulfur fuel oil, rather than requiring the maintenance of
records of fuel oil sulfur content for each shipment of fuel delivered?
A: No. EPA will not allow this alternative recordkeeping. Affected
facilities must comply with the New Source Performance Standard
subparts Db and Dc requirements concerning fuel oil sulfur
certifications.
Abstract for [0500029]
Q: Will EPA approve a boiler derate proposal, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db, that is based on changes made to limit the fuel feed rate?
A: No. EPA will not approve this boiler derate proposal under New
Source Performance Standard subpart Db because it is based only on a
reduction in the fuel feed rate and does not result in a reduction in
boiler capacity, thus failing to comply with EPA's policy on derates.
Abstract for [Z050005]
Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the emission testing requirements
of 40 CFR part 61, subpart C for the incinerator at the Duratek
Services facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which has submitted data to
demonstrate that the source is in compliance with the standard?
A: Yes. Because the information supplied with the waiver request
indicates that the company will comply with the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants subpart C, a waiver of testing
requirements was determined to be appropriate.
Abstract for [0500030]
Q1: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring request based on EPA
Reference Method 9 testing data instead of using a continuous opacity
monitoring system, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for a boiler using
residual oil as a backup fuel at Premium Standard Farms in Clinton,
North Carolina?
A1: No. The proposed alternative monitoring procedure for opacity
will need to be modified to be consistent with previous EPA approvals
for similar operations with an annual capacity factor of 10 percent, as
described in the EPA's response.
Q2: Does EPA approve the request to verify compliance with the
sulfur dioxide emission standard in 40 CFR 60.42c(d) by the use of fuel
supplier certifications and maintaining fuel usage records on a monthly
basis?
A2: No. Since compliance with the fuel sulfur limit in New Source
Performance Standard subpart Dc is determined on a 30-day rolling
average basis, compliance cannot be determined for residual oil-fired
units unless daily fuel usage records are available.
Abstract for [0500031]
Q: Are tire retreading and repair operations conducted by Snider
Tire, Incorporated in Greensboro, North Carolina, and Parrish Tire
Company in Yadkinville, North Carolina, subject to the requirements in
40 CFR part 60, subpart BBB?
A: No. The requirements in New Source Performance Standard subpart
BBB do not apply since the operations do not produce new tires.
Abstract for [M050021]
Q: Are tire retreading and repair operations conducted by Snider
Tire, Incorporated in Greensboro, North Carolina, and Parrish Tire
Company in Yadkinville, North Carolina, subject to
[[Page 62307]]
the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX?
A: No. The requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXX do not
apply because the operations are not located at, nor are they a part
of, a major source of hazardous air pollutants.
Abstract for [0500032]
Q1: Is tempered grain storage capacity counted toward total storage
capacity for the purposes of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD?
A1: Yes. Dried corn, dropped into ``tempering'' bins, may fracture
and break. However, if no chemical processing or milling has yet
occurred, the tempering bins serve as additional storage prior to the
germination step, and are included in the total storage capacity for
the purposes of New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart DD.
Q2: If storage capacity increases at the facility, but there is no
increase to the hourly grain handling capacity, would a facility be
exempt under 40 CFR 60.304(b)(4) of NSPS subpart DD?
A2: The modification exemption under 40 CFR 60.304(b)(4) applies to
affected facilities at the plant that existed prior to the date that
NSPS subpart DD applied. Therefore, this modification exemption does
not apply to the affected facilities that were constructed at the time
the grain storage capacity reached one million bushels or subsequent to
that time.
Q3: Do silos need to be tested and equipped with baghouses under
NSPS subpart DD?
A3: No. These are not requirements of NSPS subpart DD. However,
applicable local and state requirements may apply.
Abstract for [Z050006]
Q1: Do tank and oil/water separator pressure/vacuum relief valves
at the wastewater treatment plant of the Flint Hills Resources refinery
in Rosemount, Minnesota, function as pressure relief devices or as
dilution air openings under the benzene waste operations National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF?
A1: Because the pressure/vacuum relief valves relieve excess
pressure in the closed vent system and allow dilution air to enter the
closed vent system, they are both pressure relief devices and dilution
air openings under the 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
Q2: Can these pressure/vacuum relief valves meet all the
requirements of 40 CFR 61.343(a)(1)(i) and 61.347(a)(1)(i)?
A2: No. When the pressure/vacuum relief valves open to relieve
excess pressure, the pressure in the closed vent system is greater than
2.0 inches water column above atmospheric, and, thus, the continuous
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 61.343(a)(1)(i)(C)(3) and
61.347(a)(1)(i)(C)(3) is not met.
Q3: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, the
refinery's alternative monitoring plan to: (a) design the pressure/
vacuum relief valves to open only under a negative pressure of 0.5 inch
water column or a positive pressure of 2.0 inches; (b) inspect the
valves quarterly to verify proper operation; and (c) monitor the valves
semiannually by the method specified in 40 CFR 61.355(h)?
A3: Yes. EPA will approve the alternative monitoring plan under 40
CFR part 61, subpart FF, with the condition that an instrument reading
greater than 500 ppm above background indicates detectable emissions
from the pressure/vacuum relief valves.
Abstract for [0500033]
Q: Will EPA allow Flint Hills Resources (FHR) Pine Bend Refinery in
Rosemount, Minnesota, to amend, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, an
existing alternative monitoring plan for a Zink Flare to include a new
product, energy fortified diesel?
A: Yes. EPA will allow this amendment of the alternative monitoring
plan because the facility has followed the Refinery Fuel Gas (RFG)
guidance and has submitted all necessary information regarding energy
fortified diesel. Because the facility loads only gasolines that meet
their product specifications for sulfur content, the RFG Guidance does
not require any further hydrogen sulfide monitoring on the gasoline
loading rack off gas when FHR uses the Zink Flare.
Abstract for [0500034]
Q1: Do both the 90 percent sulfur dioxide reduction requirement and
the 1.2 lbs/mmBtu sulfur dioxide limit apply to coal fired boilers
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
A1: Yes. New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart Db requires
both a 90 percent sulfur dioxide reduction and a sulfur dioxide
emission limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBtu.
Q2: If both the 90 percent sulfur dioxide reduction requirement and
the 1.2 lbs/mmBtu sulfur dioxide limit apply to coal fired boilers, is
it possible to get a waiver of the former for sources using very low
sulfur coal?
A2: No. A waiver of the 90 percent sulfur dioxide reduction
requirement is not allowed under NSPS subpart Db.
Abstract for [M050022]
Q: How can a single individual surface site be separated into a
single 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH facility and a 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHH facility?
A: The point of custody transfer at a natural gas processing plant
is where the natural gas enters the pipeline for transmission, and is
also the point where the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard
subpart HHH applicability begins. Any equipment upstream of the
pipeline is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH.
Abstract for [0500035]
Q: Will EPA allow the Trenton Agri Products ethanol facility in
Trenton, Nebraska, to use Tanks 4.0 Software as the alternative method
of defining ``maximum true vapor pressure'' under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb?
A: No. Although the Tanks 4.0 Software is a valuable tool in
determining emissions, it is not the correct tool in determining
applicability of the New Source Performance Standard subpart Kb
requirements to an ethanol tank, and thus it will not be allowed for
this purpose.
Abstract for [0500036]
Q1: What nitrogen oxide (NOX) limits apply under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Db, to the two 260 mm Btu/hr wood waste-fired boilers
at the Burney Forest Products (BFP) facility in the Shasta County Air
Quality Management District (AQMD), that are capable of combusting
natural gas and do not have a 10 percent natural gas capacity factor
limit?
A1: Until BFP obtains a 10 percent natural gas capacity factor
limit that is federally enforceable, the facility will be subject to
the NOX limit of 130 ng/J (0.30 lb/million Btu) found at 40
CFR 60.44b(d).
Q2: Is a NOX continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEMS) required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
A2: Yes. BFP is required to operate a NOX CEMS until the
facility obtains a 10 percent natural gas capacity factor limit. After
it obtains a federally enforceable 10 percent natural gas capacity
factor limit, the facility will no longer be required under New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart Db to operate the NOX
CEMS, and it will no longer be subject to the NOX limit at
40 CFR 60.44b(d). It should be stressed that, at all times, BFP has
been and will remain subject to both the NSPS subpart Db opacity limit
and the NOX limit and the required NOX monitoring
contained in the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and
Title V Permits issued by the Shasta County AQMD.
[[Page 62308]]
Q3: Assuming that the NOX limits prescribed in 40 CFR
60.44b(d) apply only when BFP is simultaneously combusting natural gas
with wood, how should the data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)
calculate the nitrogen oxides (NOX) 30-day rolling average
when the facility is combusting only wood or only natural gas?
A3: The assumption that the NOX limits prescribed in 40
CFR 60.44b(d) apply only when BFP is simultaneously combusting natural
gas with wood is incorrect.
Q4: If 40 CFR 60.44b(d) does not establish NOX emission
limits when combusting wood or natural gas alone, should the
NOX values recorded by the CEMS during periods where wood or
natural gas only is combusted be deleted or disregarded in calculating
the 30-day average under 40 CFR 60.46b(c) or (d)?
A4: NOX values should be recorded by the CEMS during
periods when wood is combusted, when natural gas is combusted, or when
there is simultaneous combustion. No NOX values should be
deleted or disregarded in calculating the 30-day average under 40 CFR
60.46b(c) or (d), or 60.49b(g).
Q5: What is the applicable span value for BFP's NOX
analyzers under 60 CFR 60.48b(e) when the facility simultaneously burns
wood and natural gas? Also, since the facility has to meet a state
NOX limit much lower than the 0.30 lb/million Btu limit
specified in NSPS subpart Db, please verify that it is acceptable to
use a lower span value of 250 ppm that has been specifically approved
by the AQMD.
A5: The span value for the NOX analyzers should be 1.5
to 2.5 times greater than the permitted limit of 250 ppm. By ``state
NOX limit'', EPA assumes that BFP is referring to the
emission limits in its prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
permit, which Shasta County AQMD issued pursuant to delegated PSD
authority. The PSD permit requirements are also federal requirements.
The NOX limit in Condition 1 of the Title V permit is 250
ppm, although the data submitted by BFP to EPA indicates that the
emissions are normally at 100 ppm or less. Specifically, source tests
in the year 2002 and the year 2003, showed a range of 60 to 80 ppm
NOX for each of the boilers, and the monthly reports to the
County indicate that these boilers have had no daily NOX
averages above 80 ppm since the year 1999.
Q6: Please clarify whether the NOX CEMS installed in the
boilers to meet the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db monitoring requirements
would be considered ``continuous compliance monitors'' under 40 CFR
60.46b(e)(3) or ``excess emission monitors'' under 40 CFR 60.46b(e)(4),
based on the fact that the maximum boiler heat input capacity from
fossil fuel firing is only 90 million Btu/hr.
A6: The NOX CEMS would be subject to 40 CFR
60.46b(e)(3), unless BFP obtains a federally enforceable requirement
that limits its annual capacity for natural gas to 10 percent or less.
If BFP obtains such a limit, then the NSPS subpart Db NOX
limit does not apply, and the NOX CEMS would no longer be
subject to the continuous compliance monitoring requirements under the
NSPS subpart Db regulations. However, the NOX CEMS would
still be considered continuous compliance monitors under the PSD/Title
V and therefore, subject to the Best Achievable Control Technology
emission limits.
Q7: Please clarify which reports would be applicable to these
boilers under 40 CFR 60.49b and 60.7.
A7: EPA assumes that this question primarily concerns the
obligations to provide reports concerning NOX emissions
(although opacity reports are required by 40 CFR 60.49b(f)). The time
period for the required initial notifications and initial testing has
long since passed [40 CFR 60.49b(a) and (b)]. BFP is subject to the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in NSPS subparts A and Db.
These include 40 CFR 60.49b(d), 60.49b(g), 60.49b(I), and 60.7.
Abstract for [0500037]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for the butane that is generated at BP's Carson,
California refinery and combusted at the Watson Cogeneration Company
(WCC) turbines?
A: Yes. EPA will approve this alternative monitoring plan under New
Source Performance Standard subpart J. BP proposed that weekly grab
samples of the butane be analyzed for sulfur content with ASTM Method
D5504-94, which has been incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 75,
subpart A.
Abstract for [0500038]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for the vent gas stream from the caustic treating
plant that is incinerated at the thermal oxidizer at the Chevron
refinery in El Segundo, California?
A: Yes. EPA will approve an alternative monitoring plan under New
Source Performance Standard subpart J. There are no crossover points
that would allow sour gas to be combined with the vent gas. The caustic
alkalinity is maintained at greater than 5 percent which keeps the
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the vent gas stream at less that
0.2 parts per million. Chevron has submitted 14 consecutive days of
sample results that document the low H2S content of this
fuel gas stream.
Abstract for [0500039]
Q: Will EPA approve alternate monitoring plans, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart J, for the recovered soil vapor stream and the continuous
catalytic reforming unit regenerator vent gas stream at the Chevron
facility in El Segundo, California?
A: Yes. EPA determines that alternative monitoring plans for these
streams are appropriate under New Source Performance Standard subpart J
as long as the representative process parameter functions serve as
indicators of a stable and low hydrogen sulfide concentration for the
streams.
Abstract for [0500040]
Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for a combustion turbine that combusts pipeline
quality natural gas at the Corona Energy Partners (Corona) facility in
Corona, California?
A: Yes. In accordance with its longstanding policy, and because
Corona has proposed to sample the sulfur content of the fuel with South
Coast Air Quality Management District Method 307-91, EPA will approve
this custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [M050023]
Q: Will EPA allow ExxonMobil, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, to
use EPA Method 9 readings as an alternative to continuous opacity
monitoring on the bypass stack of the fluid catalytic cracking unit at
its Torrance, California refinery?
A: Yes. EPA will allow ExxonMobil to use Method 9 readings under 40
CFR part 63, subpart UUU as an alternative for bypass stacks as long as
the control device for particulate matter is not bypassed. This
approval is for a limited period of time to allow ExxonMobil to propose
and EPA to evaluate the feasibility of a more permanent monitoring
solution.
Abstract for [0500041]
Q: Will EPA allow ExxonMobil, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, to
use EPA Method 9 readings as an alternative to continuous opacity
monitoring on the bypass stack of the fluid catalytic cracking unit at
its Torrance, California refinery?
[[Page 62309]]
A: Yes, EPA will allow ExxonMobil to use Method 9 readings under
New Source Performance Standard subpart J as an alternative for bypass
stacks as long as the control device for particulate matter is not
bypassed. This approval is for a limited period of time to allow
ExxonMobil to propose and EPA to evaluate the feasibility of a more
permanent monitoring solution.
Abstract for [0500042]
Q: Which requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart J are applicable
to sulfur pits, sulfur storage tanks, and liquid sulfur loading
stations?
A: The emissions from a sulfur recovery plant's sulfur pits are
subject to the 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2) limit regardless of where the
emissions are routed. The emissions from the sulfur storage tanks and
the sulfur loading racks are subject to the 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1) limit
if they are combusted at a refinery fuel gas combustion device as
defined in 40 CFR 60.101(g).
Abstract for [0500043]
Q: Will EPA allow an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart J, for four boilers and heaters at the Shell Bakersfield
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative monitoring plan,
which entails calculating the hydrogen sulfide concentration of the
mixed refinery fuel gas stream, provided that Shell certifies all flow
meters and implements a quality assurance and quality control program
for the flowmeters.
Abstract for [0500044]
Q: Will EPA approve annual source testing and daily detector tube
sampling of the pressure swing absorption (PSA) purge gas under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for the Shell refinery in Wilmington, California?
A: Yes. Shell's proposal for measuring the hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) concentration with the threshold value of 1 ppm at the
outlet of the first Zinc Oxide bed will ensure that the PSA purge gas
will meet the NSPS subpart J limit of 160 ppmv. Because the first Zinc
Oxide bed will be replaced upon breakthrough at 1 ppmv, it is highly
unlikely that the H2S concentration at the outlet of the
second Zinc Oxide bed will ever exceed 0 ppmv.
Abstract for [M050024]
Q: Will EPA allow an alternate reporting period, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart CC, for the Valero refinery in Wilmington, California?
A: Yes. EPA will allow the proposed alternate reporting period as
long as the proposed reporting period does not alter any of the other
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
Abstract for [0500045]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart J, for the marine vapor recovery loading facility at the
Shell refinery in Martinez, California?
A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative monitoring plan under
New Source Performance Standard subpart J with the additional
recordkeeping and reporting requirements set out in the determination.
Abstract for [0500046]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for four fuel gas streams at the Shell refinery in
Martinez, California?
A: Yes. EPA will approve alternative monitoring plans for these
fuel gas streams under New Source Performance Standard subpart J.
However, the representative process parameters for these streams must
function as an indicator of a stable and low hydrogen sulfide
concentration for the streams.
Abstract for [0500047]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, an alternate
span setting on a continuous emission monitor (CEM) for its sulfur
recovery unit, SRU-4, at the Shell refinery in Martinez, California?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternate span values of 250 ppm and 2,500
ppm for the CEM for SRU-4 under New Source Performance Standard subpart
J. These would be appropriate because the permitted and anticipated
stack concentration for the SRU-4 is less than 100 ppm.
Abstract for [M050025]
Q: Is a facility in violation of National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) subpart AA, 40 CFR 63.602(e), if it
combines its wet scrubber effluent with other process waters and waste
waters, and then routes the combined water through a pile of disposed
gypsum and ultimately to the evaporative cooling towers?
A: Yes. Although the scrubber liquid effluent at the facility is
being diluted with other process waste waters, the fluoride emissions
captured by the wet scrubbers are routed to the evaporative cooling
towers where they are stripped off and emitted to the atmosphere.
Therefore, the process is a violation of NESHAP subpart AA, 40 CFR
63.602(e).
Abstract for [M050026] and [M050027]
Q: What is the applicable opacity limit under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLL, when kiln emissions and clinker cooler emissions are
commingled in a common stack at the Essroc Portland cement facility in
San Juan, Puerto Rico?
A: Where emissions from two affected facilities are simply combined
or commingled in a common duct or stack, it is EPA's policy and
practice to apply the more stringent opacity limitation. Application of
the more stringent limitation is necessary to ensure compliance with
each applicable standard. Therefore, the more stringent 10 percent
clinker cooler opacity limit applies.
Abstract for [M050028]
Q: Will EPA classify as a ``production resin,'' under 40 CFR part
63, subpart VVVV, a non pigmented resin developed by Cook Composite and
Polymers Company in Kansas City, Missouri, that is applied by non-
atomizing equipment between the skin layer and bulk laminate of boats,
and not directly to the mold surface?
A: Yes. As the new product is not applied directly to the mold
surface and is not used to repair molds or prototypes, it does not meet
the definitions of ``gel coat'' or ``tooling resin'' in 40 CFR 63.5779.
Consequently, due to the product's properties and purpose, it should be
classified as a ``production resin'' under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVV.
Abstract for [0500048]
Q: Will EPA accept an alternative opacity monitoring plan for two
coal-fired boilers subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, where the
continuous opacity monitor had to be removed from service because of
water droplet interference from a newly-installed wet-gas scrubber used
to remove sulfur dioxide?
A: Yes. EPA will accept this alternative opacity monitoring plan
under New Source Performance Standard subpart D. The plan requires
continuous monitoring of secondary power at the electrostatic
precipitators and liquid flow rate at the wet-gas scrubber.
Abstract for [0500049]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, a monitoring
procedure at the Eastman Chemical facility in Kingsport, Tennessee,
that uses sensory means (i.e., sight, sound, smell) to identify leaks
from equipment that is in acetic acid and/or acetic anhydride service?
A: Yes. The proposed alternative is acceptable under New Source
Performance Standard subpart VV. Monitoring results indicate that
[[Page 62310]]
equipment leaks are identified more easily through sensory methods than
by using Method 21, because of the physical properties (high boiling
points, high corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of acetic acid and
acetic anhydride, and the process conditions at the plant.
Abstract for [0500050]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP, an
alternative monitoring procedure for a scrubber at the Owens Corning
facility in Fairburn, Georgia, in which the water pressure at the
supply pump, rather than the gas pressure drop across the scrubber and
the scrubbing liquid flow rate, is monitored?
A: Additional information concerning the operation of the scrubber
and the rationale for the proposed alternative will need to be provided
to EPA before a decision can be made.
Abstract for [0500051]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db and Dc, a
boiler derate proposal from North Carolina Baptist Hospital in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, which is based on changes made to the natural
gas burner?
A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed derate method under New Source
Performance Standard subparts Db and Dc, as it will reduce the capacity
of the boiler and will comply with EPA's policy on derates.
Abstract for [0500052]
Q1: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, an
alternative monitoring procedure for a spray tower scrubber at the
Short Mountain Silica facility in Mooresburg, Tennessee? The spray
tower will control emissions from a fluidized bed dryer. Rather than
measuring the pressure loss of the gas stream through the scrubber and
the scrubbing liquid flow rate, the company proposes to monitor the
scrubbing liquid supply pressure and flow rate.
A1: Yes. The proposed alternative is acceptable under New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart UUU. Since there is little pressure
drop of the gas stream as it passes through the spray tower, pressure
drop is not a good indicator of the spray tower efficiency.
Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
UUU, to conduct a performance test for a rotary dryer which serves as a
backup for the fluidized bed dryer? The rotary dryer will use the same
scrubber used for the fluidized bed dryer, will be used infrequently,
and will have half the airflow rate of the fluidized bed dryer.
A2: Yes. A performance test waiver is appropriate under NSPS
subpart UUU.
Abstract for [0500053]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative recordkeeping schedule for
boiler fuel usage under New Source Performance Standard subpart Dc for
General Electric Transportation's new natural gas-fired boilers at
their Erie, Pennsylvania plant?
A: Yes. EPA will approve the change to the recordkeeping frequency
because the boilers only combust clean natural gas, are small boilers,
and past EPA determinations have allowed a change from daily
recordkeeping to monthly recordkeeping under the same set of
circumstances.
Abstract for [0500054]
Q: Will EPA approve an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping
frequency for small boilers under New Source Performance Standard
subpart Dc for the Standard Steel facility in Burnham, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves the monthly recordkeeping alternative proposed
by Standard Steel for its Burnham, Pennsylvania, plant for boiler fuel
usage because the boilers are small, the only fuel is natural gas, and
because this approval is consistent with past Agency determinations on
the same subject.
Abstract for [M050029]
Q: Will a vapor degreaser at Tecumseh Products research laboratory
in Ann Arbor, Michigan, still be subject to the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standard subpart T if the facility replaces
trichloroethylene with Leksol, a solvent consisting of 94 weight
percent n-propyl bromide?
A: No. Once the facility permanently ceases to use any of the
solvents listed in 40 CFR 63.460(a), and certifies that fact in
writing, the vapor degreaser will no longer be subject to MACT subpart
T. However, if the facility recommences the use of any of these
solvents, the degreaser will immediately become subject to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and per 40 CFR
63.9(j), the facility will have to inform EPA within 15 calendar days
of the date of the change.
Abstract for [0500055]
Q: C&D Technologies, Incorporated completed construction of a
building enclosure around three storage silos, which includes the truck
unloading area and silo vents. Are these silo vents still subject to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK?
A: Yes. The enclosure has an exhaust hood and fan that are
operating the entire time when a truck is unloading into a storage
silo. The exhaust hood and fan route the truck diesel exhaust,
uncontrolled and directly, from the enclosure to the atmosphere.
Because the fan is taking air from inside the enclosure and venting it
to the atmosphere, it is possible that air vented to the atmosphere
from the enclosure contains exhaust from the silo vents.
Abstract for [M050030]
Q: Will EPA authorize, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, the use
of data from a destruction and removal efficiency test conducted on a
hazardous waste burning cement kiln in lieu of the requirement to
conduct a destruction and removal efficiency test on a second hazardous
waste burning cement kiln that is located at the same facility?
A: Yes. The company has demonstrated that the two kilns meet the
stack test waiver criteria in EPA's February 2004 stack testing
guidance. Therefore, EPA approves the request under the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology standard subpart EEE.
Abstract for [M050031]
Q: Are the molten aluminum holding furnaces at Mercury Marine in
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, classified and regulated as group 2 furnaces
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: Yes. The furnaces hold molten aluminum prior to injection into
die casting machines, do not involve fluxing, and do not provide any
other process function, consistent with the rule's definition of a
group 2 furnace. Thus, they are subject to the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology standard subpart RRR.
Abstract for [M050032]
Q: Is the furnace at GNW Aluminum in Alliance, Ohio, considered a
sweat furnace under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: Yes. The furnace has features indicative of a sweat furnace,
such as relative small size, allowance for residual iron removal, and
tilting to empty the molten aluminum, and is thus subject to the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard subpart RRR.
Abstract for [M050033]
Q: Is the Hayes Lemmerz International die casting facility in
Huntington, Indiana, which originally operated a scrap dryer and five
melting furnaces, but has since taken the scrap dryer out of service,
still subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: No. Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard subpart RRR
does
[[Page 62311]]
not apply to a die caster that operates furnaces which melt only clean
charge, and that does not operate a sweat furnace, thermal chip dryer,
or scrap dryer.
Abstract for [M050034]
Q: Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, may Method 22 visible
emission readings for each test run at the Mercury Marine ring crusher
in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, be discontinued after 20 minutes of
continuous operation rather than 60 minutes, and not resumed until the
rest break exceeds 10 minutes?
A: Yes. Three 20-minute test runs are allowed and required under
the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard subpart RRR. The
crusher must be shutdown after 20 minutes of continuous operation
because the hopper following the crusher becomes full, and the crusher
cannot be restarted without a rest break that exceeds 10 minutes. When
the hopper becomes empty, another 20 minute test run is allowed.
Abstract for [0500056]
Q: Are calciners or dryers used in the reclamation of foundry sand
subject to New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart UUU?
A: Yes. Calciner and dryers used in the reclamation of foundry sand
are subject to NSPS subpart UUU.
Abstract for [0500057]
Q1: Are the emissions from the liquid sulfur storage tanks at the
Burlington Resources natural gas sweetening and sulfur recovery
operation at the Lost Cabin Gas Plant in Lysite, Wyoming, subject to
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart LLL?
A1: No. Emission from liquid sulfur storage tanks at a natural gas
sweetening and sulfur recovery operation are not regulated under NSPS
subpart LLL.
Q2: Does performance testing of the tail gas incinerator require
the inclusion of the liquid sulfur storage tank vent gas?
A2: No. Liquid sulfur storage tank vent gas does not need to be
included in the performance testing of the tail gas incinerator, nor in
the sulfur reduction efficiency calculations.
Q3: Does monitoring the tail gas incinerator require inclusion of
the sulfur contribution from the liquid sulfur storage tanks?
A3: No. Liquid sulfur storage tank vent gas does not need to be
included in the monitoring of the tail gas incinerator, nor in the
sulfur reduction efficiency calculations.
Q4: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring method for the
combined sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the Train 1
tail gas unit and the liquid sulfur storage tanks?
A4: No. EPA will not approve the alternative method proposed for
the combined SO2 emissions from the Train 1 tail gas unit
and the liquid sulfur storage tanks.
Abstract for [0500058]
Q1: Is New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart Y applicable
to charcoal briquet manufacturing?
A1: If a charcoal briquet manufacturing plant processes more than
200 tons of coal per day and meets the definition of a ``coal
preparation plant'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.250, then it would be
subject to NSPS subpart Y.
Q2: Does the use of pre-processed coal count toward the 200-ton/day
threshold of NSPS subpart Y?
A2: No. The use of coal that is pre-processed off-site would not
count toward the 200-ton/day threshold in NSPS subpart Y.
Q3: Is char made from lignite considered to be coal?
A3: EPA cannot provide a response to this question without site-
specific information.
Q4: Does NSPS subpart Y apply where no size reduction of coal
refuse removal is conducted?
A4: The Agency cannot provide a response to this question without
site-specific information.
Abstract for [0500059]
Q1: ICM, Incorporated, in Colwich, Kansas, designs and builds
thermal oxidizer heat recovery steam generating system (TO-HRSG) at
ethanol plants. Does a thermal oxidizer portion of the TO-HRSG satisfy
the definition of a ``duct burner'' in 40 CFR 60.41b?
A1: No. The thermal oxidizer does not satisfy the definition of a
``duct burner'' in 40 CFR 60.41b.
Q2: Are the grains dryers at an ethanol plant part of the combined
cycle system and, therefore, part of the affected facility as defined
in 40 CFR 60.40b?
A2: No. The grains dryers are separate sources and are not part of
the combined cycle system.
Q3: Can the heat input from the grain dryers at an ethanol plant be
used to calculate the nitrogen oxide (NOX)emissions from the
affected facility?
A3: No. The heat input from the grains dryers cannot be used to
calculate the NOX emissions from the affected facility.
Abstract for [M050035]
Q: Does the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard
subpart ZZZZ apply to reciprocating internal combustion engines with a
site-rating of less than 500 brake horsepower located at a major source
of hazardous air pollutants?
A: No. MACT subpart ZZZZ does not apply to reciprocating internal
combustion engines with a site-rating of less than 500 brake horsepower
located at a major source of hazardous air pollutants.
Dated: October 19, 2005.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05-21625 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P