[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40655-40662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17209]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7524-2]


Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) 
Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative 
Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to 
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone 
Protection Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, 
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that 
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and 
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability. The document may be located by 
date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI 
or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-
7027, or by email at: [email protected]. For technical questions 
about the individual applicability determinations or monitoring 
decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual 
documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author 
of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 
and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or 
operator may request a determination of whether certain intended 
actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or 
modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly 
termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. 
Although the part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may 
request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written 
inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) 
programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to 
use monitoring or recordkeeping which are different from the 
promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 
63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are 
broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA 
responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP 
regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. 
These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to 
which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. 
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed 
regulatory interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability

[[Page 40656]]

determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination 
Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-
issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone 
regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic 
index on the Internet with more than one thousand EPA letters and 
memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and 
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, 
citation, control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 58 such documents added to 
the ADI on May 2, 2003. The subject, author, recipient, date and header 
of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a 
brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these 
documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: 
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on May 2, 2003; the 
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as 
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, 
which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also 
included an abstract of each document identified with its control 
number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert 
the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as 
substitutes for the full text of the documents.

                                   ADI Determinations Uploaded on May 2, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Control No.                   Category                   Subpart                      Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A030001......................  Asbestos................  M.......................  Abandoned Underground Lines
                                                                                    Wrapped in Friable Asbestos
M030001......................  MACT....................  LL......................  Parametric Monitoring Plan
M030002......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Parameter
M030003......................  MACT....................  LL......................  Parametric Monitoring Plan
M030004......................  MACT....................  LL......................  Modification of Parametric
                                                                                    Monitoring Plan
M030005......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Daily Monitoring Requirement
M030006......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Compliance with Condensate
                                                                                    Treatment Standard
M030007......................  MACT....................  LL, A...................  Site-Specific Test Plan
M030008......................  MACT....................  LL......................  Parametric Monitoring Plan
M030009......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Parameter
M030010......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Parameter
M030011......................  MACT....................  RRR.....................  Applicability of Secondary
                                                                                    Aluminum MACT to Scalpers
M030012......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                    Sulfite Mill Scrubber
M030013......................  MACT....................  SS, YY..................  Alternative Organic HAP and
                                                                                    Halogen Monitoring
M030014......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Continuous Monitoring Using
                                                                                    Predictive Model
M030015......................  MACT....................  MM......................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                    Smelt Dissolving Tank
                                                                                    Scrubber
M030016......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Continuous Monitoring with
                                                                                    Flow Rate and COD
M030017......................  MACT....................  S.......................  Continuous Monitoring of
                                                                                    Sulfite Mill Weak Acid
                                                                                    Scrubber
M030018......................  MACT....................  N.......................  Wetting Agents in Trivalent
                                                                                    Chromium Baths
Z030001......................  NESHAP..................  E.......................  Performance Test Waiver for
                                                                                    Sewage Sludge Incinerators
0300001......................  NSPS....................  Db......................  Boiler Derate Criteria
0300002......................  NSPS....................  Db......................  Alternative Monitoring
0300003......................  NSPS....................  J.......................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                    Propane Fuel
0300004......................  NSPS....................  GG......................  Alternative Test Methods for
                                                                                    Gas Turbine
0300005......................  NSPS....................  A, GG...................  Reduced Notification Period
                                                                                    for Performance Testing
0300006......................  NSPS....................  A, GG...................  Turbine Relocations and
                                                                                    Impacts on Applicability
0300007......................  NSPS....................  Cc......................  Total Landfill Gas Generation
0300008......................  NSPS....................  Db......................  Alternate Opacity Monitoring
                                                                                    Method
0300009......................  NSPS....................  DDD.....................  Applicability to Expanded
                                                                                    Polystyrene Plant
0300010......................  NSPS....................  Dc......................  Heat Exchangers as Unaffected
                                                                                    Process Heaters
0300011......................  NSPS....................  GG......................  Modifications to Test Method
                                                                                    20 for Turbines
0300012......................  NSPS....................  A, GG...................  Custom Fuel Monitoring
                                                                                    Schedule
0300013......................  NSPS....................  Db, A...................  Extension to Perform a RATA
0300014......................  NSPS....................  Kb, A...................  Flow Measurement for Flare
0300015......................  NSPS....................  GG......................  Waiver for Turbine Load
                                                                                    Testing Restriction
0300016......................  NSPS....................  Dc, A...................  Startup & Shutdown
                                                                                    Recordkeeping
0300017......................  NSPS....................  KKK.....................  Applicability to Crude Oil
                                                                                    Production Facility
0300018......................  NSPS....................  A, GG...................  Alternate Monitoring Method
0300019......................  NSPS....................  A, GG...................  Custom Fuel Monitoring
0300020......................  NSPS....................  Db, Dc..................  Steam Reforming Gasification
                                                                                    System at Pulp and Paper
                                                                                    Mill
0300021......................  NSPS....................  D.......................  Boiler Derate Proposal
0300022......................  NSPS....................  NNN, RRR, A.............  Alternative Monitoring/
                                                                                    Performance Test Waiver
0300023......................  NSPS....................  UUU.....................  Applicability to Expansion
                                                                                    Furnace Preheater
0300024......................  NSPS....................  BB......................  Exemption from TRS Standard
                                                                                    for Brown Stock Washer
0300025......................  NSPS....................  Dc......................  Fuel Heaters
0300026......................  NSPS....................  BB......................  Monitoring for Smelt
                                                                                    Dissolving Tank and Lime
                                                                                    Kiln Scrubbers
0300027......................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Request to Conduct Additional
                                                                                    Tier 2 Testing
0300028......................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Definition of ``Treatment
                                                                                    System''
0300029......................  NSPS....................  AA, A...................  Clarification of
                                                                                    Applicability Date
0300030......................  NSPS....................  AA......................  Clarification of
                                                                                    Applicability Date
0300031......................  NSPS....................  AA......................  Clarification of
                                                                                    Applicability Date
0300032......................  NSPS....................  Db......................  Thermal Oxidizer/Waste Heat
                                                                                    Boiler at Ethanol Production
                                                                                    Facility
0300033......................  NSPS....................  HH......................  Applicability of Opacity
                                                                                    Monitoring Requirements

[[Page 40657]]

 
0300034......................  NSPS....................  Da, GG..................  Alternative Monitoring
0300035......................  NSPS....................  A, GG...................  Initial Performance Test
                                                                                    Waiver
0300036......................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Common Control for Landfill
0300037......................  NSPS....................  VVV.....................  Applicability to Pultrusion
                                                                                    Facilities
0300038......................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Responsibility for Compliance
                                                                                    with Subpart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [A030001]

    Q1: Is there a point at which abandoned underground utility steam 
lines wrapped in friable asbestos which enter commercial and 
residential structures are no longer regulated and fall under the 
residential exemption of 40 CFR 61.141?
    A1: No. The lines remain a facility component regulated under the 
asbestos NESHAP, even if they are abandoned. Determination of which 
specific requirements of the asbestos NESHAP would apply to future 
demolitions or renovations would be based, in part, on the amount of 
asbestos involved.
    Q2: Would abandonment of such lines at a residence cause the 
location to be considered an active waste disposal site under 40 CFR 
61.154? If no more asbestos-containing material is buried there for a 
year, would the location be an inactive waste disposal site per 40 CFR 
61.151(e) and 40 CFR 61.154(h)?
    A2: No. The residential location would not be considered an active 
or inactive waste disposal site. If the lines are disturbed, the 
asbestos NESHAP may apply depending on the type of activity and how it 
affects the lines.
    Q3: When a utility steam line is abandoned at a residence or a 
commercial property, must the utility or the property owner place a 
notation on the deed of the property per 40 CFR 61.151(e)?
    A3: No. Because the mere existence of these lines does not make the 
property an inactive waste disposal site, 40 CFR 61.151(e) does not 
apply. Should the property become an inactive waste disposal site, the 
property owner would need to insure that a notation was placed on the 
deed and any other instrument normally examined during a title search.
    Q4: Would the asbestos NESHAP regulate the removal of underground 
utility steam lines from the yard of a residence?
    A4: The asbestos NESHAP would apply if the amount of asbestos being 
removed exceeds the regulatory threshold. Because the lines were once 
part of an affected facility, they remain potentially subject despite 
the fact that they are abandoned by the utility and are on residential 
property.

Abstract for [M030001]

    Q: Will EPA approve the parametric monitoring plan for the Kaiser 
Aluminum reduction plant?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the Parametric Monitoring Plan because the 
source has met the requirement in 40 CFR 63.848(f).

Abstract for [M030002]

    Q: Will EPA allow the monitoring of an alternate parameter, 
scrubber fan amperage, in lieu of measuring gas scrubber inlet gas flow 
rate as required in 40 CFR 63.453(c)(2)?
    A: Yes. Based on EPA's guidance document entitled ``Questions and 
Answers for the Pulp and Paper NESHAP'' dated September 22, 1999, EPA 
approves the request as long as a successful initial performance test 
of the gas scrubber is conducted while the fan is operating at maximum 
speed. Fort James is still required to satisfy all the applicable 
requirements of the Pulp and Paper NESHAP.

Abstract for [M030003]

    Q: Will EPA approve the Parametric Monitoring Plan (Revision 2) for 
Potlines 1 through 4 at the Alcoa--Wenatchee Works?
    A: Yes. EPA's review of the source's report indicates that it 
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 63.847(h) and 40 CFR 63.848(f), 
(j) and (k).

Abstract for [M030004]

    Q: May the parametric limits for alumina ore feed to the control 
system and air flow from the potline be reduced in proportion to the 
reduction in operating pots for potline 1?
    A: Yes. However, an emissions test shall be conducted on the 
operating primary air pollution control device for potline 1 
and the test report submitted to EPA.

Abstract for [M030005]

    Q: Is Potlatch correct in concluding that it is not required to 
begin the daily monitoring under 40 CFR 63.453(j) until after the 
initial performance test (IPT) is conducted?
    A: No. Potlatch's interpretation is not entirely correct. EPA 
believes that any required monitoring parameter that is not established 
by the results of the IPT should be monitored beginning on the 
compliance date. For certain conditions, the monitoring of some 
parameters would not be required to begin on the compliance date.

Abstract for [M030006]

    Q1: Potlatch proposes to perform 3 test runs from 18 sampling 
locations to characterize and delineate the mixing zones in a 102-acre 
secondary treatment aeration pond. Is this study duration and scope 
acceptable for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) compliance evaluations?
    A1: EPA believes that the scope and duration of the Mixing Zone 
Study would depend on the design and operation of the treatment lagoon, 
and on the statistical validity of the results. Therefore, Potlatch 
should be prepared to perform more than 3 test runs as necessary.
    Q2: Does the facility need approval prior to conducting the Study 
and performance tests?
    A2: No. However, the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7(b) and (c) apply.
    Q3: Do these three test runs have to be done within a 24-hour 
period or completed on 3 consecutive days?
    A3: No. However, each test run should be completed within a 24-hour 
period.
    Q4: Potlatch proposes to collect one grab sample per sampling 
location during each day of the Mixing Zone Study and performance 
tests. Is that acceptable?
    A4: Yes. Therefore, a study period of more than 3 days may also be 
necessary.
    Q5: May the durations of the initial performance test (IPT), 
quarterly performance test (QPT) and performance test (PT) for an 
excursion be different?
    A5: Yes. EPA recommends that once the IPT is completed, the 
statistical variability of the data would be used to design the QPT and 
PT for excursion.
    Q6: What duration of sampling is required for establishing site-
specific parameter ranges and averaging times?
    A6: In reference to 40 CFR 63.453(n)(4), it is the source's

[[Page 40658]]

responsibility to collect sufficient data to demonstrate to the 
permitting agencies' satisfaction that the source is in ``continuous 
compliance with the applicable emission standard''.
    Q7: May a site-specific monitoring parameter and its range(s) be 
established prior to conducting the IPT or prior to the facility's 
compliance date if the proper sampling procedures and test methods were 
followed?
    A7: Yes. Site-specific monitoring parameters and its ranges may be 
established and tested during the Mixing Zone Study.
    Q8: Is it necessary to provide notification to EPA prior to 
conducting a mixing zone study?
    A8: Yes. Because the Mixing Zone Study is part of the Initial 
Performance Test, 60-day notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.7 would 
apply.
    Q9: Does a facility have to notify EPA a minimum of 60 days before 
a performance test?
    A9: Yes. 40 CFR 63.7(b)(1) requires that an affected source notify 
the Administrator in writing of its intention to conduct a performance 
test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled 
to begin. Also, 40 CFR 63.7(c)(2)(i) requires the submission of site-
specific test plans upon request by the delegated authorities.

Abstract for [M030007]

    Q: Will EPA approve NWAC's site-specific test plan and the modified 
versions of EPA's Air Sampling Methods 13B and 14A?
    A: Yes. EPA approves of NWAC's request.

Abstract for [M030008]

    Q: Will EPA approve the parametric monitoring plan for Alcoa 
Wenatchee Works?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Alcoa's Parametric Monitoring Plan as having 
met the requirements in 40 CFR 63.847(h) and 63.848(f), (j) and (k).

Abstract for [M030009]

    Q: Will EPA allow the monitoring of an alternate parameter, 
scrubber fan amperage, in lieu of measuring gas scrubber inlet gas flow 
rate as required in 40 CFR 63.453(c)(2)?
    A: Yes. Based on EPA's guidance document entitled ``Questions and 
Answers for the Pulp and Paper NESHAP'' dated September 22, 1999, EPA 
approves the request as long as a successful initial performance test 
of the gas scrubber is conducted while the fan is operating at maximum 
speed. The source is still required to satisfy all the applicable 
requirements of the Pulp and Paper NESHAP.

Abstract for [M030010]

    Q1: Will EPA allow the monitoring of the operational status of a 
scrubber fan in lieu of the monitoring of the scrubber vent gas inlet 
flow rate when performing its initial performance test?
    A1: Yes. Based on EPA's guidance document entitled ``Questions and 
Answers for the Pulp and Paper NESHAP'' dated September 22, 1999, EPA 
approves the request as long as a successful initial performance test 
of the gas scrubber is conducted while the fan is operating at maximum 
speed.
    Q2: Will EPA approve a 1,000 ppmv calibration standard in lieu of 
the 10,000 ppmv calibration standard for measuring leaks in closed-vent 
systems?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves this request because the requested 1,000 ppmv 
calibration standard would provide more accurate detection of a leak.

Abstract for [M030011]

    Q: Do the requirements of NESHAP Subpart RRR for Secondary Aluminum 
Production apply to the scalpers at Kaiser's Trentwood Works in 
Spokane, Washington?
    A: No. Based on Kaiser's description, the scalpers do not engage in 
activities related to secondary aluminum production and do not fall 
within the definition of ``aluminum scrap shredders.''

Abstract for [M030012]

    Q: Will EPA approve the continuous monitoring of scrubber gas 
exhaust gas flow rate and air evacuation fan gas flow rate in lieu of 
monitoring vent gas inlet flow rate for the pulping process at the 
Wausau-Mosinee Brokaw, Wisconsin, magnesium-based sulfite mill?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request under the conditions that the mill 
continuously monitor both the total vent gas flow rate at the stack 
outlet and the air evacuation vent gas flow rate, and that the former 
not exceed 86,912 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) at any time. That 
flow rate was the maximum that occurred during the initial performance 
test. The mill must still monitor the pH or the oxidation/reduction 
potential of the scrubber effluent, and the scrubber liquid influent 
flow rate.

Abstract for [M030013]

    Q: Will EPA approve the alternative monitoring methods to monitor 
phosgene concentration in lieu of monitoring total organic HAPs as 
required by 40 CFR 63.990(c) for caustic scrubbers (absorbers) that are 
used as control devices for organic HAPs? The source also proposes to 
monitor phosgene concentration in lieu of pH, scrubber liquid flow, and 
gas stream flow as required by Sec.  63.994(c)(1) for halogen 
scrubbers.
    A: EPA conditionally approves the request. The approvals do not 
conclude whether the phosgene monitors meet any applicable monitor 
requirements such as 40 CFR 63.998(b). The approvals are contingent on 
the results of two performance tests, one for total HAPs and another 
for hydrogen halides and halogens. Based on the test results and the 
phosgene monitoring data, the source must submit the rationale for the 
value(s) of the phosgene concentration to be used to reflect continuous 
compliance with the standards for total HAPs, and for halogen and 
halides. The source must also meet the notification requirements of 
Sec.  63.999(b)(3).

Abstract for [M030014]

    Q: Will EPA approve the use of an Excel-based artificial neutral 
network (ANN) predictive computer model for continuously monitoring 
methanol emissions from the UNOX closed biological treatment system at 
International Paper's Kaukauna mill?
    A: Yes. The company has more than a year of operating data and 
effluent methanol concentrations. These data show that the measurement 
of several process parameters, such as the dissolved oxygen in the 
system and the oxygen uptake rate of the mixed liquor, adequately 
demonstrates that the ANN model provides continuous monitoring of the 
UNOX methanol concentration.

Abstract for [M030015]

    Q: Will EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amperage and 
scrubbing liquid flow rate in lieu of scrubber pressure drop for the 
smelt dissolving tank scrubber at the International Paper Quinnesec, 
Michigan mill?
    A: Yes. Pressure drop does not govern particulate removal 
efficiency for this dynamic scrubber that operates near atmospheric 
pressure, and fan amp monitoring will suitably indicate scrubber 
performance. EPA approves the request under the condition that the mill 
establish operating ranges for the monitoring parameters in the initial 
performance test.

Abstract for [M030016]

    Q: Will EPA approve the alternative monitoring for the UNOX closed 
biological treatment system at the Wausau-Mosinee mill in Mosinee, 
Wisconsin? The mill proposes to continuously monitor the foul 
condensate flow rate to the UNOX system, the valve position of the feed 
lines to the foul condensate tank, and

[[Page 40659]]

the treated effluent chemical oxygen demand (COD).
    A: Yes. The condensate collection efficiency depends on the flow 
rate to the UNOX system, and COD is a good indicator of UNOX system 
performance.

Abstract for [M030017]

    Q: Must the Weyerhaeuser calcium-based sulfite pulp mill in 
Rothschild, Wisconsin continuously monitor the outlet to the weak acid 
tower scrubber? The company claims the scrubber is not needed to comply 
with the methanol emission limit.
    A: Yes. There is insufficient evidence that the mill is operating 
in continuous compliance with the emission limit. Thus, Weyerhaeuser 
must continuously monitor emissions or establish alternative operating 
parameters that continuously demonstrate compliance.

Abstract for [M030018]

    Q: Does 40 CFR 63.342(e)(1) require facilities using trivalent 
chromium baths to use a pre-mixed bath mixture containing the wetting 
agent?
    A: Yes, 40 CFR 63.342(e)(1) requires the trivalent chromium bath 
solution components to include a wetting agent. However, the wetting 
agent does not need to be incorporated into the bath solution by the 
vendor. The wetting agent must only be included as an integral part of 
the trivalent chromium bath components when purchasing the solution 
components from the vendor. The wetting agent can then be added by the 
source following vendor recommendations.

Abstract for [Z030001]

    Q: May Cominco get an emissions test waiver for two sewage sludge 
incinerators located at the DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation 
System Port Facility in Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA waives the emissions tests required in 40 CFR 
61.53(d)(1) based on Cominco's monthly testing results which show the 
emission level well below the standard at 40 CFR 61.52(b).

Abstract for [0300001]

    Q: Is Lamb-Weston's boiler 1 subject to NSPS Subpart Db 
after its capacity was changed to below 100 million Btu/hour?
    A: No. The boiler is no longer subject to NSPS Subpart Db.

Abstract for [0300002]

    Q: Will EPA approve the Predictive Emissions Monitoring System 
(PEMS) for the boiler subject to NSPS Subpart Db?
    A: Yes. EPA approves of the PEMS and requires the company to 
perform annual relative accuracy tests to verify the accuracy of the 
PEMS and send the test results.

Abstract for [0300003]

    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) with a 
periodic monitoring system for propane fuel used in the generators at 
Tesoro's Anacortes Refinery?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(ii), EPA extends the 
existing EPA approved-AMP dated May 29, 1996, for Boiler F-753 for 
application to the generators.

Abstract for [0300004]

    Q1: May Cogentrix conduct performance tests only at 100% load for a 
combined cycle gas turbine subject to 40 CFR part 75 and NSPS Subpart 
GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this request because the certified 
NOX continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) used in the 
initial performance test would undergo calibration checks before and 
after each test run, and the turbine will normally be operated at 100% 
load.
    Q2: May Cogentrix determine sulfur content by collecting samples 
for analysis for total sulfur in lieu of testing for SO2 
using Method 20?
    A2: Yes. This proposal is acceptable to EPA because the turbine 
would be firing exclusively pipeline natural gas, where given the 
sulfur content of the fuel, it would not cause SO2 emissions 
in excess of the SO2 standard specified in 40 CFR 60.333.

Abstract for [0300005]

    Q: May NW Natural request a reduced notification period for 
performance testing on two gas fired turbines?
    A: Yes. This request is approved because NW Natural had previous 
correspondence with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
(ODEQ) and the weather dependent operational schedule of the turbine 
would not allow NW Natural to meet the required 180-day deadline in 40 
CFR 60.8(a) to conduct performance testing.

Abstract for [0300006]

    Q1: Are turbines that were manufactured before October 3, 1977, but 
that did not begin operation on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) 
pump stations until after October 3, 1977, subject to NSPS Subpart GG, 
no matter when they were purchased by Alyeska from the manufacturer or 
other owner?
    A1: No. These stationary gas turbines, that are purchased in 
completed form, are not subject to NSPS Subpart GG provided they were 
not ``modified'' or ``reconstructed'' as defined in NSPS Subpart A, on 
or after October 3, 1977.
    Q2: Do the requirements of NSPS Subparts A and GG follow a new 
turbine wherever it is operated on the TAPS?
    A2: Yes. The requirements of NSPS Subparts A and GG follow a 
turbine constructed, modified or reconstructed after October 3, 1977, 
regardless of where the turbine is relocated to, but do not apply to 
the equipment that is powered by the turbine (such as a generator or a 
pump).
    Q3: Do the Alyeska turbines that were manufactured before October 
3, 1977 become subject to NSPS Subpart GG if they are relocated between 
TAPS pump stations as a pool of identical turbines to allow for 
maintenance of turbines?
    A3: No. The relocation of a turbine as part of a pool of identical 
turbines would not make the turbine subject to NSPS Subpart GG if the 
turbine is not ``modified'' or ``reconstructed,'' as those terms are 
defined in 40 CFR Subpart A, as a result of the relocation. Certain 
requirements are required in the Title V permit.
    Q4: Does a turbine that is not subject to NSPS Subpart GG become 
subject to it if it is rotated into a location to replace an existing 
turbine that is subject to NSPS Subpart GG?
    A4: No. As discussed above, a relocation of an affected facility is 
not, by itself, a modification.

Abstract for [0300007]

    Q: Does EPA agree with interpretation of the Lane Regional Air 
Pollution Authority that the total amount of landfill gases generated 
must be considered when making an applicability determination?
    A: Yes. Specifically, pertaining to 40 CFR 60.33c(a)(3), the total 
nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate from the landfill must 
be used to determine applicability.

Abstract for [0300008]

    Q: Will EPA approve an alternate opacity emissions monitoring 
method for an auxiliary boiler subject to NSPS Subpart Db?
    A: No. The proposal to use Method 9 instead of operating a COMS is 
denied because the proposed method would not provide an equivalent 
level of monitoring. The proposal may be acceptable if certain 
conditions are met.

Abstract for [0300009]

    Q: The Native Village of Kotzebue's proposed expanded polystyrene 
plant plans to purchase polystyrene-bead raw material from other 
manufacturers. Will the plant be subject to NSPS Subpart DDD?

[[Page 40660]]

    A: No. With reference to 40 CFR 60.560, because the proposed plant 
will not manufacture polystyrene, EPA determines that NSPS Subpart DDD 
would not apply.

Abstract for [0300010]

    Q: Does NSPS Subpart Dc cover heat exchangers used to heat 
vegetable oil at a Frito-Lay facility?
    A: No. Because the ``heat exchanger'' units are used to heat 
vegetable oil, which is a reactant within the chemical reaction 
involved in the production of potato chips, EPA believes that the units 
are process heaters as defined in 40 CFR 60.41c and that NSPS Subpart 
Dc does not apply to them.

Abstract for [0300011]

    Q: May Phillips Alaska use a 7 point multi-hole probe to identify 
the two ports with the lowest oxygen concentration in-lieu of the 
oxygen traverse of the stack in accordance with Reference Method 20 
procedures?
    A: Yes. EPA believes that the modified method could generate 
acceptably accurate data.

Abstract for [0300012]

    Q: Will EPA approve Congentrix's request for a nitrogen monitoring 
waiver and an alternate sulfur monitoring schedule for a gas-fired 
combined cycle turbine subject to 40 CFR part 75 and NSPS Subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request for a nitrogen monitoring waiver 
and an alternate sulfur monitoring schedule for the combined cycle 
turbine firing exclusively pipeline natural gas.

Abstract for [0300013]

    Q: Will EPA grant an extension to perform a Relative Accuracy Test 
Audits (RATA) for the CEMS for a new boiler subject to NSPS Subpart Db?
    A: No. EPA has not received a report of the performance test within 
60 days of achieving maximum production rate as required in 40 CFR 
60.8(a). Moreover, if the performance test conducted was a Method 7 
test, this would not have been consistent with the method specified in 
40 CFR 60.46b(e). Therefore, the source appears to be in violation of 
the requirement to timely conduct the applicable performance test. 
Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant the 
request for an extension of time to conduct a performance evaluation.

Abstract for [0300014]

    Q: Will EPA approve BP's proposal of only observing readings from 
the existing orifice plates to verify flare exit velocities and a 
waiver of the flow measurement requirements at 40 CFR 60.18(f)(4)?
    A: No. EPA denies the request because BP has not provided 
sufficient information regarding the existing orifice plates to 
determine compliance. EPA is concerned about possible corrosion on the 
orifice plates, which may result in unreliable exit velocity data.

Abstract for [0300015]

    Q: Will EPA grant a waiver for turbine load testing restriction for 
two gas turbines subject to NSPS Subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA grants BP's request for waiving EPA's August 2, 2000, 
requirement for performing additional source tests at higher than 
presently tested load points, because there is a strong basis from test 
results for predicting that NOX Concentrations from operating the 
turbines would be below the required NSPS standard in the event that 
the turbines are operated at above the highest tested load.

Abstract for [0300016]

    Q: Does 40 CFR 60.7(b) mean that an owner or operator shall 
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of the initial startup 
and the eventual final shutdown?
    A: No. 40 CFR 60.7(b) states that the owner or operator will 
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup or 
shutdown.

Abstract for [0300017]

    Q: Is NSPS Subpart KKK applicable to the facility at BP 
Exploration's Bedim Development Project located on the North Slope of 
Alaska?
    A: No. NSPS Subpart KKK is applicable to Onshore Natural Gas 
Processing Plants, as described in 40 CFR 60.630. The subject BP 
Exploration plant is a crude oil production facility, and therefore 
does not meet the definition of a ``Natural Gas Processing Plant'' 
described in Sec.  60.631.

Abstract for [0300018]

    Q: May PGE use a CEMS to monitor nitrogen oxides emissions for the 
turbine subject to NSPS Subpart GG?
    A: Yes. PGE may use the CEMS to monitor NOX emissions in lieu of 
monitoring fuel consumption, and the water-to-fuel ratio, as required 
by 40 CFR 60.334(a).

Abstract for [0300019]

    Q: Will EPA approve an exemption of daily nitrogen testing and a 
custom fuel monitoring schedule for sulfur for a natural gas-fueled 
turbine?
    A: Yes. EPA will waive nitrogen monitoring for pipeline quality 
natural gas, as there is no fuel-bound nitrogen, and will approve the 
custom fuel monitoring schedule for sulfur based on following specific 
conditions for confirming sulfur variability of the pipeline natural 
gas.

Abstract for [0300020]

    Q. Is the entire black liquor steam reforming gasification system, 
which includes one reformer boiler and 8 pulse heaters, an affected 
facility under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A. EPA has determined that the reformer boiler is subject to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Db. The 8 pulse heaters are not part of the same 
affected facility, and are individual units that are not subject to 
Subpart Db because of their size. They may be affected facilities as 
defined by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, unless they are unaffected 
because they meet the definition of a process heater.
    Q. Will EPA approve an alternative proposal for monitoring nitrogen 
oxides from the reformer boiler?
    A. Yes. EPA has determined that monitoring nitrogen oxide 
concentration at the single stack from the reformer boiler and the 
pulse heaters and using each unit's corresponding heat inputs, as 
measured by the fuel fired, is an acceptable alternative for monitoring 
nitrogen oxide emissions on a pound/mmBTU basis for reasons set out in 
the determination.

Abstract for [0300021]

    Q: Will EPA allow a facility to derate a boiler to less than 250 mm 
Btu/hr by limiting the feed rate of coal and fuel oil?
    A: No. Changes which are made only to fuel feed systems are not 
acceptable for derating boilers.

Abstract for [0300022]

    Q: Will EPA waive the requirement for a performance test and 
approve alternative monitoring for boilers and process heaters which 
are fired with fuel gas which contains vent streams from facilities 
subject to NSPS Subpart NNN?
    A: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement for a performance test and 
approve the provisions of NSPS Subpart RRR as alternative monitoring to 
the provisions of NSPS Subpart NNN.

Abstract for [0300023]

    Q: Is a natural gas-fired preheater, which is used to improve the 
efficiency of a perlite expansion furnace, subject to NSPS Subpart UUU?
    A: No. Based on site-specific information provided and the 
background document for the standard, the preheater described is not

[[Page 40661]]

functionally equivalent to either a dryer or calciner.

Abstract for [0300024]

    Q: Does a brown stock washer system qualify for an exemption from 
the TRS standard under 40 CFR 60.283(a)(1)(iv)?
    A: Yes. Based on cost information supplied and recent cost 
estimates from other facilities, a temporary exemption from the TRS 
standard is appropriate.

Abstract for [0300025]

    Q: Are natural gas-fired fuel heaters, to be used to heat natural 
gas prior to being routed to combustion turbines for use as fuel, 
subject to NSPS Subpart Dc?
    A: No. The fuel heaters are not subject to subpart Dc, since there 
is no heat transfer medium associated with their operation.

Abstract for [0300026]

    Q1: Will EPA approve the replacement of the NSPS continuous 
monitoring requirements with the MACT continuous monitoring 
requirements for the smelt dissolving tank and lime kiln scrubbers at 
the International Paper Quinnesec, Michigan mill?
    A1. Yes. The MACT monitoring requirements meet or exceed the NSPS 
requirements.
    Q2: Will EPA approve the continuous monitoring of fan amperage in 
lieu of scrubber pressure drop for the smelt dissolving tank scrubber?
    A2. Yes. Pressure drop does not govern particulate removal 
efficiency for the smelt dissolving tank dynamic scrubber that operates 
near atmospheric pressure, but fan amperage monitoring will suitably 
indicate scrubber performance. The U.S. EPA approves the request under 
the condition that the mill establish operating ranges for the 
monitoring parameters during a performance test.

Abstract for [0300027]

    Q: Can a landfill conduct additional Tier 2 testing to demonstrate 
that NMOC emissions are below 50 Mg/year?
    A: Yes. As long as the collection and control plan has been 
submitted by one year from the exceedance of 50 Mg/year, the landfill 
may conduct further testing. If, however, NMOC emissions continue to 
demonstrate levels at or above 50 Mg/year, then the source will be 
expected to implement its collection and control system according to 
the original schedule (18 months after the collection and control 
system plan was submitted).

Abstract for [0300028]

    Q: Is a system that consists of a 155 scfm, stainless steel, 
coalescing filter with a 0.01 micron screen, a compressor/blower, and a 
liquid knockout sump a treatment system?
    A: No. ``Treatment system'' is not defined. However, although the 
proposed system has a liquid knockout sump, it does not use chillers or 
other dehydration equipment to de-water the landfill gas.

Abstract for [0300029]

    Q1: The applicability date for NSPS Subpart AA occurred during the 
construction, in the same building but at different times, of two 
electric arc furnaces (EAFs). Under these circumstances, what 
constitutes ``construction'' and when does construction ``commence'' 
for each affected facility for purposes of NSPS Subpart AA 
applicability?
    A1: There must be actual physical construction of or a binding 
contractual obligation for each affected facility prior to the 
applicability date. In this case, EPA determined that EAF 1 
commenced construction before the applicability date of October 21, 
1974, but that EAF 2 had commenced construction after the 
applicability date and was therefore subject to NSPS Subpart AA.
    Q2: Are transformers which supply electricity to the EAF electrodes 
part of the NSPS Subpart AA affected facility?
    A2: No. Although they are treated as part of the affected facility 
in the later NSPS Subpart AAa, according to the definition of electric 
arc furnace at 40 CFR 60.271, the transformer system is not part of the 
affected facility subject to NSPS Subpart AA. It should be noted that, 
although the transformer system was constructed prior to the subpart AA 
applicability date, the construction of EAF 2 occurred after 
that date and is subject to NSPS Subpart AA.

Abstract for [0300030]

    Q1: The applicability date for NSPS Subpart AA occurred during the 
construction, in the same building but at different times, of two EAFs. 
Under these circumstances, what constitutes ``construction'' and when 
does construction ``commence'' for each affected facility for purposes 
of NSPS Subpart AA applicability?
    A1: There must be actual physical construction of or a binding 
contractual obligation for each affected facility prior to the 
applicability date. In this case, EPA determined that EAF 1 
commenced construction before the applicability date of October 21, 
1974, but that EAF 2 had commenced construction after the 
applicability date and was therefore subject to NSPS Subpart AA.
    Q2: Are transformers which supply electricity to the EAF electrodes 
part of the NSPS Subpart AA affected facility?
    A2: No. Although they are treated as part of the affected facility 
in the later NSPS Subpart AAa, according to the definition of electric 
arc furnace at 40 CFR 60.271, the transformer system is not part of the 
affected facility subject to NSPS Subpart AA. It should be noted that, 
although the transformer system was constructed prior to the subpart AA 
applicability date, the construction of EAF 2 occurred after 
that date and is subject to NSPS Subpart AA.

Abstract for [0300031]

    Q: The applicability date for NSPS Subpart AA occurred during the 
construction, in the same building but at different times, of two 
electric arc furnaces (EAFs). Under these circumstances, what 
constitutes ``construction'' and when does construction ``commence'' 
for each affected facility for purposes of NSPS Subpart AA 
applicability?
    A: There must be actual physical construction of or a binding 
contractual obligation for each affected facility prior to the 
applicability date. In this case, EPA determined that EAF 1 
commenced construction before the applicability date of October 21, 
1974, but that EAF 2 had commenced construction after the 
applicability date and was therefore subject to NSPS Subpart AA.

Abstract for [0300032]

    Q1: Is the thermal oxidizer with heat recovery boiler located at 
the Badger State Ethanol facility a steam generating unit and, 
therefore, subject to NSPS Subpart Db?
    A1: Yes. The thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler would be 
considered a steam generating unit because it will combust fuel and 
heat a heat transfer medium; it is covered by NSPS Subpart Db.
    Q2: How do Applicability Determinations NB04 and NA07 affect the 
applicability of the thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler?
    A2: Applicability Determination NA07 concerns the applicability of 
NSPS Subpart Dc to a combined cycle system comprised of a gas turbine 
and a waste heat boiler. The thermal oxidizer/waste heat boiler 
configuration at the Badger State facility is treated differently than 
the gas turbine/waste heat boiler configuration in Applicability 
Determination NA07. Applicability Determination NB04 consists of a gas 
turbine followed by a duct burner which, in turn, is followed by a 
waste heat boiler. In this

[[Page 40662]]

configuration the duct burner followed by the waste heat boiler meets 
the criteria for a device to be considered a steam generating unit. 
Neither Applicability Determination NA07 nor NB04 contradict this 
applicability determination.

Abstract for [0300033]

    Q: Is a source controlling SO2 emissions from a lime 
kiln using a wet scrubbing system subject to the opacity monitoring 
requirement in 40 CFR 60.343?
    A: No. When using a wet scrubber, the source is not required to 
monitor the opacity of the gases discharged. Instead, the source must 
install, calibrate, maintain, operate, and record the resultant 
information from the monitoring device for the continuous measurement 
of the pressure loss of the gas stream through the scrubber and from 
the monitoring device for continuous measurement of the scrubbing 
liquid supply pressure to the control device. The source must comply 
with these monitoring requirements even during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.

Abstract for [0300034]

    Q1: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring requirement for 
NOX if the emissions from a duct burner steam generating 
unit commingle with the emissions from the combustion turbines?
    A1: Yes. Because the compliance provision under 40 CFR 60.46a(k)(3) 
requires that NOX emissions be measured at the point where 
emissions from the duct burner combine with the emissions from the 
combustion turbine, EPA will approve an alternative monitoring 
requirement. The source should use the equation in appendix D to part 
72 to calculate the actual gross electric output from the turbines, 
using the actual heat input instead of the maximum design heat input. 
The hourly emission (lb/hr) from the NOX CEM will then be 
divided by the gross electrical output to yield values in terms of the 
standard (lb/MWh).
    Q2: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule?
    A2: Yes, consistent with U.S. EPA's national guidance contained in 
a policy memorandum, dated August 14, 1987, EPA will allow a custom 
fuel monitoring schedule under the conditions set out in the letter.

Abstract for [0300035]

    Q: Will EPA approve a previous waiver of an initial performance 
test for a gas turbine based on preliminary performance source test 
results for an identical gas turbine?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the previous waiver. EPA accepts the 
preliminary performance source test results for GE LM2500 Turbine B (S/
N 671-126) as documentation that it meets the standard for 
NOX (40 CFR 60.332(a)(2)) and has determined that the waiver 
applies to the identical gas turbine GE LM2500 Turbine A (SN 671-125). 
This approval is contingent on the test report confirming the 
preliminary results.

Abstract for [0300036]

    Q: A landfill is selling its landfill gas to an energy generation 
company. Are they under ``common control'' for purposes of determining 
whether they are a single stationary source under PSD and Title V?
    A: Based on the facts, EPA does not consider the landfill and the 
energy generating facility to be under common control for PSD and Title 
V (no common financial interests, employees, or dependence on one 
another). The state may issue two separate Title V permits. However, 
EPA does consider them to be responsible for compliance with 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart WWW.

Abstract for [0300037]

    Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV, Standards of Performance for 
Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates apply to pultrusion 
facilities?
    A: No, NSPS Subpart VVV does not apply to pultrusion facilities. 
The operating characteristics of the pultrusion process are different 
from the polymeric coating process that is covered by NSPS Subpart VVV. 
NSPS Subpart VVV applies to those polymeric coating processes where 
solvents are intentionally volatilized out of the coating as a 
necessary part of the process. In the pultrusion process, the volatile 
organic compound (styrene) is a reactant, not a solvent. The styrene 
predominantly becomes an integral part of the final product.

Abstract for [0300038]

    Q: As between the owner and operator of a landfill facility and the 
owner and operator of equipment used to control landfill gas emissions 
for use in generating electricity, which entity bears the regulatory 
burden of complying with the requirements of NSPS Subpart WWW?
    A: The owner and operator of the landfill facility is required to 
demonstrate compliance with all applicable provisions of NSPS Subpart 
WWW pursuant to 40 CFR 60.750(a). All applicable requirements should be 
incorporated into the facility's Title V permit. The owner and operator 
of the equipment utilized to control landfill gas emissions could also 
be held liable for complying with the regulations. However, the owner 
of a regulated facility cannot contract away its liability because 
another entity is contractually obligated to perform activities which 
are also regulated. [See generally, for example, United States of 
America v. Geppert Bros., Inc. and Amstar Corporation, 638 F. Supp. 996 
(D.C. Pa. 1986)].

    Dated: June 30, 2003.
Lisa Lund,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 03-17209 Filed 7-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P