[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21014-21026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8160-7]
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 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 are 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, and control number or by string word searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 95 such documents added to
the ADI on February 28, 2006. 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/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on February 28, 2006; 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 February 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Category Subpart Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A050001............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Demolition of Residential
Trailer Homes.
M050030............................ MACT.................. A, EEE................ Stack Test Waiver for a
Portland Cement Plant
Kiln.
M050036............................ MACT.................. G..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Orthoxylene Unit.
M050037............................ MACT.................. G..................... Waiver of Additional
Performance Testing.
M050038............................ MACT.................. U..................... Alternative Reporting
Period.
M050039............................ MACT.................. A..................... Waiver of Flare Performance
Testing.
M050040............................ MACT.................. CC, G................. Alternative Reporting
Period.
M050041............................ MACT.................. CC.................... Alternative Reporting
Period.
M050042............................ MACT.................. S..................... Alternative Test Method for
Pulp and Paper Mill.
M050043............................ MACT.................. S, VVV................ Cluster Rule Compliance
Plan.
M050044............................ MACT.................. PPP, FFFF............. Primary Product
Determination for
Production Vessels.
M050045............................ MACT.................. S..................... Cluster Rule Compliance
Plan.
M050046............................ MACT.................. KK, QQQQ.............. Finishing of Architectural
Elements.
[[Page 21015]]
M050047............................ MACT.................. Hon R................. C-12 Chemical Manufacturing
Process Units.
Z050007............................ NESHAP................ FF, V................. Alternative Monitoring of
Pressure/Vacuum Relief
Valves.
0500048............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500060............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit.
0500061............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500062............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Compliance Monitoring Plan
for Gas-Fired Boiler.
0500063............................ NSPS.................. J, Dc................. Alternative Monitoring of
Gasoline Loading Rack.
0500064............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
of Fuel Usage.
0500065............................ NSPS.................. Da.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Duct Burners.
0500066............................ NSPS.................. NNN................... Alternative Monitoring of
Catalytic Incinerators.
0500067............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Gasoline Loading Rack.
0500068............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Platformer Lock Hopper.
0500069............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Vacuum Charge Heater.
0500070............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Marine Dock Thermal
Oxidizer.
0500071............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
of Fuel Usage.
0500072............................ NSPS.................. NNN................... Alternative Monitoring of
Distillation Units.
0500073............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit.
0500074............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Refinery Unit.
0500075............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring of
New Replacement Turbine.
0500076............................ NSPS.................. Db, GG, Dc............ Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0500077............................ NSPS.................. UUU................... Kyanite Processing.
0500078............................ NSPS.................. Db, GG................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500079............................ NSPS.................. GG, Db................ Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0500080............................ NSPS.................. GG, Db................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500081............................ NSPS.................. Da, GG................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500082............................ NSPS.................. Dc, GG................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500083............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500084............................ NSPS.................. UUU, WWW.............. Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500085............................ NSPS.................. Da.................... Stack Testing Waiver.
0500086............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Tier 2 Sampling.
0500087............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Alternative Monitoring
Proposals for Landfill.
0500088............................ NSPS.................. CC.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500089............................ NSPS.................. RRR, NNN.............. Alternative Monitoring of
Distillation Operations.
0500090............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Combustion Turbines.
0500091............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
of Fuel Usage.
0500092............................ NSPS.................. LL.................... Waiver of Visible Emission
Test Requirements.
0500093............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Alternative Opacity, SO2 ,
and NOX Monitoring.
0500094............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
Modification Request.
0500095............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Passive Flares and Waiver
of Testing Requirements.
0500096............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Gas Turbines.
0500097............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Temporary Disconnection of
Gas Collection Wells.
0500098............................ NSPS.................. Cc.................... Tier 2 Testing Deadline.
0500099............................ NSPS.................. Y, OOO................ Initial Opacity Performance
Testing.
0500100............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Opacity Monitor
Certification.
0500101............................ NSPS.................. III, NNN.............. Waiver of Performance Test
of Flare.
0500102............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Waiver of Installation of
Gas Collection Wells.
0500103............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Initial Performance Test
Waiver and Recordkeeping
Waiver.
0500104............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Initial Opacity Performance
Testing.
0500105............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Refinery Fuel Gas Streams.
0500106............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Alternative Span Value.
0500107............................ NSPS.................. OOO................... Waiver of Initial
Performance Test for
Baghouses.
0500108............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500109............................ NSPS.................. H, T, U, V............ Use of English Units for
Monitoring and
Recordkeeping.
0500110............................ NSPS.................. XX.................... VRU Bypass During Diesel
Loading.
0500111............................ NSPS.................. UU.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring and Performance
Testing.
0500112............................ NSPS.................. A, D, Db, Dc, Kb, DDD, Alternative Monitoring of
III, NNN, RRR. Startups, Shutdowns,
Malfunctions.
0500113............................ NSPS.................. VV, Y, OOO............ Alternative Monitoring for
Leak Detection.
0500114............................ NSPS.................. OOO, Y, Dc............ Alternative Monitoring for
Visible Emissions.
0500115............................ NSPS.................. WWW, III, NNN......... Alternative Monitoring of
Surface Methane.
0500116............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Landfill Testing and
Emission Rate Calculation
Issues.
0500117............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Landfill Gas.
0500118............................ NSPS.................. CC.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500119............................ NSPS.................. XX, J................. Re-Test Requirements After
Adding Equipment.
0500120............................ NSPS.................. TT.................... Alternative Test Method.
0500121............................ NSPS.................. VV.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Leak Detection.
0500122............................ NSPS.................. Db, Dc................ Boiler Derate Proposal.
0500123............................ NSPS.................. UUU................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Fluidized Bed Dryer.
0500124............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Modification of Initial
Performance Testing.
0500125............................ NSPS.................. J, A, I............... Performance Test Extension
Request.
0500126............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for CEM Span Setting.
[[Page 21016]]
0500127............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Unit.
0500128............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Unit.
0500129............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Combustion
Unit.
0500130............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Unit.
0500131............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Vent Gas Stream.
0500132............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500133............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Distillation Units.
0500134............................ NSPS.................. B..................... Alternative Performance
Specification Procedure.
0500135............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Cogeneration Unit.
0500136............................ NSPS.................. NNN................... SOCMI Distillation
Operations.
0500137............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Fuel Gas Combustion Devices
and Process Gas Exemption.
0500138............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Fuel Gases and Fuel Gas
Combustion Devices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [A050001]
Q1: Are trailer homes with different owners located in the state of
Delaware that are recycled using two different processes through the
Delaware Solid Waste Authority subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A1: No. 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, the asbestos NESHAP regulation,
does not apply to demolition of single residential trailer homes
because they are classified as single dwelling units and ownership
remains with the trailer owner, not the state. A single dwelling unit
that is being demolished is exempt from the NESHAP regulation
throughout the entire recycling process. However, when two or more
residential homes are located at the same demolition site and are under
control of the same owner or operator, then the trailer homes become a
residential installation subject to the NESHAP regulation.
Q2: Would 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, apply if the residential
trailer home were purchased by a commercial entity rather than being
sent to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority?
A2: No. A residential trailer home and its recycling process are
exempt from the asbestos NESHAP regulation if at the time of
demolition, it can be classified as single dwelling unit and does not
meet the definition of a residential installation in 40 CFR 61.141.
Q3: Given the inapplicability of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, what
might the State of Delaware do to minimize public exposure to asbestos
from the demolition of residential trailer homes?
A3: EPA suggests that the State of Delaware encourage inspection
and removal of asbestos-containing material at the Delaware Solid Waste
Authority compaction site. The state might also consider the addition
of a permit condition in the Delaware landfills operating permits that
would prohibit landfills from accepting asbestos-containing material as
landfill cover.
Abstract for [0500060]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to discontinue calibrating a carbon
monoxide continuous emission monitor (CEM) with a 1,000-ppmv span gas
for a fluid catalytic cracking unit, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db,
at Flint Hill Resources Pine Bend petroleum refinery in Rosemount,
Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request because, based on information
submitted to EPA, Flint Hills Resources meets the criteria for the
exemption set forth at 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii). However, a State permit
requires the facility to calibrate its carbon monoxide continuous
emission monitor with a 100 ppmv span gas.
Abstract for [0500061]
Q1: Does EPA waive the multi-load testing requirement, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near
Lordsburg, New Mexico?
A1: Yes. EPA waives the multi-load testing requirement under NSPS
subpart GG because the facility has a nitrogen oxides continuous
emissions monitor (NOX CEM).
Q2: Does EPA approve the use of monitoring conducted in accordance
with Part 75 in lieu of certain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, at Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near
Lordsburg, New Mexico?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of certain monitoring of part 75 in
lieu of certain monitoring requirements of NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [0500062]
Q: Does EPA approve a compliance monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db, for a 185-mmBTU/hr natural gas-fired boiler at Flint
Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. On April 12, 2000, the company supplemented its request in
accordance with EPA's initial response. The plan that Koch Fuels (FHR's
former name) submitted included all of the information required by 40
CFR 60.49b(c)(1), (2) and (3). Based upon a review of the information
that the company submitted, EPA approves the proposed compliance
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart Db.
Abstract for [Z050007]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 61, subparts V and FF, for pressure/vacuum relief valves in the
wastewater treatment plant tanks and oil-water separator located at
Flint Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA concludes that the pressure/vacuum relief valves
function as both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings
under NESHAP subparts V and FF. EPA did not promulgate a definition of
``dilution air opening'' in NESHAP subpart FF. NESHAP subpart V infers
that a pressure relief device is designed to release pressure but is
not designed to function as a dilution air opening. Since the pressure/
vacuum relief valves relieve excess pressure in the closed vent system
and allow dilution air to enter the closed vent system, the pressure/
vacuum relief valves are both pressure relief devices and dilution air
openings. EPA recognizes that the requirements of 40 CFR
61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and (C) do not account for this dichotomy, and thus
approves FHR's request for an alternative monitoring plan to resolve
the ambiguity.
Abstract for [0500063]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, to address a new refinery fuel gas that Flint Hills
Resources (FHR) loads at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend
Refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
[[Page 21017]]
A: Yes. EPA finds FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas
meets the criteria in EPA's August 14, 1987 guidance for refinery fuel
gas stream alternative monitoring plans, and thus it approves the
alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500064]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping method,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for two heaters at Devon Energy's
Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant near Bridgeport, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the changes in the fuel usage recordkeeping
frequency for NSPS subpart Dc boilers that are fired with only natural
gas and/or low sulfur oil.
Abstract for [M050036]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative control method, under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart G, using dual carbon canisters to reduce HAP emissions
at the Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative method under MACT subpart G,
conditioned on Chalmette's daily monitoring of the HAPs concentration
after the primary canister until breakthrough has occurred three times.
Abstract for [0500065]
Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring requirement, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Da, to use a sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitor
(SO2 CEM) for duct burners located at Calpine's Channel
Energy Center facility in Houston, Texas?
A: No. EPA does not waive the requirement under NSPS subpart Da.
However, EPA will consider the approval of an alternative monitoring
plan in lieu of an SO2 CEM.
Abstract for [0500066]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart NNN, for the catalytic incinerator at BASF's Freeport,
Texas facility, which operates at varying flowrates and must add
hydrocarbons to the stream to generate the required delta T established
by the performance test?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart NNN for BASF's R-170 Catalytic Incinerator provided that: (1)
The minimum outlet temperature will be 550 degrees C; (2) the minimum
delta T across the bed will be 287 degrees C; (3) the minimum organic
loading to the bed will be 89,380 lb/hr; and (4) the facility
establishes alarms at a 15 degrees C differential to allow time for
corrective action. In addition, BASF will keep records of organic flow
rate to R-170 in lb/hr. Any hourly flow rates that are below the
approved minimum will be considered a violation of NSPS subpart NNN and
must be reported as excess emissions.
Abstract for [M050037]
Q: Will EPA waive, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, additional
performance testing if the scrubber/absorption system organic
absorption medium is changed from utility water to recycle process
wastewater at a BP Chemicals Green Lake facility in Port Lavaca, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA will waive additional testing under MACT subpart G
because the change in medium at the scrubber/absorption system would
lead to only a slight increase in emissions and the total emissions
remain below the permitted emissions limit of 0.37 lb/hr.
Abstract for [0500067]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40
CFR part 60, subpart J, for a flare used by Flint Hills Resources (FHR)
during periods of maintenance or malfunction of a vapor recovery unit
at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount,
Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel
gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, ``Alternative Monitoring Plan
for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas'' for refinery fuel gas stream
alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control Number
0500138) and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under
NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500068]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40
CFR part 60, subpart J, for the platformer lock hopper and switch valve
vent refinery fuel gas stream at Flint Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum
refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel
gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, ``Alternative Monitoring Plan
for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas'' for refinery fuel gas stream
alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control No.
0500138), and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under
NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500069]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission
monitor (H2S CEM) for the disulfide separator off-gas in
Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed
alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance
in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13,
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [0500070]
Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission
monitor (H2S CEM) for the dock thermal oxidizer vent gases
in Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed
alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance
in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13,
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Q2: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements for
boilers, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Frito-Lay facility in
Mission, Texas?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements
under subpart Dc based upon the information submitted by the facility.
Abstract for [M050038]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to align the periodic reporting
requirements of non-leak detection and reduction (LDAR) and LDAR to a
single semiannual report, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart U, for the
hypalon elastomer unit at the DuPont Dow facility in Beaumont, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request to align the periodic reporting
requirements of non-LDAR and LDAR to a single semiannual report under
MACT subpart U as long as the reports are submitted in such a manner
that there are no missing days of reporting.
Abstract for [M050039]
Q: Does EPA waive a performance test requirement for vent streams
that contain hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and allow the use of an alternative
method of demonstrating compliance, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, at
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise's facility in Beaumont, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA grants the waiver of performance testing under MACT
subpart A for flow measurement and heat content because the facility
has
[[Page 21018]]
demonstrated compliance using alternate means.
Abstract for [0500071]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for natural gas burning boilers at the
Frito-Lay facility in Mission, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements
under subpart Dc based upon the condition that it is not necessary to
keep daily fuel usage records for units fired only with natural gas
since the emission standards in subpart Dc are not applicable to these
units.
Abstract for [0500072]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, an
alternative plan to monitor the total flow to the combustion device
instead of monitoring the flow of each vent stream from several
distillation units to the combustion device at ExxonMobil's Baytown
Chemical Plant in Baytown, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request under NSPS
subpart NNN with additional conditions to ensure which combustion
devices are associated with which vent gas streams.
Abstract for [0500073]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a refinery
generated fuel gas stream, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at Motiva
Enterprises' Convent Refinery in Convent, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J, provided the facility follows the stipulated guidance in
EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001
(see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [M050040]
Q: Does EPA align the 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and CC reporting
periods for Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA aligns the reporting periods under MACT subparts G and
CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such that no
days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
Abstract for [0500074]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for the
regenerative catalytic cracking unit (RCCU), under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J, provided that the monitored parameters and ranges at the
facility have supporting data.
Abstract for [M050041]
Q: Does EPA allow aligning the reporting period to a semi-annual
calendar year, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the Shell Norco
Chemical Plant in Norco, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA allows the aligning of the reporting period under MACT
subpart CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such
that no days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
Abstract for [M050042]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of National Council for Air and Stream
(NCASI) hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) Test Method 99.01, under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart S, to analyze condensate samples collected at Appleton
Papers' Spring Mill in Roaring Spring Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA allows the alternative method under MACT subpart S,
provided that the appropriate correction factors are used.
Abstract for [0500075]
Q1: Does EPA approve the continuation of the current custom fuel
monitoring plan for the new replacement turbine, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, at East Tennessee Natural Gas Company's Compressor Station
3313 in Rural Retreat, Virginia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG because it
understands that there will be no change in fuel quality since there is
no change in fuel source.
Q2: Does EPA approve a sampling location, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, where the system's three major lines connect?
A2: Yes. Because the ownership of East Tennessee Natural Gas
Company was transferred from El Paso Energy Corporation (EPE) to a
subsidiary of Duke Energy Gas Transmission, EPA approves a new sampling
location at Topside Junction Metering and Control Station in Knoxville
County, where the system's three major lines connect.
Abstract for [M050043]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring parameters and parameter
values for ``closed'' biological treatment systems, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart S, at the Smurfit (formerly Stone Container Corporation)
pulp and paper mill in Hopewell, Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has
adequately demonstrated it meets the requirements of MACT subpart S
through both continuous monitoring of the proposed four parameters and
continuous monitoring to ensure that UNOX oxygen purity is maintained
at 96 percent maximum.
Abstract for [M050044]
Q1: Does EPA approve the primary product determination for specific
production vessels and precompliance report for pilot vessels, under 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPP, for the CRODA Manufacturing facility in Mill
Hall, Pennsylvania?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart PPP because it
accepts CRODA's conclusion that specific production vessels that do not
manufacture a polyether polyol as the primary product are not polyether
polyol manufacturing units.
Q2: Does EPA agree that products manufactured with epoxides do not
meet the definition of a polyether polyol in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPP?
A2: Yes. EPA agrees that products that do not meet the definition
of polyether polyol in MACT subpart PPP are not subject to the
requirements of that subpart.
Abstract for [M050045]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of alternative monitoring parameters
and parameter values to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S for ``closed'' biological treatment systems at the St.
Laurent Paperboard facility in West Point, Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has
adequately demonstrated that the alternative monitoring parameters meet
the requirements of MACT subpart S.
Abstract for [0500076]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for Millennium Inorganic Chemicals' Hawkins Point
plant in Baltimore, Maryland?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request in accordance with its August 14,
1987 custom fuel monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that
pipeline quality natural gas is the only fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500077]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, apply to rotary calciners that
are used in the production of mullite with kyanite as the raw material
at Kyanite Mining Corporation (KMC) facilities?
A: No. NSPS subpart UUU applies to calciners and dryers at
``mineral processing plants,'' i.e., a facility that processes or
produces one or more of
[[Page 21019]]
the seventeen specifically named minerals listed in 40 CFR 60.731,
their concentrates, or mixtures which contain greater than 50 percent
of any of these listed minerals. EPA understands that silica is formed
as a by-product during the kyanite calcining process at KMC in
quantities that do not constitute the majority (greater than 50
percent) of any of the minerals processed or produced at KMC.
Abstract for [M050046]
Q: Is a facility which primarily applies finishing to architectural
wood molding materials subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK?
A: No. While EPA believes that the definitions in 40 CFR 63.822 are
intended to be broadly applied and inclusive, we have determined that
rotogravure printing on wood molding was not intended to be regulated
under this rule. The facility does not produce saleable paper products
and does use a flexographic press in its finishing operations. It
therefore does not qualify as ``publication rotogravure printing'' as
that term is defined in 40 CFR 63.822. However, EPA has determined that
the molding finishing operations at the facility would be regulated
under 40 CFR 43 Subpart QQQQ, the Wood Building Products MACT, if the
molding products ``finished'' at the facility are not included within
the category of surface coating (or other operations specifically
excluded under 40 CFR 63.4681(c)(1)-(5)) and are more than 50 percent
by weight wood.
Abstract for [0500078]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring plan request under
NSPS subpart GG, consistent with previous determinations that provide
for the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) equipment
to continuously monitor compliance with the standard for nitrogen
oxides.
Abstract for [0500079]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that natural gas is the
only fuel fired in the gas turbine.
Abstract for [0500080]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method request for
performance testing of (nitrogen oxides) NOX emission
limitations for two gas turbine/duct burner combined cycle units, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at the Liberty Electric Power facility in
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG based on a
review by the Emission, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (EMAD) of the
Office on Air Quality, Planning and Standards, and subject to the
conditions specified in the EMAD memorandum (C304-02) dated April 5,
2002.
Abstract for [0500081]
Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart GG, for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in
Fluvanna County, Virginia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality
natural gas is the only fuel being burned (see ADI Control Number
NS33).
Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, that provides for the use of CEMS equipment to
continuously monitor compliance with the standards for nitrogen oxides
for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in Fluvanna County,
Virginia?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan request under
NSPS subpart GG, based upon its consistency with previous
determinations made by the Agency and conditions necessitating specific
additional requirements for recordkeeping and monitoring.
Abstract for [0500082]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR
part 60 subpart GG, for Energy System North East's Cogeneration Plant
in North East, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality
natural gas is the only fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500083]
Q: Does EPA waive the opacity monitoring requirement in 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db for a wood-fired boiler at the Homanit USA plant in
Montgomery County, North Carolina?
A: No. EPA finds that neither NSPS subpart Db nor the NSPS general
provisions in subpart A provide the authority to completely waive the
applicable opacity monitoring requirement of NSPS subpart Db. However,
based upon the low probability that there will be any opacity in the
regenerative thermal oxidizer stack downstream of the boiler, EPA would
be willing to consider an opacity monitoring alternative.
Abstract for [0500084]
Q: Does EPA approve use of an alternative path length correction
factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, based on width rather than
equivalent diameter for the continuous opacity monitoring system on
three rectangular exhaust stacks at the 3M facility in Moncure, North
Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request. EPA finds the alternative path
length correction factor is acceptable under NSPS subpart UUU because
of the high bias in the opacity data created by using equivalent
diameter.
Abstract for [0500085]
Q: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da requirement to
conduct a stack test in order to determine compliance with the
applicable sulfur dioxide limit for a duct burner at Cogentrix Energy's
Caledonia Power Station?
A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart Da requirement based upon the
margin of compliance, provided that the unit is fired with only
pipeline quality natural gas.
Abstract for [0500086]
Q: Does EPA allow collection of Tier 2 samples from the active gas
collection systems, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Prairie
Bluff Landfill in Chickasaw County, Mississippi, and the Little Dixie
Landfill in Madison County, Mississippi?
A: Yes. Based upon NSPS subpart WWW revisions promulgated on
October 17, 2000, EPA finds the proposed Tier 2 sampling sites to be
acceptable, provided that they are located prior to any gas moving or
condensate removal equipment. In addition, at least three samples must
be collected from the proposed sampling site at each of the landfills
in question.
Abstract for [0500087]
Q1: Does EPA approve the proposed alternative oxygen concentration
limit for 16 wells, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Deans
Bridge
[[Page 21020]]
Road Landfill operated by the Augusta, Georgia Public Works and
Engineering Department?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative concentration limit
under NSPS subpart WWW because the temperature monitoring data for the
wells in question indicate that oxygen levels greater than five percent
have not poisoned methane producing bacteria.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW to conduct methane surface concentration monitoring in a closed 52-
acre section of the landfill?
A2: No. Because NSPS subpart WWW requires that methane surface
concentration monitoring in closed areas be conducted at least
annually, EPA concludes that the requirement to conduct this monitoring
cannot be waived. However, the monitoring frequency can be reduced from
a quarterly to an annual basis if none of the methane concentration
readings in the closed section of the landfill were 500 parts per
million or more during the June 2003 monitoring period.
Abstract for [0500088]
Q: Does EPA approve an opacity monitoring alternative for two glass
melting furnaces, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at the Anchor Glass
Company's Warner Robbins, Georgia plant?
A: No. EPA does not approve this request under NSPS subpart CC.
Based upon the results of testing conducted on both furnaces, there
does not appear to be a consistent relationship between particulate
emission rates and the operating parameter (bridgewall temperature)
that Anchor Glass proposed to monitor in lieu of installing,
certifying, and operating a continuous emission monitoring system.
Abstract for [0500089]
Q: Does EPA find that the 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR monitoring
procedures are an acceptable alternative to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart
NNN requirements for volatile organic compound (VOC) excess emission
monitoring at the distillation operation in Celanese Acetate's plant in
Rock Hill, South Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the NSPS subpart RRR monitoring procedures
are an acceptable alternative to the monitoring procedures required
under NSPS subpart NNN in this case. The NSPS subpart RRR requirement
to monitor diversions from the control device accomplishes the same end
as the NSPS subpart NNN requirement to monitor the flow to the control
device. In addition, based upon information in the preamble to the
final rule promulgating NSPS subpart RRR, monitoring the combustion
temperature for boilers and process heaters, although required under
NSPS subpart NNN, is not necessary when a VOC vent stream is introduced
with the primary fuel for the boiler or heater.
Abstract for [0500090]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of Gas Producers Association (GPA)
Method 2265, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, to measure the sulfur
content of natural gas burned in turbines at the Clarksdale Public
Utilities Crossroads Power Plant?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request to use GPA Method 2265 for
monitoring natural gas sulfur content under NSPS subpart GG because it
is an acceptable alternative similar to American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) methods for measuring sulfur content and consistent
with several other past determinations.
Abstract for [0500091]
Q: Does EPA require requests for approval of an alternative fuel
usage recordkeeping schedule to be submitted to EPA for review, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, especially routine requests for natural gas
and distillate oil-fired boilers?
A: No. Requests of this type do not have to be submitted
exclusively to EPA for review. Because of the routine nature of such
requests, review on a case-by-case basis at the Regional level slows
down the approval without providing any environmental benefit. The low
fuel emissions from natural gas and distillate oil-fired boilers means
that monthly fuel usage recordkeeping frequencies are typically
appropriate to verify these sources' compliance. Additionally,
proposals to apportion total fuel usage between multiple units with a
common fuel flow meter do not have to be submitted to EPA for review if
the apportionment approach is at least as accurate as one that EPA
approved for several plants operated by Tyson Foods in Region 5 in a
determination dated May 1, 2001 (ADI control number 010005), which was
attached to EPA's response.
Abstract for [0500092]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
LL, to perform visible emissions tests on several affected facilities
located inside a building at the Treibacher Schleifmittal grit plant in
Andersonville, Georgia?
A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart LL requirement to conduct
separate visible emission tests on each of the fugitive emission
sources inside the facility because the results of EPA Method 22
observations conducted on the exterior of the building provide adequate
assurance of compliance for the facilities located inside.
Abstract for [0500093]
Q: Does EPA approve the opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) alternative monitoring proposals,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, for the Number 2 Bark Boiler at
Riverwood International's kraft pulp mill in Macon, Georgia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposals
concerning opacity, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides under NSPS
subpart D. EPA finds monitoring of the scrubber liquor flow rate and
scrubber pressure drop to be an acceptable alternative to using
continuous opacity monitors (COMS). Additionally, monitoring the pH of
the scrubber liquor when coal is fired is an acceptable alternative to
an SO2 CEMS. Furthermore, performing annual boiler tune-ups
and conducting annual NOX performance tests is reasonable
assurance of compliance with the applicable NOX emission
limits in subpart D in lieu of a NOX CEMS.
Abstract for [0500094]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to modify the current opacity
monitoring alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a boiler
at Georgia Pacific's plywood plant in Monticello, Georgia, by deleting
one of the three parameters currently monitored as an indicator of
scrubber performance?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Db to drop the
water supply pressure monitoring requirement. Based on facts submitted
to EPA, monitoring both water flow rate and supply pressure at this
plant is unnecessary. In addition, several other NSPS subparts,
including OOO and UUU, require only pressure drop and water flow rate
monitoring.
Abstract for [0500095]
Q1: Does EPA approve a proposal to use passive flares on a
temporary basis (not to exceed 18 months), under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County,
Georgia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed flares under NSPS subpart WWW,
provided that they are used only in areas where liners have been
installed on the sides and bottom of the landfill in accordance with 40
CFR 258.40. This determination is based upon the design of the proposed
flares, each of which must include a pilot flame,
[[Page 21021]]
thermocouple, a thermocouple to monitor the temperature at the flare
tip, and a data logger to record the thermocouple data.
Q2: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW performance
testing requirement for the passive flares at Waste Management's Live
Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia?
A2: No. EPA does not waive the NSPS subpart WWW performance testing
requirement for the passive flares because flare design flow rate data
and information regarding typical landfill gas composition do not
provide a sufficient basis for a waiver. To obtain such a waiver, the
facility must test a portion of the flares that it installs and submit
the results of the test to EPA for review.
Abstract for [0500096]
Q: Does EPA approve American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
Method D 6667-01 as an alternative method, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, for monitoring the sulfur content of natural gas burned in
three gas turbines at the Williams Pipeline site in Coden, Alabama?
A: Yes. EPA has previously approved the proposed alternative method
under NSPS subpart GG for measuring natural gas sulfur content at more
than twenty separate turbine installations nationwide in lieu of the
four ASTM methods for determining the sulfur content of gaseous fuels
listed in 40 CFR 60.335(d).
Abstract for [0500097]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to temporarily abandon gas
collection wells during vertical expansion in active areas that have
held waste for five years or more, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW,
at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia?
A: No. EPA does not approve under NSPS subpart WWW the proposal to
disconnect the wells for a six to twelve month period while a vertical
expansion is taking place because it would constitute a relaxation of
the applicable emission standard.
Abstract for [0500098]
Q1: Does EPA allow Clayton County, Georgia, which missed the
deadline for a Tier 2 retest at its SR3 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill,
to have the option of conducting another Tier 2 test prior to the
deadline for submittal of a gas collection and control (GCCS) system
design plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc?
A1: Yes. EPA has determined that additional Tier 2 testing can be
conducted any time prior to the deadline for installation of a GCCS (30
months after the landfill's nonmethane organic compound emission rate
exceeds 50 megagrams per year), provided that a design plan is
submitted by the applicable deadline (12 months after the landfill's
nonmethane organic compound emission rate exceeds 50 megagrams per
year).
Q2: Could EPA clarify whether the results of initial Tier 2 testing
in 1998 or of a Tier 2 retest in 2003 should be used for calculating
the 2003 nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc, at the Clayton County, Georgia, Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill?
A2: Once the deadline for Tier 2 retesting has passed, NMOC
emission rates under NSPS subpart WWW must be calculated using the 4000
part per million default value, unless additional Tier 2 testing is
done. If additional testing is done, the NMOC concentration results
from this retest, rather than the default value, would apply for
calculating the NMOC emission rate for year 2003.
Abstract for [0500099]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal for shortening the visible emission
(VE) observation from three hours to one hour for conveyor drop points,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, at DTE Energy Services' coal
preparation plant in Belews Creek, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request to shorten the VE observation time
to one hour when no individual opacity readings exceed 15 percent
during the first hour of readings. Demonstrating that opacity levels do
not exceed 15 percent of the applicable limit for an entire hour will
provide adequate assurance of compliance with the opacity limit in NSPS
subpart Y.
Abstract for [0500100]
Q: Could EPA verify whether a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) located on a replacement stack for a boiler at Trigen Biopower
in Caldwell, North Carolina, should be subject, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Dc, to certification requirements in the latest version of
Performance Specification 1 (PS-1)?
A: Yes. EPA finds that under NSPS subpart Dc, the COMS is subject
to the latest PS-1 certification requirements. Installing the monitor
on the replacement stack constitutes relocation because a replacement
stack is likely to differ in some respects from the original stack, and
there is no way to be absolutely sure two stacks are completely
identical. Relocating a COMS is one of the conditions requiring monitor
certification in the August 10, 2000 version of PS-1.
Abstract for [0500101]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct a performance test on
a flare that controls volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
air oxidation and distillation operations, under 40 CFR part, 60
subparts III and NNN, at Albemarle Corporation's chemical plant in
Orangeburg, South Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA waives the performance requirement under NSPS subparts
III and NNN. Information supplied by the company demonstrates that the
flare tip velocity will be less than 50 percent of the applicable limit
even if the total volume of reactants for the hydrogen cyanide
production unit were vented through the control device. Hence, the
velocity limit promulgated in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(i)(A) will not be
exceeded.
Abstract for [0500102]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to install gas collection wells
in active landfill areas that have held waste for five years or more,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Central Disposal Facility in
Brevard County, Florida?
A: No. EPA does not waive this requirement. Such a waiver would
constitute an unacceptable relaxation of the emission standards of NSPS
subpart WWW because landfill gas that would be collected and routed to
control equipment under the rule's provisions would instead be released
to the atmosphere without controls.
Abstract for [0500103]
Q1: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct an initial
performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, on two of the three
combustion turbines at Forsyth Energy Project's (FEP) plant in Forsyth
County, North Carolina?
A1: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request. Under the conditions
proposed by FEP, EPA finds the test results for one of the three
identical turbines will provide adequate assurance that the other two
units also comply with NSPS subpart GG. Additionally, the use of
nitrogen oxides continuous emissions monitors (NOX CEMS) at
FEP provides a further source of credible evidence regarding the
compliance for all three turbines following the initial testing.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to keep records of the annual
capacity factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for FEP's auxiliary
boiler?
A2: Yes. EPA waives this requirement. EPA finds that since the
[[Page 21022]]
company is not seeking an exemption from the nitrogen oxides limit
under NSPS subpart Db, there is no regulatory need for information
regarding the auxiliary boiler's annual capacity factor.
Abstract for [0500104]
Q: Does EPA approve the shortening in duration of the initial
opacity performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, from three
hours to one hour if there are no opacity readings greater than ten
percent during the initial hour of observations on three oil-fired
boilers at the RJ Reynolds plant in Tobaccoville, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Dc based upon
the expectation that there will be a low variability in opacity levels
when oil is used to fire these boilers. The test duration can be
shortened to one hour for any of the boilers that does not have
individual opacity readings exceeding 10 percent for each of the 15-
second visible emissions readings taken during the first hour of
observations.
Abstract for [0500105]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) monitoring proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J,
submitted for refinery fuel gas burned in a reformer furnace at the Air
Products and Chemicals Catlettsburg, Kentucky hydrogen plant?
A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS subpart J the proposed
H2S alternative monitoring plan. The hydrogen sulfide
content of the reformer's fuel gas and fuel gas streams is inherently
low, and Air Products has an economic incentive to keep these levels
low in order to prevent poisoning the hydrogen reformer catalyst.
Abstract for [0500106]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative span value of 70 percent, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart D, proposed for two hog fuel boilers at
Weyerhaeuser's Kraft pulp mill in Plymouth, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative span value under NSPS
subpart J because it will not interfere with the facility's ability to
identify and report emissions' exceedances for opacity as stated in 40
CFR 60.45(g)(1). In addition, the proposed alternative span value for
the hog fuel boilers will improve the overall effectiveness of
Weyerhaeuser's continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) quality
assurance program by ensuring that all five units with COMS at the
Plymouth mill have the same span value.
Abstract for [0500107]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct an initial performance
test on two existing baghouses used to control particulate emissions
from materials handling equipment, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO,
at the Monarch Ceramic Tile plant in Florence, Alabama?
A: No. EPA does not approve this request under NSPS subpart OOO.
Given the increase in particulate loading at the baghouse inlet and the
amount of time elapsed since the last performance test, prior test
results do not provide adequate assurance of compliance for new
equipment being added to the plant.
Abstract for [0500108]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan for opacity as
proposed for a backup package boiler for additional steam generation,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, at the Jefferson Smurfit linerboard
mill in Fernadina Beach, Florida?
A: No. Although EPA has approved proposals for the monitoring of
opacity using visible emissions data collection instead of using a
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), the proposed alternative
monitoring plan includes provisions which are not acceptable to ensure
continuous compliance. The specific provisions that must be removed
from this proposal before it can be approved by EPA include requests
for making opacity readings only on days when the boiler operates for
more than six hours, and those provisions that eliminate opacity
readings on weekends and holidays. Also, if the company seeks an
exemption from monitoring during periods when weather conditions make
it impractical to collect opacity data, the proposal must be revised to
identify the very specific conditions under which such an exemption
could be justified.
Abstract for [0500109]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal, under 40
CFR part 60, subparts H, T, U and V, using English units of measure,
rather than metric units of measure, for facilities at the U.S. Agri-
Chemicals plant in Polk County, Florida?
A: Yes. With regard to NSPS subpart H; EPA approval for the use of
English units is not required, as the applicable monitoring provisions
in the rule do not specifically require the use of metric units.
Although the monitoring provisions in NSPS subparts T, U, and V require
that feed rate data be expressed in metric units (i.e., megagrams per
hour), EPA approves using English units (tons per hour) to satisfy
these requirements because the fluoride emission limits in these rules
are expressed in both metric and English units, and this does not
hinder a compliance determination.
Abstract for [0500110]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to use an automated system to
distinguish between gasoline truck tanks and diesel truck tanks, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, in order to bypass the vapor recovery unit
(VRU) during diesel loading at the Marathon Ashland Petroleum (MAP)
bulk gasoline terminal in Knoxville, Tennessee?
A: Based on the information submitted, EPA cannot approve the
proposed alternative monitoring plan at this time. However, the concept
behind the proposal has merits. For further consideration of the
alternative monitoring plan, MAP must submit to EPA additional
information including: A demonstration that volatile organic compound
(VOC) concentrations differ enough between different loading scenarios
for a continuous monitor to tell when diesel trucks are being loaded;
data regarding VOC monitor response time; and details regarding the
quality assurance/quality control procedures for the continuous
monitor.
Abstract for [0500111]
Q1: Does EPA approve the use of EPA Method 22, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart UU, as an alternative to EPA Method 9 for determining
compliance with the opacity standard for mineral handling and storage
facilities at the TAMKO Roofing Products plant in Clay County, Florida?
A1: No. EPA Method 22 is not an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 9 because it determines the total duration of visible emissions
during the test period but does not record opacity levels when visible
emissions are present. Therefore, the use of EPA Method 22 makes it
impossible to determine the magnitude of any violations under NSPS
subpart UU.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct opacity performance
testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, on mineral surge tanks and
limestone surge tanks located inside a building at the TAMKO Roofing
Products plant in Clay County, Florida?
A2: No. EPA denies this waiver request. The applicable opacity
standard in NSPS subpart UU applies to tanks located inside a building.
EPA Method 9 can be performed inside buildings. Furthermore, in order
to obtain approval for an opacity performance test waiver,
[[Page 21023]]
the facility must supply information that could be used to demonstrate
compliance through other means. No such information was provided in
this request.
Abstract for [0500112]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart A, for maintaining records of startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions periods only when there are occurrences of excess
emissions at the Eastman Chemical plant in Kingsport, Tennessee?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative recordkeeping proposal under
NSPS general provisions, subpart A, because the primary use for these
records is to determine the applicability of the provisions in 40 CFR
60.8(c). Thus, limiting recording of emissions data at this type of
facility during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction only when
there are occurrences of excess emissions is acceptable and should not
affect identifying compliance violations.
Abstract for [0500113]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., sight, sound,
and smell) as an acceptable alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VV, to using EPA Method 21 for detecting leaks from equipment in acetic
acid service at the Eastman Chemical plant in Kingsport, Tennessee?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative under NSPS subpart VV because
prior monitoring results submitted by the facility show that the number
of leaks identified using sensory methods for equipment in acetic acid
service has been significantly higher than the number detected using
solely EPA Method 21. Also, all of the previous leaks found using EPA
Method 21 would have been detected if only sensory methods had been
used.
Abstract for [0500114]
Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in the duration of visible
emission testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, for conveyor belt
transfer points at Eastman Chemical Company's (Eastman) plant in
Kingsport, Tennessee?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Y to shorten
the test duration from three hours to one hour if no individual
readings exceed 20 percent and no more than three individual readings
equal 20 percent during the first hour of observations.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to enter a building and conduct
separate visible emission tests, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Y and
OOO, on several conveyor belt transfer points if 75 minutes of EPA
Method 22 observations indicate that there are no fugitive emissions
from the building?
A2: Yes. EPA waives the requirement under NSPS subparts Y and OOO
to conduct separate visible emission tests for the conveyor belt
transfer points because the use of Method 22 to verify that there are
no fugitive emissions from the building offers adequate assurance of
compliance for the facilities inside.
Abstract for [0500115]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposed alternative surface methane
concentration monitoring frequency, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW,
for a Class III area at the North County Resource Recovery Facility
operated by the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative under NSPS subpart WWW
because methane generation rates in the Class III area are expected to
be low given the types of waste (construction demolition debris, trash,
paper, and glass) placed there, and because no methane was detected
during five successive quarterly monitoring periods. However, as this
landfill is still active, the condition for this approval is that a
methane concentration of 250 ppm, rather than 500 ppm, will be used as
a trigger for reverting back to a quarterly methane surface monitoring
frequency.
Abstract for [0500116]
Q1: Does EPA approve the option for landfill facilities to conduct
additional Tier 2 testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, if an
annual report indicates that the nonmethane organic compound (NMOC)
emission rate calculated with previous Tier 2 results exceeds 50
megagrams/year?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this request because, as Tier 2 testing is
conducted every five years and NSPS subpart WWW requires periodic
retesting, it would be inconsistent and unreasonable to deny facilities
the option of conducting additional testing that might improve the
accuracy of test data. With additional testing, NMOC emission rates
calculated with new Tier 2 data will be more representative of current
conditions than results calculated using older data.
Q2: Does the presence of an existing gas collection and control
system (GCCS) affect NMOC emission rate calculations under 40 CFR part
60, subpart WWW?
A2: No. The presence of an existing GCCS does not affect the NMOC
emission rate calculations under NSPS subpart WWW. The variables
specified in 40 CFR 60.754(a)(1) for calculating NMOC emission rates
are not associated with GCCS operation. Depending on the calculated
NMOC emissions rate, the facility may be required to submit a design
plan for existing or planned control systems for gas emission within a
specified timeframe.
Abstract for [0500117]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to conduct monthly oxygen
concentration monitoring at the inlet to the flare, rather than at each
individual well, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at Onyx Waste
Services' Pecan Road Landfill in Valdosta, Georgia.
A: No. EPA does not approve the proposed alternative monitoring
location under NSPS subpart CC because it is downstream of the point
where the gas from all the wells in the collection system combines. No
conclusions regarding the performance of individual wells can be drawn
from the results at this monitoring location. In addition, maintaining
an oxygen concentration of 5 percent or less at the flare inlet will
not provide assurance that all wells comply with subpart CC.
Abstract for [0500118]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative opacity monitoring proposed,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, for two glass melting furnaces at the
Anchor Glass Company plant in Warner Robbins, Georgia?
A: EPA may approve the proposal if remaining issues can be
resolved. Although the proposal to monitor furnace bridgewall
temperature as an alternative to installing a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) under NSPS subpart CC appears reasonable,
there are several issues that need to be resolved before the proposal
can be approved. These issues include: the appropriate margin of
compliance with the applicable particulate emission standard if a COMS
is not used; the possibility that natural gas usage rates will need to
be monitored in addition to bridgewall temperatures, and what
constitute excess emissions.
Abstract for [0500119]
Q: Could EPA clarify whether the addition of in-line blending
equipment to a loading rack at the Magellan Midstream Partners
(Magellan) bulk gasoline terminal in Greensboro, North Carolina, would
trigger the requirement for a retest, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX,
on the vapor recovery unit (VRU) that controls emissions during
loading?
A: No. EPA has determined that adding the in-line blending
equipment
[[Page 21024]]
does not automatically trigger VRU retest. The initial VRU test that
the company conducted in February 2000 is the only test specifically
required for sources subject to NSPS subpart XX. Although the
Administrator can ask for a retest at anytime, EPA does not find it
necessary to require a new test following the installation of the in-
line blending equipment at Magellan's Greensboro terminal. Adding the
in-line blending equipment did not increase the number of trucks that
can be loaded simultaneously at the terminal. Also, there was a
significant margin of compliance during the initial test.
Abstract for [0500120]
Q: Does EPA approve EPA Method 25A as an alternative to EPA Method
25, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT, for carbon absorber efficiency
testing on a metal coil coating line at the Thermalex plant in
Montgomery, Alabama?
A: Yes. EPA approves EPA Method 25A as an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 25 for control device efficiency testing where VOC
concentrations in the control system exhaust are expected to be 50 ppm
or less. In this case, the VOC concentration is expected to be
approximately 10 ppm at the carbon absorber outlet which is acceptable.
Abstract for [0500121]
Q: Does EPA approve as an alternative to EPA Method 21, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart VV, sensory means (i.e.>, sight, sound, smell) to
identify leaks from equipment in acetic acid and/or acetic anhydride
service at the Eastman Chemical Company facility in Kingsport,
Tennessee?
A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative monitoring under NSPS
subpart VV because monitoring results provided indicate that leaks from
equipment are more easily identified through sensory methods than
through EPA Method 21. The physical properties (i.e., high boiling
points, high corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of acetic acid and
acetic anhydride and the process conditions at the facility in question
make sensory means preferable.
Abstract for [0500122]
Q: Does EPA approve a boiler derate proposal, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db, based on changes made to the natural gas burner at North
Carolina Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves this proposal under NSPS subpart Db because it
has determined that the proposed derate method, which includes
installing new boiler tips limiting the heat input capacity to 100
mmBtu/hr and eliminating the burning of fuel oil, will reduce the
capacity of the boiler and will comply with EPA's policy on derates.
Abstract for [0500123]
Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring procedure, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart UUU, for a spray tower scrubber at the Short
Mountain Silica Company in Mooresburg, Tennessee?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative under NSPS subpart
UUU to monitor the scrubbing liquid supply pressure and scrubbing
liquid flow rate rather than measuring the pressure loss of the gas
stream through the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate. Because
there is little pressure drop of the gas stream as it passes through
the spray tower, pressure drop is not a good indicator of spray tower
efficiency.
Q2: Does 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 at the Short Mountain Silica Company
in Mooresburg, Tennessee?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the performance test waiver under NSPS
subpart UUU because demonstration of compliance for the fluidized bed
dryer also shows an acceptable level of compliance assurance for the
rotary dryer.
Abstract for [0500124]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of nitrogen oxides continuous emission
monitors (NOX CEMs), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, as an
alternative to the four-point load test for gas turbines at Cinergy's
South Houston Green Power Site facility in Houston, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposal under NSPS
subpart GG, provided that the CEMs for NOX is capable of
calculating a one-hour average NOX emissions concentrations
corrected to 15 percent oxygen, and the facility submits reports of
excess emissions and summary reports.
Abstract for [0500125]
Q: Does EPA approve a 90-day extension of the performance testing
deadline, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and I, in light of weather
conditions and material shortages that made it impossible for the
Pavers Supply facility in Conroe, Texas, to run at full rates?
A: No. EPA denies the request for a 90-day extension under NSPS
subpart I. Concurring with the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), EPA grants a 60-day extension pursuant to 40 CFR
60.8(d).
Abstract for [0500126]
Q: Does EPA approve a span setting of 100 ppmv on an outlet
continuous emission monitor (CEM), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for
the sulfur dioxide (SO2), CEMs for the fluid catalytic
cracking unit wet gas scrubber (WGS) at the Shell Oil Products refining
facility in Deer Park, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS subpart JJ the span setting of 100
ppmv for the WGS outlet SO2 CEMs, as it will be acceptable
with respect to the 50 ppmv rolling seven day average.
Abstract for [0500127]
Q: Does EPA waive continuous emission monitor for the hydrogen
sulfide (CEM H2S) stream monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, for the steam methane reformer unit pressure swing
adsorption (PSA) at Valero's Corpus Christi-West Plant, in Corpus
Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request under NSPS subpart J because
it has determined that no CEM HS needs to be installed for
the purpose of monitoring the H2S in the off-gas vent
streams in the PSA routed to the reformer heater. Instead, the
alternative parameter will be the total sulfur content of the combined
feed to the sulfur vapor recovery (SVR) unit.
Abstract for [0500128]
Q: Does EPA waive continuous emission monitor for the hydrogen
sulfide (CEM H2S) stream monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, for the catalytic reformer unit heater fuel gas from fuel
gas drums numbers 1 and 2 (which is a refinery and generates gas
stream) at Valero's Corpus Christi-West Plant, in Corpus Christi,
Texas?
A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request under NSPS subpart J because
it has determined that no CEM H2S needs to be installed for
the purpose of monitoring the H2S in the off-gas vent
streams from fuel gas mixing drum 1 or 2 routed to
the reformer heater. Instead, the alternative parameter will be the
total sulfur content of the combined feed to the CRU unit.
Abstract for [0500129]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of an alternative monitoring plan,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the soil vapor extraction system
(SVE) at Western Refining's facility in El Paso, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposal under NSPS
subpart J to measure H2S content directly at the inlet to
the internal
[[Page 21025]]
combustion engine (ICE), which are components of the SVE system.
Abstract for [0500130]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for the catalytic reformer 1 unit (CR-1) at Motiva
Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana? The company proposes waiving
the continuous monitoring system (CMS) requirement for hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) steam monitoring and instead monitoring the gas stream
using EPA guidance on alternative monitoring plans for low sulfur
refinery fuel gas streams.
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring under NSPS subpart
J. No CMS needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the
H2S in the make gas stream to the unit's heaters. Instead,
H2S concentrations will be monitored using detection tubes.
This determination is subject to the conditions set forth in the
stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999
and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [0500131]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring for the hydrogen
generation unit (HGU) torvex catalytic converter, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Convent, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring under NSPS subpart
J. No CEM needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the
H2S in the H2S Concentration Column overhead vent
stream. Instead, the H2S concentration will be measured
daily using detection tubes, with ranges and frequency as set forth in
the stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2,
1999 and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and
0100037).
Abstract for [0500132]
Q: Does EPA approve certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as alternative
monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for
DuPont's Sabine River Works facility in Orange County, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the proposed provisions
in NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance
under NSPS subpart NNN for the specified distillation unit. As
conditions of approval, the facility must comply with the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for flow indicators in NSPS subpart RRR, and
must maintain a schematic diagram for all related affected vent
streams, collection system(s), fuel systems, control devices, and
bypass systems as stated in 60.705(s).
Abstract for [0500133]
Q: Does EPA approve certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as alternative
monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for
DuPont's facility in La Porta, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the proposed provisions
in NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance
under NSPS subpart NNN. As conditions of approval, the facility must
comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for flow
indicators in NSPS subpart RRR, and must maintain a schematic diagram
for all related affected vent streams, collection systems, fuel
systems, control devices, and bypass systems as stated in 40 CFR
60.705(s).
Abstract for [0500134]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative performance specification
procedure, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, allowing the use of seven
consecutive unit operating days instead of seven consecutive calendar
days for the calibration drift test period at Cottonwood Energy's
facility in Deweyville, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use under NSPS subpart B of
seven consecutive operating days for the calibration drift test period,
based on previous EPA determinations and guidance that a seven
consecutive operating day test is more stringent than a seven
consecutive calendar day test. As a condition of this approval, if the
continuous monitoring system CMS fails the seventh day test, the
facility will repeat the entire test.
Abstract for [0500135]
Q1: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a
cogeneration unit at Shell Chemical Company's facility in Geismar,
Louisiana commensurate with past determinations?
A1: No. EPA does not approve the alternative monitoring plan under
NSPS subpart Db because the determination letter (ADI Control Number
PS15), referenced in Shell's proposal, does not apply to the fuel
records required by 40 CFR 60.49b.
Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative reporting of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Db, where the NOX emission limit and excess emissions are
reported on an average ``steam generating unit operating day'' basis,
instead of a 30-day average for Shell Chemical Company's facility in
Geismar, Louisiana?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative reporting plan under NSPS
subpart Db, provided that the records for the units specified in 40 CFR
60.49(b) are maintained on-site and are available at the request of any
state or Federal agency inspector.
Abstract for [M050047]
Q: Does EPA consider the C-12 process area of INVISTA's Victoria
Plant and its component chemical manufacturing process units (CMPUs)
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the HON rule?
A: No. As none of these units qualify for regulation under both 40
CFR 63.100(b) and 40 CFR 63.100(b)(1)-(2), the only way likely for the
C-12 process area to qualify for regulation under 40 CFR 63.100 would
be to conflate all CMPUs into a single CMPD. Since these units are not
conflated into a single CMPD unit, these units are not subject to the
HON Rule. This finding is consistent with a previous determination, ADI
Control Number M960028.
Abstract for [0500136]
Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, apply to the SP-1 and SP-2
distillation units at INVISTA's Victoria Plant?
A1: No. Since the SP-1 and SP-2 units produce no products, by-
products, or co-products, or intermediates listed in 40 CFR 60.667,
NSPS subpart NNN does not apply to these two units.
Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, apply to a concentrated water
wash (CWW) system at INVISTA's Victoria Plant?
A2: Yes. Since the CWW vents into the atmosphere, it is subject to
NSPS subpart NNN.
Abstract for [0500137]
Q1: How does 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, apply to the fuel gas
combustion devices (FGCDs) and fuel gases involved with operations at
Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
A1: NSPS subpart J apply to an affected FGCD if the device combusts
a ``fuel gas,'' that is, any gas that is generated at a petroleum
refinery. To control sulfur oxide (SOX) emissions into the
atmosphere from affected
[[Page 21026]]
FGCDs, NSPS subpart J limits the amount of hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) allowed in the fuel gas burned in these devices.
Except for fuel gas released to a flare as a result of relief valve
leakage or other emergency malfunctions, a facility may not burn fuel
gas containing greater than 230 mg/dscm of H2S in any
affected FGCD.
Q2: How does the process upset gas exemption of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, apply to the flare gas recovery system in operation at Koch
Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
A2: The process upset gas exemption under NSPS subpart J applies
only to extraordinary, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable
upsets. Any gases released as a result of normal operations are not
considered upset gases. The routine combustion of refinery gases in a
FGCD, including flares and other waste gas disposal devices, do not
qualify for the process upset gas exemption of the rule. Based on the
background information of the rule, the term upset does not apply to
normal operations. Therefore, the rule exempts the combustion of
process upset gases in a FGCD, including the combustion in a flare of
fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve
leakage or other emergency malfunction. However, the combustion/flaring
of those exempted gases in an NSPS affected FGCD is still required to
comply with the good air pollution control practices of 40 CFR
60.11(d), even when such FGCDs are exempt from the sulfur dioxide
limit.
Q3: How does NSPS subpart J apply to the various gas streams Koch
Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
A3: EPA has analyzed the 26 gas streams identified at the Koch
Refining facility and has provided a finding for each of these streams
based on the Agency's responses in A1 and A2, above.
Abstract for [0500138]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR,
part 60, subpart J, for fuel gases and fuel gas combustion devices
(FGCDs) at Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
A: No. Based on the information submitted, EPA does not approve the
proposed alternative monitoring plan for fuel gases and FGCDs since it
needs to provide for good air pollution control practices to minimize
flaring events.
Dated: April 10, 2006.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 06-3808 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P