[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 143 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41110-41125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13894]
[[Page 41109]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 143 / Thursday, July 26, 2007 /
Notices
[[Page 41110]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8439-5]
Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI)
Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative
Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/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 over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda
pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart,
citation, control number or by string word searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 86 such documents added to
the ADI on July 6, 2007. 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 July 6, 2007; 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. Please note
that the table that appeared in the December 4, 2006 notice (71 FR
70383) contained one document whose title was in error. The title for
the document assigned control number M060016 was listed in the table as
``Once In/Always In Rule.'' It should have read ``Once In/Always In
Policy.''
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. This notice does not
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act. Neither does it purport to make any document that was
previously non-binding into a binding document.
ADI Determinations Uploaded on July 6, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control number Category Subparts Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
600030............ NSPS............ X............... Applicability
for
Distribution
Facilities.
600031............ NSPS............ Y............... Classification
of Coal Truck
Dump
Operations.
600032............ NSPS............ Y............... Applicability to
Existing
Conveying
Equipment.
600033............ NSPS............ RRR, VV......... Biomass Ethanol
Production.
600034............ NSPS............ NNN, RRR........ Biomass Ethanol
Production.
600035............ NSPS............ III............. Thirty Day
Notification
Requirement.
600036............ NSPS............ J............... Date of
Construction
and/or
Modification.
600037............ NSPS............ Kb.............. Definition of
Reconstruction
for Oil Storage
Tank.
600038............ NSPS............ GG.............. Custom
Monitoring
Schedule: Gas
Processing
Plant.
600039............ NSPS............ GG.............. Custom
Monitoring
Schedule for
Turbine.
600040............ NSPS............ KK.............. Reversing
Modifications
to Avoid
Applicability.
[[Page 41111]]
600041............ NSPS............ J............... Waiver of
Monitoring
Requirements.
600042............ NSPS............ Db.............. Requirements
when Burning
Jet Fuel.
600043............ NSPS............ F............... Use of Clinker
Cooler and Kiln
Gas as Process
Gas.
600045............ NSPS............ Kb.............. Storage Vessels
for Volatile
Organic Liquid
(VOL).
600046............ NSPS............ D, Da........... Resource
Recovery
Plants.
600047............ NSPS............ J............... Sulfur Recovery
Unit
600048............ NSPS............ GG.............. Part 75
Monitoring as
Alternative to
Part 60.
600049............ NSPS............ A............... Part 75
Monitoring as
Alternative to
Part 60.
600050............ NSPS............ A............... Part 75
Monitoring as
Alternative to
Part 60.
600051............ NSPS............ GG.............. Custom Fuel
Monitoring
Schedules.
600052............ NSPS............ GG.............. Parametric
Monitoring
Plan.
600053............ NSPS............ Db.............. Alternative
Opacity
Monitoring for
Boiler.
600054............ NSPS............ Db.............. Part 75
Monitoring as
Alternative to
Part 60.
600055............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Alternative Fuel
Monitoring
Requirements.
600056............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Alternate Fuel:
Use Monitoring
Schedule.
600057............ NSPS............ A............... Part 75
Monitoring as
Alternative to
Part 60.
600058............ NSPS............ VVV............. Alternative
Capture System
Monitoring.
600059............ NSPS............ NNN, RRR........ Alternative
Monitoring/
Performance
Test Waiver.
600060............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Alternative Fuel
Usage
Recordkeeping
Procedure.
600061............ NSPS............ AA, AAa......... Alternative
Monitoring on
Baghouses.
600062............ NSPS............ WWW............. Changes to
Standard
Operating
Procedures.
600063............ NSPS............ WWW............. Leachate
Collection
System Risers.
600064............ NSPS............ OOO............. Performance
Testing Waiver.
600065............ NSPS............ TT.............. Stack Testing
Waiver.
600066............ NSPS............ Cc, WWW......... Definition of
Gas Treatment.
600067............ NSPS............ Da, GG.......... Testing and
Monitoring
Alternatives.
600068............ NSPS............ GG.............. Part 75
Monitoring as
Alternative to
Part 60.
600069............ NSPS............ WWW............. Subject to Part
62 Federal Plan
and Part 60.
600070............ NSPS............ A, Db........... Alternative
Opacity
Monitoring--Aux
iliary Boiler.
600071............ NSPS............ OOO............. Performance Test
Time Extension.
600072............ NSPS............ Ec.............. Alternative
Operating
Parameters for
Monitoring.
600074............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Reduced Fuel
Usage
Monitoring
Frequency.
600075............ NSPS............ Db.............. Alternative
Opacity
Monitoring.
600076............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Reduced Fuel
Usage
Monitoring
Frequency.
600077............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Boiler Derate.
600078............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Boiler Derate.
600079............ NSPS............ Db.............. Predictive
Emission
Monitoring
System.
600080............ NSPS............ VV.............. Recordkeeping
and Reporting
Waiver.
600081............ NSPS............ WWW............. Alternative
Landfill Gas
Temperature
Limit.
600083............ NSPS............ J............... Alternative
Monitoring Plan
for LPG Flare.
600084............ NSPS............ O............... Interpretation
of Percent
Oxygen
Readings.
600085............ NSPS............ J............... Coke Burn-off
and Catalyst
Regenerator
Flow Rate.
600086............ NSPS............ GG.............. Initial Test
Waiver for
Identical Gas
Turbines.
600087............ NSPS............ J............... Alternative
Monitoring--Sem
i-Regenerative
Reformer.
600088............ NSPS............ NNN, PPP........ Alternative
Method for
Determining
Glass Pull
Rate.
600089............ NSPS............ Db.............. Alternative Span
Value.
600090............ NSPS............ OOO............. Test Waiver for
Baghouse.
600091............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Boiler Derate.
600092............ NSPS............ WWW............. Definition--Cont
iguous for
Separate
Disposal Areas.
600093............ NSPS............ Dc.............. Boiler Derate.
600094............ NSPS............ XX.............. Performance Test
Waiver.
600095............ NSPS............ Db.............. Alternative
Opacity
Monitoring.
600096............ NSPS............ WWW............. Leachate
Collection
Risers.
600097............ NSPS............ A, P............ Monitor
Pathlength
Correction
Factor.
600098............ NSPS............ NNN............. Alternative
Monitoring for
Enclosed Flare.
600099............ NSPS............ A, J............ Alternative
Monitoring of
Refinery Fuel
Gas.
600100............ NSPS............ Ce, Ec.......... Alternative
Monitoring of
Carbon
Monoxide.
M060027........... MACT............ O............... Alternative
Monitoring
Using Gas
Detection
Sensor.
M060028........... MACT............ JJJJ, S......... Core
Manufacturing
at Pulp and
Paper Mills.
M060029........... MACT............ JJJJ............ Web Coating--
Laminating/Ply-
bonding
Operation.
M060030........... MACT............ JJJJ............ Method 24
Determination
of Organic HAP
Content.
M060031........... MACT............ MMMM............ Rebuilt Primer
Booth.
M060032........... MACT............ JJ, MMMM........ Refinishing of
Facility
Equipment.
M060033........... MACT............ MM.............. Alternative
Control Device
Operating
Parameters.
M060034........... MACT............ HHHHH, JJJJ..... Scenarios for
MCM, MON and
POWC
Applicability.
M060036........... MACT............ M............... Area vs. Major
Sources.
M060037........... MACT............ OOOO............ Shoelace Tipping
Operations.
M060038........... MACT............ AAAA............ Alternative
Deadline for
SSM Reports.
M060039........... MACT............ RRR............. Definition of
Clean Charge.
M060041........... MACT............ DDDD............ Typical
Manufacturing
Component
Scenarios.
M060042........... MACT............ F............... Benzene
Emissions from
Heat Exchanger
Leaks.
[[Page 41112]]
M060044........... MACT............ NNNNN........... 30 Weight
Percent Acid.
M060045........... MACT............ WWWW............ Emission Factors
vs. Tests to
Determine
Compliance.
Z060002........... NESHAP.......... T............... Cessation of
Annual Reports.
Z060004........... NESHAP.......... F............... Benzene
Emissions from
Exchange Leaks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract for [M060027]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart O, to use a gas detection sensor (i.e., CEA
Instruments ET-6200R U Series) instead of a gas chromatograph or flame
ionization analyzer for the International Sterilization Laboratory
(ISL) facility in Groveland, Florida?
A: Yes. EPA finds that a gas detection sensor is an acceptable
alternative to a gas chromatograph or flame ionization detector,
contingent upon the successful outcome of the required performance
specification (PS) 8 testing in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for
ethylene oxide.
Abstract for [M060028]
Q: Could the EPA clarify to the American Forest & Paper Association
whether the manufacturing of cores for rolled towels and tissue is
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ? In manufacturing the cores,
two rolls of core stock are unwound with glue continuously applied,
then wound together to form a core, and cut to fit the rewinder length.
A: EPA finds that this core manufacturing activity is subject to 40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ when it takes place at a major source of
hazardous air pollutants. The affected source under subpart JJJJ is the
collection of all web coating lines at a facility, with certain
exceptions. The core stock is a web because it is a continuous
substrate flexible enough to be wound or unwound as rolls. Glue
application occurs within a web coating line because the glue is
applied to the core stock web substrate between an unwind or feed
station and a rewind or cutting station. Glue is an adhesive coating
material within the subpart JJJJ definition.
Abstract for [M060029]
Q: Could the EPA clarify to the American Forest & Paper Association
whether the laminating/ply-bonding of embossed, multi-layered paper
products that occurs at a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ? The process consists of a raised or depressed pattern that is
embossed on a paper web by passing the web between two steel rolls or
plates, one of which is engraved. In the laminating/ply-bonding
operation, adhesive is applied by a roller to bind multiple layers of
substrate.
A: EPA finds that the adhesive is applied as a continuous coating
layer by the laminating/ply-bonding operation. Based on the web coating
line definition and the description of the laminating/ply-bonding
operation included with the letter, the laminating/ply-bonding
operation takes place on a web coating line, and is therefore subject
to the requirements of part 63, subpart JJJJ, provided that it takes
place at a major source of HAP emissions.
Abstract for [M060030]
Q: Could the EPA clarify to the American Forest & Paper Association
whether facilities may use the results of Method 24, which measures the
volatile organic compound (VOC) content of coating materials, instead
of the results of Method 311, which measures the organic hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) content of the materials, in compliance calculations
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ?
A: EPA has determined that facilities may substitute Method 24
determinations of VOC content for Method 311 determinations of organic
HAP content, provided that the substitution is implemented consistently
within an equation and all given set of compliance calculations.
Compliance determinations under part 63, subpart JJJJ requires monthly
calculation of as-applied organic HAP content using measurements of the
organic HAP content of as-purchased material, and of any added
material. 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(2) allows substitution of Method 24
determinations of VOC content for Method 311 determinations of organic
HAP.
Abstract for [M060031]
Q: Is a replaced primer booth at the CNH America, LLC facility a
new source under part 63, subpart MMMM?
A: No. EPA does not find the replaced primer booth to be a new
source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. If the replacement had
involved construction of a completely new miscellaneous metal parts and
products surface coating facility, where previously no miscellaneous
metal parts and products surface coating facility had existed, then the
replaced primer booth would be a new source under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM. The facility will need to provide documentation to the
delegated state agency to demonstrate that the replaced booth does not
meet the definition of ``reconstruction'' in 40 CFR 63.2, and to
document that the facility remains in compliance with a potential to
emit limitation.
Abstract for [M060032]
Q1: Could EPA clarify to Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
whether the refinishing of metal equipment that is used to manufacture
wood furniture and coats metal parts and equipment that are not metal
components of wood furniture is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ?
A1: EPA finds that the refinishing of metal equipment at the
facility falls within the affected source of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM, and would therefore be excluded from 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ.
EPA also finds that this activity falls within facility maintenance
activities that are exempt from 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM
requirements.
Q2: Is the construction and painting of wooden workbenches,
shelving, and/or shadow boards, as well as the recoating or refinishing
of wooden workbenches subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, if the
materials are for use within the facility?
A2: Yes. EPA finds that construction and painting activities are
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. This rule does not distinguish
activities that produce items for sale from activities that produce
items for use at the facility. For refinishing and restoration
activities, the background information document for subpart JJ
clarifies that those activities are not considered part of wood
furniture manufacturing and thus are not subject to subpart JJ.
Q3: Is the ink jet printing of letters or numbers on wood substrate
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ?
A3: Yes. EPA finds that this activity is subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJ because inks are included in the coating
[[Page 41113]]
definition and the printing serves as a functional use.
Abstract for [M060033]
Q: Does EPA approve the monitoring of alternative operating
parameters for the lime kiln scrubber, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MM, at MeadWestvaco's pulp mill in Rumford, Maine?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous flow monitoring system
and supply pressure monitoring system to measure scrubbing liquid re-
circulation flow rates and pressure from the wet scrubber used to
control emissions from the lime kiln. This system, in conjunction with
four conditions specified in the EPA response letter, can be used in
lieu of monitoring and recording the differential pressure across the
scrubber, as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM.
Abstract for [M060034]
Q1: Could EPA clarify to 3M EHS Operations whether shared ``process
equipment'' under the Process Unit Group (PUG) definition in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON
rule), may include the following scenarios at various 3M facilities:
(i) Piping manifold systems and pumps used to deliver raw materials or
remove waste or product from process units; (ii) portable equipment,
such as filtering systems; and/or (iii) ovens used to warm raw
materials in drums or totes prior to introduction into the process
vessel?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that while those pieces of equipment may be part
of a PUG, they cannot be the sole shared equipment in the PUG.
Q2: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria under the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing (MCM rule) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, under the
following specific scenarios at 3M facilities: Plant 1 contains Process
Vessel (A), which is used to manufacture two types of coatings, i.e.,
Coating (a) and Coating (b). Process Vessel (A) is not an affected
source or part thereof under another MACT standard. The production of
Coating (a) does not involve the process, use or production of any
hazardous air pollutant (HAP). The production of Coating (b) does
involve the process, use or production of a HAP. Both Coating (a) and
Coating (b) are sold to commerce. If, in a year, Process Vessel (A) is
used more hours to manufacture Coating (a) than Coating (b), is Process
Vessel (A) then part of the MCM rule affected source of Plant 1? If, in
a year, Process Vessel (A) manufactures more product on a weight basis
of Coating (a) than Coating (b), then is Process Vessel (A) part of the
MCM rule affected source of Plant 1?
A2: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) is part of the affected
source under the MCM rule at all times that it is manufacturing Coating
(b). The MCM rule does not include the concept of ``primary product.''
Therefore, neither the time in use for the production of a product, nor
the mass amount of a product affects the applicability of the standard.
Q3: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria under the
following specific scenarios at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is subject to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule). Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is
not part of a PUG under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (MON rule). It is
also not an affected source or part thereof under another 40 CFR part
63 standard. Process Vessel (A) is used to manufacture two products,
Product (a) and Product (b), neither of which are coatings as defined
by the MCM rule. Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing Product (a),
meets all of the criteria of a multiple miscellaneous chemical process
unit (MCPU) under the MON rule, and does not meet any of the exemptions
in the MON rule. Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing Product (b),
either does not meet the criteria for an MCPU under the MON rule, or is
subject to one of the exemptions in the MON rule. Is Process Vessel (A)
subject to the MON rule during the manufacture of both Product (a) and
Product (b)?
A3: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) is subject to the MON
standard only during the manufacture of Product (a). This is the only
time it meets the applicability of that rule because the product of the
process determines rule applicability.
Q4: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is a major source of HAP
emissions. Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is not part of a PUG under the
MON rule in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Process Vessel (A) is used to
manufacture Product (b) from several Raw Materials (a), and mixing,
blending, etc., in Process Vessel (A) do not involve any chemical
reaction or change in basic chemistry of Product (b) from Raw Materials
(a). Product (b) is not a coating as defined by the MCM rule in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH. Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing Product
(b), meets all of the criteria for an MCPU and is subject to none of
the exemptions of the MON rule. Is process vessel (A) subject to the
MON rule?
A4: EPA finds that process Vessel (A) would be subject to the MON
rule because it meets all of the criteria for an MCPU in the rule and
does not meet any of the exemptions. Whether there is chemical reaction
during the manufacturing process is not a factor for determining the
applicability of the MON rule. Although chemical reaction is typically
associated with the manufacture of organic chemicals, it is not
exclusively so.
Q5: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 has operations subject to both 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (MON rule) and the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH (MCM rule). Process Vessel (A) at plant 1 is not an affected
source or part thereof under another MACT standard. Process Vessel (A)
is not part of a PUG developed under the MON rule. Process Vessel (A)
is used to manufacture two products, Product (a) and Product (b).
Product (a) is a coating as defined in the MCM rule and involves the
process, use, or production of HAP. Process Vessel (A), while
manufacturing Product (b), meets all of the criteria for an MCPU under
the MON rule and meets none of the exemptions in the MON rule. Is
Process Vessel (A) subject to either the MON rule, the MCM rule, or
both?
A5: EPA finds that process Vessel (A) is subject to the MCM rule
when manufacturing Product (a). Process Vessel (A) is subject to the
MON rule when manufacturing Product (b). Process Vessel (A) cannot be
subject to both standards at the same time because both the MON rule
and MCM rule contain language that states that the particular affected
facility cannot be part of another 40 CFR part 63 affected facility.
Q6: Could EPA clarify the following scenario(s) regarding
applicability criteria at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is subject to the 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule), and is not subject to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating (POWC rule) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. Plant 2
consists of a Web Coating Line (B) which is part of an affected source
under the POWC rule. Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is used only to
manufacture a coating that is used by the Web Coating Line (B). Plants
1 and 2 are not contiguous and may in fact be located in different
states. Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule)
[[Page 41114]]
apply to Plant 1 for the production of the coating in Process Vessel
(A)?
A6: Yes, the MCM rule is applicable to Plant 1 for the production
of the coating in Process Vessel (A) because Process Vessel (A) is not
located at the POWC affected source and therefore cannot be an
affiliated operation of a POWC affected source.
Q7: Plant 1 consists of Process Vessel (A), which is an MCPU under
the MON rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF). Process Vessel (A) is not
part of a PUG under the MON rule. Plant 2 consists of both Web Coating
Line (C), which is part of an affected source under the POWC rule (40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ), and Process Vessel (B), which manufactures
coatings for Web Coating Line (C). Process Vessel (A) produces
miscellaneous organic chemical Product (b), which is sold to commerce,
and miscellaneous organic chemical Product (a) which is used as an
ingredient by Plant 2 to manufacture the coating in Process Vessel (B).
How do the MON rule and the POWC rule apply to Plant 1 and Plant 2?
A7: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) in Plant 1 is subject to the
MON rule when producing either Product (a) or Product (b) because
production of Product (b) meets the applicability of the MON rule and
production of Product (a) does not meet the exemption for affiliated
operations under 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(3) of the MON rule. The production
of the coating in Process Vessel (B) would be an affiliated operation
under the POWC rule, because the mixing or dissolving of coatings prior
to application as an affiliated operation would include the actual
production of the coating when performed at an affected source listed
in 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2).
Q8: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: The Web Coating Line (C) is part of an
affected source at Plant 1 under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC
rule). Equipment (A) at Plant 1, which consists of process vessels with
associated agitators, pumps, etc., is used to manufacture HAP-
containing coatings for the Web Coating Line (C). A subset of Equipment
(A), designated as Equipment (B), is also used at other times to
manufacture different coatings which are sold to general commerce as
Finished Products (a). Are Equipment (A) and/or Equipment (B) subject
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule)?
A8: EPA finds that all of the equipment in Equipment (A), including
Equipment (B), would not be subject to the MCM rule when they are used
to manufacture a coating for Web Coating Line (C). During this time,
the process carried out in these equipments would be an affiliated
operation under the MCM rule at 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2). Equipment (B),
when making Finished Product (a), would be subject to the MCM rule, as
it would not qualify as an affiliated operation of a POWC rule affected
source because Finished Product (a) is not applied at the POWC rule
affected source.
Q9: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Web Coating Line (B) at Plant 1 is part
of an affected source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC rule).
Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is used to manufacture HAP-containing
Coatings (a) for Web Coating Line (B). Some part of the Coatings (a)
are sent to Off-site Locations (C) for quality assurance/quality
control, pilot coating lines, and/or research and development. Is
Process Vessel (A) an affected source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH (MCM rule)?
A9: EPA finds that when Process Vessel (A) is making HAP-containing
Coatings (a) for Web Coating Line (B), it is not a MCM rule affected
source because it is an affiliated operation of the POWC rule affected
source. However, when Process Vessel (A) is making HAP-containing
Coatings (a) for use off-site, it no longer meets the definition of
affiliated operations for the POWC rule affected source. If the Off-
site Locations (C) met the exemptions in the rule, then the production
of HAP-containing Coatings (a) for these purposes would be exempt from
MCM rule.
Q10: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Web Coating Line (D) is part of an
affected source at Plant 1 under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC
rule). Web Coating Line (E) is part of an affected source at Plant 2
under the POWC rule. Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 manufactures (with
or without an intended chemical reaction) the HAP-Containing Coating
(a) for Web Coating Line (D). Process Vessel (B) at Plant 1
manufactures (with or without a chemical reaction) the HAP-Containing
Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (D) and for Web Coating Line (E), and
manufactures another HAP-Containing Coating (d) which is sold to
commerce. Process Vessel (C) in Plant 2 manufactures a HAP-Containing
Coating (c) for Web Coating Line (E). Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH (MCM rule) apply to Plant 1 and/or Plant 2?
A10: EPA finds that the MCM rule would apply to Process Vessel (B)
in Plant 1 when manufacturing HAP-Containing Coating (d) because it
would not be an affiliated operation as the HAP-Containing Coating (d)
is not used in a 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC rule) process. The
MCM rule would not apply to Process Vessel (A) in Plant 1 when
producing HAP-Containing Coating (a) for use in Web Coating Line (D)
because it would be exempt under 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2) as an affiliated
operation located at a POWC rule affected source. Process Vessel (C) in
Plant 2, which produces HAP-Containing Coating (c) for use with Web
Coating Line (E), would be an affiliated operation of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJ (POWC) Web Coating Line (E) and therefore not subject to
the MCM rule per the same exemption. When manufacturing HAP-Containing
Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (D), Process Vessel (B) also would be
exempt from the MCM rule under 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2). However, because
there is no concept of primary use in either the POWC rule or the MCM
rule, Process Vessel (B), would be subject to the MCM rule when
producing HAP-Containing Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (E) because
it would not be an affiliated operation located at the relevant POWC
rule affected source.
Q11: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 produces product coatings and
chemical intermediates in several steps. In Step 1a, Process Vessel (A)
is used to manufacture Intermediate (a). While manufacturing
Intermediate (a), Process Vessel (A) meets all of the criteria for an
MCPU under the MON rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) and meets none
of the exemptions in the MON rule. Process Vessel (A) is not a PUG
under the MON rule. It is also not part of an affected source under
another subpart of 40 CFR part 63. In Step 1b, one-half of the
Intermediate (a) is drained away from Process Vessel (A) into drums for
temporary storage. In Step 2a and 2b, other raw materials, some of
which contain HAP, are added to the remaining one-half of Intermediate
(a) in Process Vessel (A) to manufacture a coating (with or without a
chemical reaction). In Step 3, the one-half of Intermediate (a) which
was drained into drums is removed from storage and pumped back into the
now empty Process Vessel (A) or another process vessel, along with
other raw materials (some of which contain HAP) to manufacture a
coating (with or without chemical reaction). How do 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF (MON) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM) apply to
Plant 1?
A11: EPA finds that Steps 1a and 1b would be subject to the MON
rule
[[Page 41115]]
because it applies to the production of an isolated intermediate at an
MCPU. Because a portion of Intermediate (a) is removed from the process
in Step 1b into a drum for storage, Intermediate (a) is an isolated
intermediate. Steps 2a, 2b, and Step 3 would all be subject to the MCM
rule because the final product of these processes is a coating, and
they appear to meet the applicability requirements of the MCM rule
(e.g., use of HAPs).
Abstract for [M060036]
Q: Is the Battisons of Avon, Connecticut, (Battisons) facility a
major source or an area source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions subject to 40 CFR, part 63, subpart M, if it replaces its old
dry cleaning systems and installs all new dry-to-dry dry cleaning
systems before the compliance date?
A: EPA finds that Battisons is an area source of HAP emissions
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart M because it has maintained its
perchloroethylene consumption below the 2,100 gallons threshold limit
since before the compliance date. The applicability provision at 40 CFR
63.320(g) states that, ``In lieu of measuring a facility's potential to
emit perchloroethylene emissions or determining a facility's potential
to emit perchloroethylene emissions, a dry cleaning facility is a major
source if: (1) It includes only dry-to-dry machine(s) and has a total
yearly perchloroethylene consumption greater than 8,000 liters (2,100
gallons) as determined according to 63.323(d). * * *'' However, if
Battisons exceeds the yearly perchloroethylene consumption of 2,100
gallons when it starts up the new systems, it will become a major
source of HAP emissions, according to 40 CFR 63.320(i), and all its dry
cleaning systems will have to comply with the appropriate requirements
within 180 calendar days from the date it exceeded that threshold
value.
Abstract for [M060037]
Q: Is the Rhode Island Textile Company, Inc. (RIT) facility,
located in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, that manufactures shoelaces and
submits the shoelaces to tipping operations subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart OOOO?
A: No. EPA has determined that because the company is not coating,
printing, slashing, finishing or dyeing the product, it is not subject
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
Abstract for [M060038]
Q: Is it acceptable under 40 CFR part 63, subpart V, for the North
Shelby Landfill facility to submit startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) reports within 60 days after the end of each semiannual reporting
period?
A: Yes. EPA approves the North Shelby Landfill facility request of
extending the submittal of SSM reports until 60 days after the end of
each semiannual reporting period, which corresponds with the existing
deadline for submitting semiannual reports under the Title V permitting
program. Under 40 CFR 63.9(i), an owner or operator of a facility
subject to this reporting requirement can request an alternative
schedule. Under the new deadline, the SSM reports and semiannual Title
V reports can be submitted at the same time to simplify the owner/
operator reporting requirements.
Abstract for [M060039]
Q: Could EPA clarify to Briggs & Stratton Corporation whether
aluminum sows, ingots, and T-bars that have painted markings considered
``clean charge'' in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum at 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: EPA finds that as a result of the typographical errors in the
definition of ``clean charge,'' aluminum T-bars, sows, ingots, billets,
and pigs which have painted markings are not defined as ``clean
charge.'' It is the Agency's intent that aluminum T-bar, sow, ingot,
billet, and pig be considered ``clean charge,'' and that the phrase
``entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants'' not apply to
these materials. EPA believes these materials, notwithstanding ink,
grease or paint markings, should be treated as clean charge. EPA
intends to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR to clarify this point.
Abstract for [M060040]
Q: What is EPA's guidance to regulators on how an owner or operator
of a secondary aluminum production facility can know that the scrap
processed at its facility is ``entirely free of paints, coatings, and
lubricants'' under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: EPA believes that an owner or operator of a secondary aluminum
production facility may know whether the scrap material being processed
at the facility is ``entirely free of paints, coatings, and
lubricants'' in one of two ways. The first way to ensure a ``clean
charge'' would be to maintain direct control of the scrap material
being processed by processing scrap generated within the facility or
from other facilities within the same company that the owner or
operator knows has not been subjected to paints, coatings and
lubricants, or where the owner or operator knows that paints, coatings
and lubricants have been removed consistent with the definition of
``clean charge.'' Similarly, the owner or operator also may process
scrap from outside entities where they are familiar with the history of
the scrap and, therefore, know that the scrap meets the definition of
``clean charge.''
Abstract for [M060041]
Q: Could EPA clarify to the American Home Furnishing Alliance's
(AHFA) the applicability criteria under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD,
for nine general manufacturing scenarios in the home furnishing
industry involving manufacturing components from plywood and engineered
lumber?
A: The Agency has determined that most of the furniture components
described in the scenarios, except for processes involving cold
pressing of solid wood pieces, would meet the definition of ``plywood''
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD and, therefore, be subject to
applicable requirements in that rule, as described in EPA's response
letter. EPA interprets the term ``panel product'' in the definition of
plywood to include flat as well as curved furniture panels. It should
be noted that most of the manufacturing equipment used by the industry,
such as hot presses, would not be subject to emission limits but only
to notification requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD.
Abstract for [M060043]
Q: What is EPA's guidance to regulators on the implementation and
compliance monitoring of the capture, collection, and ventilation
requirements in the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRR?
A: EPA finds that the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP incorporates by
reference chapters 3 and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice, 23rd edition, published by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). As required
by 40 CFR 63.1506(c) of NESHAP subpart RRR, owners or operators of
affected sources or emissions units with add-on air pollution control
devices must design and install a system for the capture and collection
of emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust
rates as published in the ACGIH manual. In addition, 40 CFR
63.1515(b)(5) requires facilities to provide design information and
analysis, with supporting documentation, demonstrating conformance with
these capture/collection system requirements. The
[[Page 41116]]
memorandum provides further specifics on what steps and documentation
are required to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.
Abstract for [M060044]
Q1: Could EPA clarify to Kean Miller whether an HCl unit at a
facility that stops producing 30 weight percent acid for commercial
sale after the compliance date is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNNN?
A1: 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN does not only apply to the
production for commercial sale of 30 weight percent or greater HCl
acid. Consequently, the production of HCl acid with a concentration of
30 weight percent or greater for internal use, as well as for
commercial sale, may be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN.
Q2: If a facility infrequently produces HCl at a 30 weight percent
strength, and its monthly or weekly average is below 30 weight percent,
is the facility subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN?
A2: No. EPA finds that a facility would not be subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNNN if its production of HCl acid with a
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is infrequent, irregular,
or not consistent with the facility's normal operations. In determining
whether the production of 30 weight percent HCl acid is occasional or
part of a facility's normal operations, EPA will make a case-by-case
determination based on the frequency and regularity of HCl acid
production of 30 weight percent or greater.
Q3: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN apply to a facility that
produces liquid HCl at concentrations exceeding 30 weight percent only
on an occasional basis, when requested by a customer?
A3: If a facility infrequently produces HCl with a concentration of
30 weight percent or greater and this production is not a routine part
of normal operations, the facility would not be subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart NNNNN.
Abstract for [M060045]
Q1: Could EPA clarify to Lasco Bathware Incorporated what measures
are being taken by the Agency to ensure that any composite operation
utilizing the ``non-atomized mechanical application'' emission factors
for gelcoats or filled resins, is in compliance with the requirements
specified in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production under 40 CFR part
63, subpart WWWW?
A1: Since affected sources must comply with monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under the Reinforced
Composites Production rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) to ensure
continuous compliance, the regulatory agency is able to know when a
source first becomes subject to the rule and whether it is complying
with the rule. A regulatory agency could also elect, as part of its
compliance and enforcement program, to inspect a source to evaluate its
compliance with the 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW requirements and take
any actions, as appropriate.
Q2: What tests are required to ensure that organic hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions are no greater than the organic HAP emissions
predicted by the applicable non-atomized application equation(s) in
Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW?
A2: No tests are required. 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW allows
sources to use the equations in Table 1 to calculate HAP emission
factors that are then used to estimate sources' emissions instead of
conducting actual testing. Table 1 emission factors were used to
calculate the emission limits for the MACT floor for this rule.
Accordingly, the rule allows a source to use Table 1 emission factors
to calculate its emissions and demonstrate compliance with the emission
standard.
Q3: Could EPA clarify how it will address the known discrepancy
between the emissions estimated using the published Table 1 and/or
emission factors for unfilled resin, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, and the actual emissions from tub/shower facilities, which can be
verified by means of EPA emissions testing methods 18 and 25A?
A3: EPA does not yet have the industry data to do an evaluation of
the current emission factors for 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. After
the data is received and evaluated, a determination will be made as to
whether changes should be made to the rule.
Abstract for [Z060002]
Q: Is the Aerovox Division Parallax Power Components facility
subject to reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T, if
all machines at the facility subject to the rule have been removed or
converted to non-regulated solvents?
A: No. EPA finds that the facility is no longer subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart T and therefore is no longer required to submit
reports under the subpart, unless the facility once again uses solvents
regulated under this rule.
Abstract for [Z060004]
Q: Should benzene emissions that occur from heat exchanger leaks at
the BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., Texas facility be included in the calculation
of the Total Annual Benzene (TAB) quantity from facility waste water
under the NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart
FF?
A: Yes. EPA finds that neither benzene emissions occurring from
non-contact heat exchanger leaks into cooling tower water nor benzene
quantities from ``contact heat exchangers ``qualify for the exemption
or exclusion from the required TAB calculation under the NESHAP for
Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. The benzene
emissions are directly generated by these processes and are not the
result of either leakage or process offgas. Therefore, waste in the
form of gases or vapors that is emitted during these processes from the
process fluids is required to be part of the calculation of the total
annual benzene quantity in facility waste generation.
Abstract for [0600030]
Q: Could EPA clarify to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection whether the Agrico's Big Bend Terminal in Hillsborough
County, Florida, is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart X, if it
contends that it is a distribution and not a storage of granular triple
superphosphate (GTSP) manufacturing facility?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the Big Bend Terminal facility is subject to
NSPS subpart X since it was constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after October 25, 1974. In addition, the definition of GTSP storage
facility in 40 CFR 60.241 does not restrict applicability to storage
facilities at manufacturing sites.
Abstract for [0600031]
Q: Are coal truck dump operations at the ARCO Coal Company,
Colorado facility ``affected facilities'' subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Y?
A: Coal truck dump operations are not affected facilities for
purposes of NSPS subpart Y. However, EPA finds that these operations
are part of the coal preparation plant if they are located at the site
of the plant, as defined in 40 CFR 60.251(a) of NSPS subpart Y.
Therefore, quantifiable fugitive particulate emissions from coal dump
operations must be included in a total source emissions inventory to
determine whether the stationary source is to be considered a major
source of hazardous air pollutant emissions.
Abstract for [0600032]
Q: Are conveyors 1 and 2 at the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
(AEPCO) part of the affected facility
[[Page 41117]]
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y? Conveyor numbers 1 and 2 were
built prior to the AEPCO screening and crushing facility.
A: Yes. EPA finds that AEPCO conveyor numbers 1 and 2 are part of
the affected facility subject to NSPS subpart Y because these are used
to convey coal or coal refuse from the machinery and the exemption in
40 CFR 60.14(c) would therefore, not apply. 40 CFR 60.14(c) exempts
existing facilities from becoming affected facilities by the addition
of a new affected facility. However, this case involves changes to an
existing affected facility.
Abstract for [0600033]
Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subparts
NNN, RRR, and VV to the production of ethyl alcohol through biological
fermentation processes?
A: These regulations and their background documents state that
these subparts apply only to specific processes involving synthesis of
organic chemicals using petroleum-based feedstocks (in this case
ethylene to ethanol) and not biological fermentation processes where
emissions characteristics and industry economics differ. EPA clarified
that these regulations do not apply to chemicals extracted from natural
sources or totally produced by biological process in the following
Federal Register notices: the notice proposing the NSPS for volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) distillation operations (40 CFR part 60,
subpart NNN) (48 FR 57541); the notice promulgating the NSPS for
equipment leaks of VOC in SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) (48 FR
48335); and the notice promulgating the NSPS for VOC emissions from
SOCMI reactor processes (40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR) (58 FR 45962).
Abstract for [0600034]
Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subparts
NNN, RRR, and III to biomass ethanol production?
A: EPA finds that NSPS subparts NNN, RRR, and III do not contain a
blanket exemption for biomass ethanol production facilities from
applicability of these subparts. Inherent difficulties in determining
emissions characteristics and processes make it necessary to provide
exemptions on a case-by-case basis, beyond those provided for
explicitly in the rule. This case-by case applicability exemption
determination is consistent with the approaches used in implementing
other rules, such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) rule, and this
memorandum further clarifies an earlier EPA response dated October 7,
1996, regarding the applicability of these standards to biomass ethanol
production.
Abstract for [0600035]
Q: Could EPA clarify the 30-day reporting requirement for sources
which were constructed or reconstructed between proposal and
promulgation, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart III?
A: Although 40 CFR part 60, subpart III does not specifically
address the issue of notification deadlines for sources for which the
30-day deadline has already or nearly passed, EPA believes that it is
only reasonable under NSPS subpart III to allow owners and operators
the full 30 days after promulgation to provide the necessary
notifications.
Abstract for [0600036]
Q: Could EPA clarify whether heaters F-501 and F-510 at the Chevron
USA refinery in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, are subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J either because their construction commenced after June 11,
1973, or because the heaters were modified in 1982?
A: EPA finds that heaters F-501 and F-510 are subject to NSPS
subpart J because they commenced construction after the applicability
date of June 11, 1973. The terms ``commenced'' and ``construction'' are
defined in 40 CFR 60.2. The terms were also discussed in EPA's earlier
response to Chevron on May 2, 1976 (see ADI Control Number CO08). Based
on these definitions, EPA finds that the construction of heaters F-501
and F-510 commenced on January 31, 1974, the date the contract for the
construction of heaters F-501 and F-510 was signed and became legally
binding. Because the construction of these heaters commenced after the
applicability date of June 11, 1973, these heaters are subject to NSPS
subpart J.
Abstract for [0600037]
Q: Is a fuel oil storage tank (Tank 19) at the Chevron Products
Company, New Jersey facility subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, if
the tank is converted to an internal floating roof tank with a
mechanical shoe seal for storing crude oil?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the storage tank is subject to NSPS subpart
Kb because the conversions constitute ``reconstruction'' as defined in
40 CFR 60.14 and 40 CFR 60.15. The fixed capital costs of the new
components exceed 50 percent of the initial fixed capital cost, which
subjects the storage tank to NSPS subpart Kb requirements. The cost of
the new foundation for the storage tank, or other costs not directly
related in containerization cannot be included in calculating the fixed
capital cost of the new components.
Abstract for [0600038]
Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule for sulfur
for a gas turbine, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at Conoco's Acadia
Gas Processing Plant?
A1: Yes. Given that the sulfur levels continue to be low and
consistent as demonstrated, EPA approves a custom schedule for sulfur,
with a one week composite for each of the first six months and a one
week composite for each of the following quarters. Conoco must re-
evaluate the fuel composition if there is a change in the feedstock.
Q2: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule for nitrogen
for a gas turbine, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at Conoco's Acadia
Gas Processing Plant?
A2: No. EPA does not approve a custom schedule for nitrogen for a
gas turbine at this facility. If Conoco would like to reapply for a
custom schedule, it should provide sufficient data to demonstrate the
consistency of the fuel quality on a daily basis, rather than on an
average basis.
Abstract for [0600039]
Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring schedule for
analyzing fuel sulfur content, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, which
would allow the use of weekly instead of daily composites to determine
sulfur content, for the combined cycle gas turbines at Dow Chemical USA
(Dow)? In addition, Dow would like these weekly composites to be
conducted on a quarterly basis and believes that this alternative
schedule is consistent with 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2).
A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of a weekly composite for analyzing
fuel sulfur content. However, EPA does not approve the proposed
quarterly sampling at this time. Weekly composites should be analyzed
and checked for accuracy and consistency for six months. If after the
first six months the sulfur levels remain consistent with the data
provided in this review, quarterly monitoring may be requested.
Q2: Does EPA approve the microcoulometric titration technique for
determining the sulfur content of fuel under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GG?
A2: No. EPA does not approve Dow's microcoulometric titration
technique for determining sulfur content. The method is not a
previously approved equivalent method under NSPS subpart GG, and
[[Page 41118]]
lacks supporting data demonstrating its equivalency to proven testing
methods.
Abstract for [0600040]
Q1: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KK for the Excide Corporation (Excide) lead acid battery manufacturing
plant in Greer, South Carolina?
A1: Excide's four facilities located at this plant are subject to
NSPS subpart KK if they were constructed or modified after January 14,
1980, and are part of any plant that produces or has the design
capacity to produce in one day (24 hours) batteries containing an
amount equal to or greater than 6.5 tons of lead. Excide produces
batteries containing an amount of lead greater than 6.5 tons. Also,
since January 14, 1980, Excide has installed additional equipment on
all four facilities, which constituted modifications to these
facilities. Therefore, the plant is subject to NSPS subpart KK. Removal
of all equipment added after January 14, 1980, would not by itself
terminate the applicability of NSPS subpart KK to the Exide facilities.
To terminate the applicability of NSPS subpart KK, Exide would have to
either dismantle the affected facilities or permanently decrease
(physically restrict) the plant's capacity so that the plant no longer
had the capacity to produce in 1 day (24 hours) batteries containing
more than 6.5 tons of lead (down from the present amount of lead).
Q2: Would Excide have a period of time to remove the additional
equipment which constituted the modification in order to avoid being
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK regulations?
A2: No. The applicability determination is made based on whether
and when modification occurred. Subsequent restoration of the
facilities to the previous physical and operational configuration would
not change the finding that the facilities were modified and therefore
would not relieve the company from having to comply with NSPS subpart
KK.
Q3: Could EPA distinguish between a boiler derate and removing
additional equipment in relation to the applicability of 40 CFR part
60, subpart KK to this facility?
A3: A boiler derate involves a permanent restriction of the boiler
production capacity and could alter the entire regulated entity in such
a way that it no longer meets the definition of ``affected facility.''
In contrast, once an existing facility has been modified by installing
additional equipment, it is considered an affected facility under NSPS
subpart KK in the same way as a newly-constructed affected facility
would be. The subsequent removal of the added equipment leaves behind a
plant that still contains affected facilities since its production rate
remains well above the NSPS subpart KK applicability threshold. The
entire affected facility is subject to the standards of performance,
not just the portion of the affected facility which is responsible for
the increase in emissions.
Abstract for [0600041]
Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart J, for the Hunt Refining Company?
A: No. EPA does not have the authority to waive NSPS subpart J
monitoring requirements. However, the facility emits the regulated
pollutants in low quantities and may qualify for a monitoring frequency
reduction. The facility remains subject to continuous monitoring
requirements until an alternative is approved.
Abstract for [0600042]
Q: Are two boilers, which burn only Jet A fuel, subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Db?
A: No. The boilers are designed to burn natural gas, and are
therefore subject to NSPS subpart Db. However, these boilers are not
subject to any emission standards or monitoring requirements when
solely burning Jet A fuel. EPA has determined that Jet A fuel is
classified as ``other fuel'' as referenced in NSPS subpart Db, rather
than as residual or distillate oil. Jet A fuel is covered in ASTM
D1655-95, which also covers diesel and gas turbine fuels.
Abstract for [0600043]
Q: Could EPA clarify the particulate matter and opacity limits
applicable to the kiln, clinker cooler, and raw mill operations, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart F, at the Roanoke Cement Company in Cloverdale,
Virginia?
A: All of the gas exiting the clinker cooler goes to the kiln as
process gas and is therefore not subject to the opacity or particulate
matter limits for clinker cooler gas in NSPS subpart F. Instead, this
process gas, as well as all of the other gas exiting the kiln (that is
not diverted to raw mill operations as a process gas) is subject to the
kiln gas standards. The raw mill uses some kiln gas as process gas.
This process gas and all other gas exiting the raw mill operations is
subject to the 10 percent opacity limit applicable to raw mill gas (no
particulate matter limit applies).
Abstract for [0600045]
Q1: Could EPA clarify to Woodward-Clyde Consultants whether a
change in volatile organic liquid (VOL) or an increase in throughput
makes an existing storage vessel subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb?
A1: Based on 40 CFR 60.14(e), switching to a higher vapor pressure
VOL will not by itself be considered a modification if the existing
storage vessel was designed to accommodate the higher vapor pressure
VOL prior to July 23, 1984. Similarly, under 40 CFR 60.14(e), an
increase in throughput will not be considered a modification if the
original design of the storage vessel could accommodate the increased
throughput.
Q2: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Kb to a storage vessel that is covered by a state permit, which does
not specify what VOL can be stored, and where the VOL is changed to a
level that is within the emission limits established by the state
permit?
A2: If an existing source undergoes reconstruction or modification
after July 23, 1984, then the storage vessel will become subject to
NSPS subpart Kb because state permits do not provide shielding from the
NSPS. Therefore, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb requirements applies to the
storage vessel even when the state permit fails to include such
requirements.
Q3: Is acetone considered a VOL with respect to 40 CFR part 60,
subparts A and Kb?
A3: No. EPA finds that acetone is not a VOL under NSPS subparts A
and Kb.
Q4: Are blending tanks with a capacity of at least 40 cubic meters
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb?
A4: Yes. EPA finds that the blending tank is considered a storage
tank subject to NSPS subpart Kb because 40 CFR 60.110(b) does not
differentiate between storage vessels based on usage.
Q5: Is the presence or absence of a mechanical agitator in the
blending tank relevant to the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Kb?
A5: EPA finds that the presence of a mechanical agitator is only
relevant when one considers the question of ``modification.'' For
example, if a product change requires blending, the installation of a
mechanical agitator in the tank constitutes ``physical change.''
Providing that there are emission increases associated with the product
storage change, the tank will become subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Kb because the tank is not considered capable of accommodating the
alternative product without the installation of an agitator.
[[Page 41119]]
Q6: Will 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb apply if the storage tank has a
usable capacity greater than or equal to 151 m3 without an internal
floating roof, but the usable capacity drops below 151 m3 after the
installation of an internal floating roof? Which capacity should be
considered the design capacity for applicability purposes?
A6: EPA finds that the capacity of the tank prior to the
installation of the internal floating roof is the design capacity for
purposes of determining applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
The designed capacity is the nominal figure or nominal rating given to
the storage vessel by the tank manufacturer. 40 CFR 60.110(a-c)
identify ``design capacity,'' not ``usable'' capacity of the storage
vessel to be the key parameter for considering applicability. In
addition, the volume occupied by the internal floating roof cannot be
subtracted to bring the tank below the threshold of NSPS subpart Kb.
Abstract for [0600046]
Q: Are three proposed 316.9 million Btu/hr resource recovery
boilers, located at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia
facility, which will burn a combination of coal and refuse derived fuel
(RDF), subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts D and/or Da? The steam and
electricity generated by these boilers will be used exclusively to
furnish the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
A: The boilers will not be subject to NSPS subpart Da because the
boilers will not provide electricity for sale. The boilers will,
however, be subject to NSPS subpart D because the boilers would have
the capability to fire in excess of 250 million Btu/hr of fossil fuel.
The boilers will be required to meet all emission limits for the
portion of the heat input which is attributable to the fossil fuel.
Abstract for [0600047]
Q: Is the sulfur recovery plant (SRP) at the Navajo Refining
Company's (Navajo's) Artesia, New Mexico, refinery subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J?
A: Yes. The 20 long tons per day (LTD) exception criterion in 40
CFR 60.100(a) for the production or processing capacity for the Navajo
SRP does not apply. The SRU allows for the processing of more than 20
long tons per day (LTD) of sulfur based on the design basis of the
unit. Although applicability of NSPS subpart J should be determined
before construction begins, Navajo has not provided information
sufficient to establish that the design capacity of the SRP to process
input sulfur was 20 LTD or less. In addition, the sulfur production
from this unit routinely exceeds 20 LTD, and Navajo has failed to
demonstrate the design capacity was 20 LTD or less.
Abstract for [0600048]
Q: In lieu of the standard daily fuel nitrogen and sulfur
monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, may the Algonquin Power
co-generation facility in Windsor Locks, Connecticut (Algonquin Power)
facility use the procedures in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, 2.3.1.4 and
2.3.2.4, to show that the gas used in a turbine meets sulfur-content
specifications for pipeline-quality natural gas?
A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2), EPA approves that
Algonquin Power use the procedures in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D,
2.3.1.4 and 2.3.2.4, to show that the gas meets sulfur-content
specifications for pipeline-quality natural gas. Under this approach,
the daily fuel nitrogen and sulfur monitoring requirements of NSPS
subpart GG would not apply as long as the part 75 monitoring
demonstrated that the fuel met pipeline-quality specifications.
Abstract for [0600049] and [0600050]
Q: Does EPA approve changing the frequency of Relative Accuracy
Test Audits (RATAs) and Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs) under 40 CFR part
60, Appendix F, at the ANP Bellingham Energy Company facilities in
Bellingham and Blackstone, Massachusetts, so that the frequency is
consistent with similar requirements under 40 CFR part 75?
A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i)(2), EPA approves changing the
annual RATA due date to once every four operating quarters instead of
once every four calendar quarters, and approves a NOX, CO
and O2 CGA every operating quarter. An operating quarter is defined as
one in which the unit operates 168 hours or more. Regardless of
operation, the facility must conduct a CGA for NOX, CO and
O2 at least once every four calendar quarters, and must conduct a RATA
at least once every eight calendar quarters. This EPA approval allows
ANP to follow the grace period provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix
B, Section 2.2.4 (for CGAs) and Section 2.3.3 (for RATAs).
Abstract for [0600051]
Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver from the nitrogen-monitoring
requirement in 40 CFR 60.334(b) of NSPS subpart GG, for a natural gas
fuel combustion turbine at the Bridgewater Correctional Complex in
Bridgewater, Massachusetts?
A1: Yes. EPA approves waiving the requirement under 40 CFR
60.334(b) of NSPS subpart GG to monitor the nitrogen content of
pipeline quality natural gas given that the natural gas does not
contain fuel-bound nitrogen, and any free nitrogen in the gas would not
contribute appreciably to the formation of nitrogen oxide emissions.
Q2: Does EPA approve a custom monitoring schedule to monitor the
sulfur content at each renewal of the Title V Operating Permit, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for a natural gas fueled combustion turbine
at the Bridgewater Correctional Complex in Bridgewater, Massachusetts
(Bridgewater)?
A2: No. EPA does not approve this custom monitoring schedule.
Bridgewater may use the two custom monitoring schedules set forth in 40
CFR 60.334(i)(3)(i)(A) through (D), without prior approval. Otherwise,
Bridgewater must continue to follow 40 CFR 60.334(i)(2) for the
monitoring frequency of the fuel's sulfur content.
Abstract for [0600052]
Q: Does EPA approve a parametric monitoring plan that includes
monitoring the fuel input rate, the electric load, and the combustor
temperature during the initial stack performance test, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, at the Bridgewater Correctional Complex in
Bridgewater, Massachusetts?
A: Yes. EPA approves the parametric monitoring plan with certain
modifications and additional conditions, as specified in the EPA
response letter. This parametric approach will be correlated with
emissions to ensure proper operation of the control system and to
ensure the facility stays within permitted limits.
Abstract for [0600053]
Q: Does EPA approve a revision to the November 22, 2002 alternative
opacity monitoring procedure for boiler Number 15, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db, at the Fraser Papers facility in Berlin, New Hampshire
(Fraser)? The November 22, 2002 approval allowed Fraser to continuously
monitor and record the voltage across the electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) and to continuously monitor and record the scrubber liquid flow
rate to the spray tower (wet scrubber) in lieu of installing,
calibrating, maintaining and operating a continuous opacity monitoring
system (COMS).
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the revision to the 2002
alternative opacity monitoring procedure to meet NSPS subpart Db.
Fraser will use
[[Page 41120]]
secondary voltage-to-fuel oil firing rate or average performance test
secondary voltage as an alternative to opacity monitoring under all
load conditions. The facility must set the appropriate parameter values
based on performance tests at low and high load rates.
Abstract for [0600054]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of the extended testing timelines
outlined in 40 CFR part 75 instead of the timelines outlined in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Db (by referenced 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) for
conducting a Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) for a continuous
emission monitoring system at the General Electric facility in Lynn,
Massachusetts?
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the part 75 timeline instead of
NSPS subpart Db timeline. This alternative will ensure that the
facility does not need to start up the boiler for the sole purpose of
conducting the RATA test within the annual (four calendar quarter)
deadline established in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Section 5, given
that the boiler is used only between 10 to 50 percent of the year.
Abstract for [0600055]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative schedule to monitor fuels
combusted on a monthly basis, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for the
Goodrich Fuel and Utility System facility in Vergennes, Vermont
(Goodrich)?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring schedule request
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, provided that Goodrich meets specific
recordkeeping requirements. This alternative fuel consumption
monitoring option is not an exemption from compliance with any of the
fuel certification requirements in NSPS subpart Dc.
Abstract for [0600056]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring schedule, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for gas-fired boilers at the MassMutual Center
facility in Springfield, Massachusetts? Under the proposed alternative,
fuel records would be maintained on a monthly instead of daily basis.
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring schedule as long
as the boilers continue to burn exclusively natural gas. If the boilers
burn any fuel other than natural gas, all provisions of NSPS subpart Dc
will apply as written, including daily tracking of all fuel use from
that day forward.
Abstract for [0600057]
Q: Does EPA approve changing the frequency of Relative Accuracy
Test Audits (RATAs) and Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs) under 40 CFR part
60, Appendix F, for auditing continuous emission monitors (CEMs) at the
Stony Brook Energy Center facility in Ludlow, Massachusetts, so that
the frequency is consistent with similar requirements under 40 CFR part
75? The Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC)
operates three combustion turbines at this facility, units 1A, 1B and
1C with CEMs for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide as
required by 40 CFR part 60, NSPS subpart Db, and 40 CFR part 75.
A: Yes. EPA approves changing the annual RATA due date to once
every four operating quarters, and approves omitting a CGA for the
required monitoring systems except during an operating quarter. An
operating quarter is defined as one in which the unit operates 168
hours or more. Regardless of operation, the facility must conduct a CGA
for each monitoring system at least once every four calendar quarters
and must conduct a RATA at least once every eight calendar quarters.
Abstract for [0600058]
Q: Does EPA approve VRI's request to demonstrate that its enclosure
meets the permanent total enclosure (PTE) definition in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix M, Method 204, as an alternative to the monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV, for a capture system
serving one or more coating lines at the Von Roll Isola USA facility
(VRI) in New Haven, Connecticut? The capture system is unlikely to
comply with the requirement to stay within five percent of the monitor
readings during the performance test established in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VVV due to various factors.
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves VRI's alternative monitoring
request to demonstrate that its enclosure meets the PTE definition in
Method 204, provided that VRI adheres to conditions specified in EPA's
response letter involving monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
Abstract for [0600059]
Q1: Does EPA approve the use of certain monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting provisions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as
alternative monitoring requirements to those under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart NNN, for the Flint Hills Resources West Refinery in Corpus
Christi, Texas?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of the 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 40 CFR
60.705(s).
Q2: Will EPA approve a waiver of initial performance tests for
certain boilers and heaters at the same facility?
A2: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), EPA conditionally approves
the performance test waiver for the boilers and process heaters which
are fired with fuel gas containing a vent stream from the Number 2
Isomerization Units and the Number 2 Parex Units. This waiver is
applicable for boilers and process heaters which meet the definitions
of a boiler or process heater in 40 CFR 60.701 under NSPS subpart RRR.
Both the alternative monitoring and the waiver of performance testing
are contingent upon the vent streams being vented to a fuel gas system
and introduced into the flame zone with the primary fuel.
Abstract for [0600060]
Q: For three natural gas-fired boilers at the Edgefield
Correctional Complex (ECC) in Edgefield, South Carolina, subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart Dc, will EPA allow the facility to maintain
records of the total amount of gas used in the powerhouse instead of
keeping records on the amount of fuel burned in each of the boilers
separately?
A: No. EPA cannot waive the requirement under NSPS subpart Dc to
keep separate fuel usage records for each boiler. However, the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control can approve an
alternative approach under which the total gas usage in the powerhouse
would be measured and apportioned between the three boilers in
question, as established in a March 7, 2002, EPA Region 4 guidance
letter.
Abstract for [0600061]
Q: Does EPA approve conducting visible emission (VEs) observations
on a daily basis as an alternative to installing a continuous opacity
monitoring (COM) system, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, if
it uses negative pressure baghouses, each with a single stack, to
control emissions from the two electric arc furnaces (EAFs) and an
argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel at the Alloys Resources plant
in Albertville, Alabama?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the company's alternative monitoring
proposal for the
[[Page 41121]]
three affected facilities would be acceptable provided that it follows
the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 60.273(c) and 40 CFR 60.273a(c). The
EAFs and AOD are much smaller than those typically used in the
secondary steel production industry, therefore, the cost of COMS would
be relatively high compared to the size and the potential particulate
emission rate from the furnaces at Alloys Resources which is a
reasonable justification for allowing the use of daily VEs as an
alternative to COMS, as described in the preamble to the Federal
Register notice for the promulgation of NSPS subpart AAa.
Abstract for [0600062]
Q: May the Orange County Solid Waste Management facility change its
standard operating procedures for landfill gas extraction wells, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, and shut down, as an alternative to
decommissioning, the wells where gas flows are so low that applying
even minimal vacuum results in air infiltration that causes exceedances
of the applicable oxygen concentration limit?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative operating procedure provided
that that the facility diagrams are updated to indicate which wells
have been shutdown because landfill gas production rates are too low to
permit continuous extraction. EPA finds that shutting down
nonproductive wells, rather than decommissioning them, has the
potential to lower overall non-methane organic compounds emissions by
making it easier to resume gas collection in nonproductive areas of the
landfill that subsequently experience an improvement in gas quality.
Abstract for [0600063]
Q: Does EPA find that leachate risers connected to the landfill gas
collection system at the Pecan Grove Sanitary Landfill (PGSL) in
Harrison County, Mississippi are subject to the operational and
monitoring requirements for gas collection wells under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW?
A: Yes. EPA finds for purposes of NSPS subpart WWW that the risers,
which function as interior wells, must be connected to the gas
collection and control system if PGSL is extracting gas from active
areas where waste has been in place for five years or more, or from
closed areas or areas at final grade where waste has been in place for
two years or more.
Abstract for [0600064]
Q: Does EPA waive a performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOO, for particulate emission testing at the outlet of a baghouse that
controls emissions from conveying equipment and two storage silos at
the Henry Brick Company (HBC) plant in Selma, Alabama?
A: Yes. EPA approves a waiver for the performance test requirement
under NSPS subpart OOO because the silos and sand conveying equipment
at the plant operate for only short periods of time on an intermittent
basis. Alternatively, the HBC facility will demonstrate compliance by
conducting visible emission observations during one complete loading
cycle to demonstrate compliance.
Abstract for [0600065]
Q: Does EPA waive the stack testing requirements, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart TT, for a new coil coating line at the Termalex plant in
Montgomery, Alabama?
A: EPA finds that the requested test waiver is unnecessary.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the line in question are
controlled with a carbon adsorption system, and under NSPS subpart TT,
compliance for facilities using this control approach is determined by
comparing the amount of solvent recovered to the amount consumed. This
allows compliance to be assessed without a stack test; thus, the
requested testing waiver is unnecessary.
Abstract for [0600066]
Q: Does the gas processing conducted at the Central Sanitary
Landfill in Pompano Beach, Florida constitutes treatment under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the landfill gas processing operation
includes the three activities (filtrating to 10 microns or less,
compression, and de-watering) that EPA has previously identified as
necessary steps in landfill gas processing to constitute treatment
under NSPS subpart WWW. The same definition would apply under NSPS
subpart Cc.
Abstract for [0600067]
Q1: Does EPA accept the nitrogen monitoring waiver and the sulfur
custom fuel monitoring plan proposed by Reliant Energy Choctaw County
LLC (Reliant Energy), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for three
natural gas-fired combined cycle electric utility generating units
located in Choctaw County, Mississippi?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that these proposals are acceptable because they
are consistent with previous EPA guidance regarding fuel quality
monitoring options under NSPS subpart GG.
Q2: Do the procedures from 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D satisfy the
fuel sulfur content monitoring provisions under NSPS subpart GG for
determining the sulfur content of natural gas burned in these same
units?
A2: Yes. EPA finds that, provided the units are fired with pipeline
quality gas, the procedures from 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D may satisfy
the fuel sulfur content monitoring provisions under NSPS, subpart GG
for determining the sulfur content of natural gas burned in these
units.
Q3: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GG, to correct NOX emission rates to International Standard
Organization (ISO) standard day conditions for these three units?
A3: EPA finds that the requirement can be waived for the initial
testing if the units are in compliance with the NOX limits
in their Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit.
Following the initial test, Reliant Energy will not need to correct
results to an ISO standard basis continuously. However, the company
must maintain records of the information used in making the correction
so that results could be calculated in terms of the applicable NSPS
subpart GG limit when there are exceedances of the PSD permit limit.
Q4: For these same three units, may Reliant Energy, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG conduct a single load test instead of a four-load
test, use reference method results from NOX continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) relative accuracy test audit (RATA)
for the initial compliance demonstration, and conduct the test
downstream of the duct burners and selective catalytic reduction (SCR)?
A4: EPA finds that the Mississippi Office of Pollution Control can
approve the proposals to conduct a single load test instead of a four-
load test and to use reference method results from NOX
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) for the initial compliance demonstration. EPA also finds
that it is acceptable to conduct the test downstream of the duct
burners and SCR system because the proposed sampling location is
downstream of the combined cycle unit's control system.
Q5: May data from CEMS installed on the exhaust stack of each of
these Reliant Energy units be used for reporting gas turbine excess
emissions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A5: Yes. EPA finds that although Reliant Energy proposed reporting
excess emissions under NSPS subpart
[[Page 41122]]
GG only while operating in the combined cycle mode, the company must
also monitor and report excess emissions when the turbines are
operating in the simple cycle mode.
Q6: Does EPA waive the requirement to test and monitor
NOX emissions separately for the natural gas-fired turbines
and duct burners in the combined cycle systems, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG?
A6: EPA finds that the requested waiver is unnecessary because NSPS
subpart Da includes an option that allows owners and operators of
combined cycle systems to determine/monitor duct burner NOX
compliance using results from a CEMS located downstream of the duct
burner.
Q7: Does demonstrating compliance with the particulate emission
limit in the PSD permit for these units constitute an adequate
demonstration of compliance for the duct burner's particulate limit
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da?
A7: Yes. EPA finds that particulate testing conducted after the
duct burners while the combined cycle units are operating at no less
than 95 percent of capacity is acceptable. Since the applicable PSD
limit for particulate emissions from the Reliant Energy's combined
cycle systems is one-third of the corresponding subpart Da for the
Reliant Energy's duct burners, demonstrating compliance with the PSD
limit would provide adequate assurance of compliance with NSPS subpart
Da and would justify a waiver of the requirement to conduct particulate
testing at both the inlet and outlet of the duct burners.
Q8: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct testing for
determining compliance with the sulfur dioxide limit under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Da at these units? May Reliant Energy use the sulfur
dioxide reporting and recordkeeping provisions from 40 CFR part 75,
Appendix D in lieu of those in subpart Da?
A8: EPA finds that if Reliant Energy verifies that the fuel used in
the duct burners is pipeline quality natural gas, then no testing will
be required because the emissions from pipeline natural gas will be
orders of magnitude below the NSPS subpart Da limit. For reporting, the
same results can be used to quantify emissions under both part 75 and
NSPS subpart Da. Because reporting sulfur dioxide excess emissions
under NSPS subpart Da will provide EPA with useful information and is
not overly burdensome, the request to waive the NSPS subpart Da
reporting requirements is not approved.
Q9: Does EPA waive the applicable NOX emission limit,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, of 1.6 pounds per megawatt--hour for
the duct burners in these units?
A9: No. Since Reliant Energy compliance proposal for NOX
blends aspects of the two compliance options for duct burners subject
to the 1.6 lb/Mwh limit in 40 CFR 60.44a(d), the EPA cannot waive the
performance testing requirements under either of these options at this
time.
Q10: Does EPA find that there are acceptable alternative procedures
proposed for demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da,
NOX limits for duct burners at these units?
A10: No. EPA finds that there are two NOX compliance
demonstration options for duct burners under NSPS subpart Da, and EPA
cannot approve an alternative approach until Reliant Energy clarifies
which of the two compliance options is covered by the company's
request.
Abstract for [0600068]
Q: Does EPA allow Berkshire Power's facility in Agawam,
Massachusetts to conduct nitrogen oxides (NOX) and oxygen
(O\2\) daily continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) calibrations
using 40 CFR part 75 procedures, instead of the procedures specified in
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A: Yes. EPA finds that under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(2), it has the
authority to approve alternate methods and procedures. Accordingly, EPA
approves the request to show compliance with NSPS subpart GG daily
calibration requirements by conducting NOX and O\2\ daily
calibrations according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B,
Section 2.1, subject to specific conditions. Note that this alternative
calibration option is not an exemption from compliance with NSPS
subpart GG.
Abstract for [0600069]
Q1: Could EPA clarify the ``Day 0'' compliance dates for 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGG, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at Brown Ferris
Industries of North America's (BFI) Little Dixie Sanitary Landfill in
Ridgeland, Mississippi?
A1: EPA finds that based upon the effective date of NSPS subpart
GGG, the ``Day 0'' compliance date would be April 6, 2000. ``Day 0''
for NSPS subpart WWW compliance would be the day that BFI commenced the
vertical expansion approved in a permit issued to the Mississippi
Office of Pollution Control on October 14, 2003.
Q2: Could EPA clarify how earlier compliance activities performed
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG affect compliance schedules and
requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW at this landfill?
A2: EPA finds that the impact under these overlapping rules would
depend upon whether the non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission
rate from the landfill exceeded 50 megagrams prior to the applicability
of NSPS subpart WWW. Triggering this threshold prior to the
applicability of NSPS subpart WWW would not change the applicable
compliance deadlines under NSPS subpart GGG. If the 50 megagram
threshold is not exceeded prior to the applicability of NSPS subpart
WWW, prior Tier 2 or Tier 3 test results can be used for calculating
NMOC emission rates, provided that the five-year deadline for retesting
is based upon the original test date instead of the NSPS subpart WWW
applicability date.
Abstract for [0600070]
Q: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative opacity
monitoring method for an oil-fired auxiliary steam generating unit that
has a design heat input capacity of 652.58 mmBtu/hr, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db, at the Cardinal Power Plant (Cardinal) in Brilliant,
Ohio, owned by the American Electric Power (``AEP'') and Buckeye Power
Inc.?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative opacity monitoring requests,
under NSPS subpart Db, provided that the annual capacity factor is
limited to 10 percent, and that the company collect opacity data and
report exceedances of the opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.43b(f), as
discussed in the EPA response.
Abstract for [0600071]
Q: Does EPA approve a performance test time extension under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOO, to combine the testing into a single test program
upon completion of the proposed modifications at the P.J. Keating
Company facility in Acushnet, Massachusetts (Keating)?
A: No. The request involves Keating's primary crusher, and the test
is required to demonstrate compliance pursuant to NSPS subpart OOO.
Based on the information provided, there are no grounds for an
extension under NSPS subpart OOO or 40 CFR 60.8.
Abstract for [0600072]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative operating parameter monitoring and
recording requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, for a medical
[[Page 41123]]
infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) located at the Wilkes-Barre
General Hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves monitoring and recording the tertiary chamber
temperature instead of the secondary chamber temperature and recording
the minimum flow rate of 50 percent NaOH to the Evaporative Cooler/
Scrubber as a site-specific operating parameter under NSPS subpart Ec.
EPA also relieves the hospital from monitoring the minimum pressure
drop across the wet scrubber or the minimum horsepower or amperage to
the wet scrubber. EPA agrees that, given site-specific considerations,
neither of these monitoring parameters is appropriate as the removal
efficiency of the acid gases in the spray tower is not dependent upon
pressure drop, minimum horsepower, or amperage. Instead, EPA agrees
that establishing and monitoring the flow rate of both the 50 percent
NaOH (liquid) and the flow rate of the lime injected into the system
are appropriate operating parameters for this system.
Abstract for [0600074]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring and recordkeeping
frequency for boiler fuel usage from daily to monthly monitoring and
recordkeeping, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at ISG's Steelton,
Pennsylvania steelmaking facility?
A: Yes. EPA approves the change to monthly recordkeeping and
monitoring of the boiler fuel usage under NSPS subpart Dc, as this is a
very small boiler that combusts only natural gas fuel.
Abstract for [0600075]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring method for opacity,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for the Koppers Monessen,
Pennsylvania coke plant boiler?
A: Yes. EPA finds that this boiler only combusts cleaned coke oven
gas as fuel. Therefore, EPA approves the use of Method 22 on a daily
basis followed by Method 9 opacity readings by a certified opacity
evaluator, if any emissions are witnessed via Method 22.
Abstract for [0600076]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping
frequency, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for Nylstar's two Kewanee
boilers at its Ridgeway, Virginia plant?
A: Yes. EPA approves the change from daily recordkeeping to monthly
recordkeeping of fuel usage under NSPS subpart Dc because only very
clean fuels are permitted to be combusted in these boilers.
Abstract for [0600077]
Q: Does EPA approve a boiler capacity deration due to a burner
change, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Sunsweet Growers
facility in Fleetwood, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves of the boiler deration due to the burner
change under NSPS subpart Dc. This project will meet the requirements
of EPA's deration policy and will be a permanent physical change to the
boiler operation that will limit the heat input capacity on a permanent
basis.
Abstract for [0600078]
Q: Does EPA approve a heat input capacity derate procedure, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for a boiler, located at Temple University
in Pennsylvania, that involves mechanical and electronic changes to
limit the heat input to less than 30 million BTUs per hour?
A: No. EPA does not approve of the derate procedure under NSPS
subpart Dc because it does not represent a permanent physical change to
limit the heat input capacity of the boiler in accordance with
established EPA policy.
Abstract for [0600079]
Q: Can a nitrogen oxides predictive emission monitoring system
(PEMS) installed and tested on a 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db boiler at
the BP Chemical Company plant in Decatur, Alabama, be used for both the
initial performance test and the ongoing compliance monitoring required
for the unit?
A: Yes. EPA finds that based on the results of relative accuracy
test audits conducted on the PEMS and the large margin of compliance
with respect to the applicable emission standard, the PEMS is an
acceptable alternative to a continuous emission monitoring system for
conducting both the initial performance test and the ongoing compliance
monitoring for the boiler under NSPS subpart Db.
Abstract for [0600080]
Q: Will EPA waive the requirement in 40 CFR 60.486(e)(1) to record
a list of identification numbers for certain equipment subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart VV, for the Solutia facility in Pensacola,
Florida?
A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i), EPA finds that a waiver for
equipment following the first reaction step in the company's adipic
acid process unit is appropriate because NSPS subpart VV, indicates no
subsequent requirements which would make use of a detailed record of
the equipment which follows the first reaction step. All equipment
after the first reaction step will comply with 40 CFR 60.482-8(a)(2)
and will be in heavy liquid service. EPA's response also includes a
clarification of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the
equipment in heavy liquid service complying with 40 CFR 60.482-8(a)(2).
Abstract for [0600081]
Q: Does EPA approve of alternative temperature limits proposed for
seven gas collection wells, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the
Broadhurst Environmental Landfill located in Screven, Georgia?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed alternative temperature limits
are acceptable under NSPS subpart WWW because the criteria for approval
of a higher wellhead temperature limit under the provisions in 40 CFR
60.753(c) is met. Specifically, the data indicates that the elevated
temperatures in these wells have not caused landfill fires or
significantly inhibited anaerobic decomposition at the site.
Abstract for [0600083]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for the purge
gas stream to a flare, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at the Valero's
Wilmington Refinery?
A: Yes. EPA finds that an alternative monitoring plan is
appropriate under NSPS subpart J, provided the purge gas stream is
stable and low in H2S concentration.
Abstract for [0600084]
Q: Could EPA clarify the interpretation of the term ``3 percent,''
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart O, when recording the average oxygen
content measured in the exhaust gas of a sewage sludge incinerator?
Specifically, could EPA clarify whether ``3 percent'' means an oxygen
percentage reading plus 3 percent, or 3 percent of the oxygen
percentage?
A: 40 CFR 60.155(a)(2) requires that excess oxygen levels be
reported. Reportable readings are those readings, when interpreted as a
percentage of oxygen in the exhaust gases, that are more than 3 percent
oxygen in excess of the percentage measured during the most recent
performance test.
Abstract for [0600085]
Q1: Is a proposal to use an alternative equation for calculating
the coke burn-off rate for a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit at the
Chevron Products refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, acceptable under
40 CFR part 60, subpart J?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that there are typographical errors in the coke
burn-off
[[Page 41124]]
calculation in the current version of NSPS subpart J, and the proposed
alternative calculation taken from 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU is
acceptable because it does not contain any typographical errors since
it includes a term to account for enriched air introduced into the FCC
regenerator.
Q2: Is an alternative method that the Chevron Products proposed to
use for determining the catalyst regenerator exhaust gas flow rate
acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J?
A2: Yes. EPA finds that because the equation that Chevron proposes
to use for calculating the exhaust gas flow rate comes from 40 CFR part
63, subpart UUU, using the same equation for flow rate calculations
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J is acceptable.
Abstract for [0600086]
Q1: Is the proposal to use information regarding the fuel
consumption rate, flue gas oxygen concentration, and F-factors to
calculate the exhaust gas flow rate for two stationary gas turbines at
Mississippi State University in Starkville, Mississippi acceptable
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed approach for determining the
turbines' exhaust gas flow rate is acceptable, provided that the
accuracy of the meters used to determine fuel usage rates is comparable
to that of EPA Method 2.
Q2: Does EPA find that emission test results from one of the two
identical stationary gas turbines can be used to verify compliance for
both units under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
A2: Yes. EPA finds that the requested waiver under NSPS subpart GG
will be acceptable, provided that the emission rate for the unit that
is tested does not exceed 50 percent of the applicable emission
standard.
Abstract for [0600087]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan for the semi-
regenerative reformer regeneration gas streams routed to a reformer
heater subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at ExxonMobil's Torrance,
California refinery?
A: Yes. EPA finds that an alternative monitoring plan is allowed
under NSPS subpart J, provided these gas streams are stable and low in
H2S concentration.
Abstract for [0600088]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring approach for
determining glass pull rates at the Knauf Insulation GmbH plant in
Alabama to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP? Knauf Insulation
proposes to use flow cameras, that the company has installed in order
to comply with a monitoring requirement contained in 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart NNN, as an alternative to calculating the glass pull rate using
the equation in 40 CFR 60.685(b)(3).
A: Yes. EPA finds that determining pull rates using the monitoring
system required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, is acceptable
because the results obtained using properly calibrated flow cameras
should be more accurate than those determined using the equations in
NSPS subpart PPP.
Abstract for [0600089]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative nitrogen oxides (NOX)
continuous emission monitor system (CEMS) span value for a 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db boiler located at the Indiantown, Florida power plant?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the alternative span value proposed by the
company (300 ppm) will improve the resolution of the CEMS, and
therefore, it is acceptable.
Abstract for [0600090]
Q: Can the requirement to conduct an initial performance test on
the baghouse used to control particulate emissions from the Product
Rework Bin facility at the Harborlite Corporation in Youngsville, North
Carolina, be waived under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO?
A: The performance test waiver requested by the company is
unnecessary because the baghouse in question is not subject to a
particulate concentration limit under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO. The
baghouse controls emissions from the Product Rework Bin facility, and
not from other parts of the plant. Because of this configuration, the
Product Rework Bin facility is subject to an emission standard in 40
CFR 60.672(f) that includes an opacity limit of seven percent but not
to the particulate concentration limit that applies to other types of
facilities with stack emissions.
Abstract for [0600091]
Q: Biogen Idec in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Biogen),
proposes to derate two boilers by replacing the forced draft fans with
smaller fans and motors, and reducing the fuel flow capacity. Is this
derate proposal acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A: Yes. EPA approves the derate proposal under NSPS subpart Dc
since it will permanently reduce the capacity of the boilers, provided
Biogen follows the procedures established in EPA's response. If the
facility wants to increase the capacity of the boiler after it has been
derated, a notification of the proposed modifications must be submitted
to the EPA.
Abstract for [0600092]
Q: Are two separate disposal areas located in Statesville, North
Carolina and operated by Iredell County contiguous under 40 CFR part
60, subpart WWW?
A: Yes. EPA finds that although a golf course is located between
the closed and active disposal areas, these areas are contiguous
because Iredell County owned both of them and two other adjoining
properties on the date NSPS subpart WWW was promulgated.
Abstract for [0600093]
Q: Premium Standard Farms in Clinton, North Carolina, proposes to
derate two boilers by replacing the forced draft fans with smaller fans
and motors and reducing the fuel flow capacity. Is this derate proposal
acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
A: Yes. EPA approves the derate proposal under NSPS subpart Dc,
since it will permanently reduce the capacity of the boilers, provided
Premium Standard Farms follows the procedures established in EPA's
response. If the facility wants to increase the capacity of the boiler
after it has been derated, a notification of the proposed modifications
must be submitted to the EPA.
Abstract for [0600094]
Q: The Apex Oil Company bulk gasoline terminal in Greensboro, North
Carolina, has been modified, and the company requests a waiver from the
requirement under 40 CFR 60.8(a) to conduct an initial performance test
to demonstrate compliance under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX. Will EPA
grant a waiver from the requirement for an initial performance test
based on the results of a test conducted ten years ago?
A: No. An initial performance test will be needed to document
compliance under NSPS subpart XX following the modification of the
facility.
Abstract for [0600095]
Q: Is the opacity monitoring alternative that the ABC Coke Company
proposes for a natural gas and coke oven gas-fired boiler at its
Birmingham, Alabama, coke plant acceptable under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db?
A: Yes. EPA finds that conducting visible emission observations
would be an acceptable alternative to a continuous opacity monitoring
system for ABC Coke, provided specific conditions listed in the EPA
response letter are met.
[[Page 41125]]
Abstract for [0600096]
Q: Are the monitoring requirements for landfill gas wells
applicable to leachate collection risers connected to the active gas
collection system, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Carter
Valley Landfill in Church Hill, Tennessee?
A: EPA finds that the applicability of the monitoring requirements
in question depends upon the age of the waste where the risers are
located. Any risers collecting gas from active areas where waste has
been in place for five years or more or where waste has been in place
for two years or more in either closed areas or areas that are at final
grade would be subject to the monitoring requirements in NSPS subpart
WWW.
Abstract for [0600097]
Q: Could EPA clarify what is the correct monitor path length value
to use for the outer section of a stack at the Asarco copper smelter in
Hayden, Arizona (Asarco), under 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and P? The
copper smelter discharges emissions to the atmosphere from a 1000 feet
tall stack that incorporates physically separate inner and outer
sections.
A: EPA finds that for purposes of NSPS subparts A and P, Asarco may
use the outer diameter minus the inner diameter of the tall stack for
the monitor pathlength of the continuous opacity monitoring system
operated in the outer, or annular, section of the tall stack.
Abstract for [0600098]
Q: Does EPA approve Eastman Chemical Company's, Kingsport,
Tennessee plant (Eastman) proposal to monitor for the presence of a
pilot flame, in order to verify the performance under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart NNN of an enclosed flare at its Kingsport, Tennessee plant?
A: No. Verifying the presence of a pilot flame alone is not
sufficient. To provide adequate assurance of compliance under NSPS
subpart NNN, Eastman must conduct testing to identify the flare
temperature needed to achieve the required level of volatile organic
compound destruction.
Abstract for [0600099]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring plans for 22 separate
refinery fuel gas streams at the Chevron's Richmond, California
(Chevron) refinery under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J?
A: Yes. Chevron's submittal meets the requirements of EPA's
refinery fuel gas guidance titled Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS
Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas, and is approved in accordance with the
specific technical elements specified in attachments to EPA's approval
letter.
Abstract for [0600100]
Q1: Will EPA approve a request to deviate from the assumption that
a violation of the carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit occurs if the
facility operates their hospital medical infectious waste incinerator
(HMIWI) above the maximum charge rate and below the minimum secondary
combustion chamber temperature simultaneously as stated in 40 CFR part
60, subpart Ec, 40 CFR 60.56c(e)(1), if the facility has actual CO
emissions data on a real-time basis from a CO continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS)?
A1: Yes. EPA agrees that direct measurement of CO emissions using
an EPA compliant continuous CO emissions monitor, which shows that CO
emissions are within the allowable limit of 40 parts per million by
volume adjusted to 7 percent oxygen measured on a dry basis at standard
conditions, is superior to using surrogate parameters. As a matter of
policy, the first and foremost option considered by the EPA is to
require the use of CEMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with
specific emission limits. Other options are considered only when CEMS
are not available or when the impacts of including such requirements
are considered unreasonable. In addition, a CEMS for oxygen must be
installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated to monitor the oxygen
concentration at each location where you monitor CO. EPA describes
requirements applicable to CEMS in the response.
Q2: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate as specified in 40 CFR
60.57c(a) and in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
A2: No. EPA will not grant approval to eliminate monitoring the
maximum charge rate as an operating parameter as it is linked to all
emission limits, and not only to CO emissions. According to the
definition for maximum charge rate for a continuous and intermittent
hospital medical infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) given in 40 CFR
60.51c, the maximum charge rate is linked to compliance with all
applicable emission limits, which includes particulate matter (PM), CO,
dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride (HCl), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd),
mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and opacity.
Q3: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter
monitoring requirements for minimum secondary chamber temperature as
specified in 40 CFR 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Ec?
A3: Yes. EPA approves eliminating monitoring of the minimum
secondary chamber temperature as an operating parameter when the CO
emissions are measured using an EPA compliant continuous CO monitor, as
described in the response letter, and the emissions are within the CO
emission limits. EPA views CO emissions level as a function of
combustion efficiency and agrees that the use of an EPA compliant
continuous CO monitor will provide the information on combustion
efficiency that the surrogate parameter of secondary chamber
temperature was intended to provide.
Q4: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the record keeping
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights and hourly
charge rates as specified in 40 CFR 60.58c(b)(2)(iii) in 40 CFR part
60, subpart Ec?
A4: No. As previously stated in A2, above, the maximum charge rate
parameters are linked to other emission limits besides CO emission
limits.
Q5: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the record keeping
requirements for the HMIWI secondary chamber temperatures for each
minute of operation as specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
A5: Yes. EPA agrees that actual data from an EPA compliant
continuous CO monitor will provide the information on combustion
efficiency that the surrogate parameter of secondary chamber
temperature was intended to provide.
Dated: July 12, 2007.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7-13894 Filed 7-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P