[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 34 (Friday, February 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7926-7941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3716]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7625-5]


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 
the EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 
CFR part 60), the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR parts 61 and 63), and the Stratospheric 
Ozone Protection Program (40 CFR part 82).

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: 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 
or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), and section 111(d) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) 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. 
Further, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of 
NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole 
source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type 
of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the 
regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly 
termed regulatory interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination 
Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-
issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone 
regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic 
index on the Internet with more than one thousand EPA letters and 
memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and 
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, 
citation, control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 124 such documents added to 
the ADI on October 31, 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: 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 October 31, 2003; the 
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR parts 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.

[[Page 7927]]



                                 ADI Determinations Uploaded on October 31, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Control No.                Category           Subpart                          Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M030020.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension Approval for Potlines
                                                                       1-8
M030021.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Primary Aluminum MACT Compliance Extension
M030022.......................  MACT.............  Y................  Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR),
                                                                       Operation and Maintenance (O&M), and
                                                                       Percent Reduction Requirements
M030023.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension
M030024.......................  MACT.............  R................  Ability to Qualify as Unaffected Facility
M030025.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension for Paste Production
                                                                       Plant
M030026.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  High Efficiency Air Filtration (HEAF)
                                                                       Scrubber System Parametric Monitoring
                                                                       Plan
M030027.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  HEAF Scrubber System Parametric Monitoring
                                                                       Plan
M030028.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension for Paste Production
                                                                       Plant
M030029.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension Approval for Potlines
                                                                       1, 2, and 4
M030030.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Primary Aluminum Maximum Achievable
                                                                       Control Technology Test Plan/Alternative
                                                                       Monitoring
M030031.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Primary Aluminum Maximum Achievable
                                                                       Control Technology Test Plan/Alternative
                                                                       Monitoring
M030032.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Test Plan--Flow Angle Measurement Testing
M030033.......................  MACT.............  RRR..............  Site-Specific Test Plan/Operation,
                                                                       Maintenance and Monitoring Plan
M030034.......................  MACT.............  N................  Performance Testing and Parametric
                                                                       Monitoring
M030035.......................  MACT.............  S................  Request for MACT I Compliance Extension
M030036.......................  MACT.............  Y, CC............  Gasoline Throughput, Hazardous Air
                                                                       Pollutant (HAP) Emissions Applicability
M030037.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Primary Aluminum MACT Test Plan/
                                                                       Alternative Monitoring
M030038.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Primary Aluminum MACT Test Plan
M030039.......................  MACT.............  S................  Compliance Extension for Pulp and Paper
                                                                       MACT
M030040.......................  MACT.............  S................  Evaporator Condensate Streams
M030041.......................  MACT.............  S................  Compliance Extension
M030042.......................  MACT.............  S................  Denial of Compliance Extension Request
M030043.......................  MACT.............  S................  Request for MACT I Compliance Extension
M030044.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension for Paste Production
                                                                       Plant
M030045.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension for Paste Production
                                                                       Plant
M030051.......................  MACT.............  MM...............  Alternative Monitoring Parameter for Smelt
                                                                       Dissolving Tank Scrubber
M030046.......................  MACT.............  N................  Performance Test and Monitoring Plan
M030047.......................  MACT.............  N................  Request for Source Test Waiver
M030048.......................  MACT.............  N................  Requirement to Conduct Performance Test
M030049.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Compliance Extension and Alternative
                                                                       Control Device
M030050.......................  MACT.............  LL...............  Alternative Control Device and Parametric
                                                                       Monitoring Plan
M030052.......................  MACT.............  DDD..............  Alternative Standard for HAP Metal
                                                                       Emissions
M030053.......................  MACT.............  MM...............  Alternative Monitoring Parameter for
                                                                       Recovery Furnace
M030054.......................  MACT.............  UUU..............  Alternative Parameter Monitoring for MACT
                                                                       II Continuous Opacity Monitoring
                                                                       Requirements
M030055.......................  MACT.............  MM...............  Smelt Dissolving Tank Scrubbers
M030056.......................  MACT.............  DDD..............  Alternative Standard for HAP Metal
                                                                       Emissions
M030057.......................  MACT.............  MM...............  Alternative Monitoring for Recovery
                                                                       Furnace Particulate Matter (PM)
M030058.......................  MACT.............  CC, R............  Bulk Loading of Isomerate at a Refinery
M030059.......................  MACT.............  OOO..............  Potential to Emit Restrictions
M030060.......................  MACT.............  RRR..............  Melting and Alloying Aluminum Scrap in a
                                                                       Furnace Operation
M030061.......................  MACT.............  EEE..............  Alternative Monitoring for Hazardous Waste
                                                                       Incinerator
M030062.......................  MACT.............  EEE..............  Alternative Monitoring for Hazardous Waste
                                                                       Incinerator
Z030002.......................  NESHAP...........  E, A.............  Performance Test Waiver for Two
                                                                       Incinerators
Z030003.......................  NESHAP...........  E................  Subpart E Applicability to Electric
                                                                       Toilets
Z030004.......................  NESHAP...........  FF...............  Wastewater Treatment Operations
0300048.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300040.......................  NSPS.............  Db...............  Boiler Derate through Burner Replacement
0300049.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Applicability to Boilers Under 10 MMBtu
0300050.......................  NSPS.............  J, A.............  Performance Test Waiver for Heaters
0300051.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300052.......................  NSPS.............  KKK..............  Compressor Seal System Compliance
0300053.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Initial Performance Test Waiver for
                                                                       Identical Turbines
0300054.......................  NSPS.............  D................  Alternative Opacity Monitoring Plan
0300047.......................  NSPS.............  D................  Alternative Opacity Monitoring
0300055.......................  NSPS.............  I................  Determining Dry Molecular Weight from
                                                                       Dryer Flue Gas
0300056.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Waiver of Performance Test Request
0300057.......................  NSPS.............  DD...............  Permanent Storage Capacity and Fugitive
                                                                       Emission Issues
0300058.......................  NSPS.............  Db...............  Predictive Emissions Monitoring System
                                                                       (PEMS)--Alternative Emissions Monitoring
                                                                       Approval Amendment
0300059.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300060.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Custom Monitoring and Reporting Schedule
0300061.......................  NSPS.............  Cc...............  Test Plan--Nonmethane Organic Compounds
                                                                       Emission Rate
0300062.......................  NSPS.............  WWW..............  Sending Landfill Gas to Separate Entity
                                                                       for Combustion
0300063.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Recordkeeping Schedule
0300064.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule

[[Page 7928]]

 
0300065.......................  NSPS.............  O................  Subpart O Applicability to Electric
                                                                       Toilets
0300066.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Boiler Changes as NSPS Modification or
                                                                       Reconstruction
0300067.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule/
                                                                       Alternative Test Method
0300068.......................  NSPS.............  Db, A............  Alternative Opacity Monitoring
0300069.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300070.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300071.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Extension of Alternative Fuel Monitoring
                                                                       Schedule and Test Method
0300072.......................  NSPS.............  D, Db, A.........  Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP)
0300073.......................  NSPS.............  D, A.............  Alternative Opacity Monitoring
0300074.......................  NSPS.............  J, A.............  Alternative Sulfur Monitoring Plan
0300075.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Performance Test Waiver
0300076.......................  NSPS.............  Db...............  Boiler Derate
0300077.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300078.......................  NSPS.............  Dc, J, A.........  Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP)
0300079.......................  NSPS.............  J, A.............  Performance Test Requirement
0300080.......................  NSPS.............  Db...............  Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Predictive Emissions
                                                                       Monitoring System
0300082.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300083.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Alternative Monitoring and Test Method
0300084.......................  NSPS.............  J, A.............  Alternative Opacity Monitoring Plan
0300085.......................  NSPS.............  I................  Deviation from Performance Testing
                                                                       Requirements
0300086.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Initial Performance Test
0300087.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Alternative Monitoring Method
0300088.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Initial Performance Test
0300089.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Recordkeeping Plan
0300090.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Recordkeeping Plan
0300091.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Alternative Test Method and Monitoring
                                                                       Plan
0300092.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Alternative Test Method and Monitoring
                                                                       Plan
0300093.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Alternative Performance Test Procedure
0300094.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Alternative Testing/Monitoring & Custom
                                                                       Fuel Monitoring Schedule
0300095.......................  NSPS.............  Db, A............  Alternative Opacity Monitoring
0300096.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring
0300097.......................  NSPS.............  Db, Dc...........  Applicability of Subparts Db and Dc to Two
                                                                       Burners
0300098.......................  NSPS.............  I................  Deviation from Performance Testing
                                                                       Requirements
0300101.......................  NSPS.............  GG, A............  Performance Test for Combustion Turbine
0300102.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring Plan Request
                                                                       for Boilers
0300103.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring Plan Request
                                                                       for Boilers
0300104.......................  NSPS.............  D................  Determining Maximum Heat Input Rating for
                                                                       Boiler
0300105.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Gas Turbine Definition and Modification
                                                                       Issues
0300106.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring Plan Request
                                                                       for Boiler
0300107.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Request to Reduce Fuel Monitoring
                                                                       Frequency
0300108.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring Plan Request
                                                                       for Boilers
0300109.......................  NSPS.............  Db...............  Use of Fuel Vendor Receipts as Sulfur
                                                                       Monitoring
0300111.......................  NSPS.............  J................  Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
                                                                       Monitoring Plan
0300112.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Nitrogen Monitoring Waiver for Stationary
                                                                       Gas Turbines
0300113.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring Plan for
                                                                       Boilers
0300114.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring Plan for
                                                                       Boilers
0300117.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Gas Turbine QC Testing Operations
0300115.......................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Alternative Monitoring and Testing for
                                                                       Combustion Turbines
0300116.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Applicability of Subpart Dc to Process
                                                                       Dryer Kilns
0300118.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring for Boilers
0300119.......................  NSPS.............  GG, Da...........  Alternative Testing, Monitoring and
                                                                       Reporting for CC Turbines
0300120.......................  NSPS.............  WWW..............  Applicability to Internal Combustion
                                                                       Engines
0300121.......................  NSPS.............  WWW..............  Use of Treatment System Prior to IC Engine
                                                                       Combustion
0300122.......................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Opacity Monitoring
0300123.......................  NSPS.............  Db...............  Coke Oven Gas
0300124.......................  NSPS.............  VV...............  Equipment in Light Liquid Service
0300125.......................  NSPS.............  Cc, B............  Federal Plan Requirements for Landfill
                                                                       Subject to the Comprehensive
                                                                       Environmental Response, Compensation, and
                                                                       Liability Act of 1990 (CERCLA)
0300126.......................  NSPS.............  Y................  Applicability to Replacement of Individual
                                                                       Conveyors
0300127.......................  NSPS.............  Y................  Applicability to Replacement of Individual
                                                                       Conveyors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [M030020]
    Q: Will EPA approve a request for a compliance extension for eight 
center-worked prebake two (CWPB2) potlines at Kaiser's Mead Works?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request, subject to the terms and 
conditions in the letter. EPA finds that an additional period of time 
is necessary for installation of controls in order to comply with the 
Primary Aluminum MACT.
Abstract for [M030021]
    Q: Does EPA concur with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 
(ODEQ) grant of a one-year compliance extension to install compliance 
testing equipment in potlines 1, 2, and 4?

[[Page 7929]]

    A: No. The real case examples demonstrate that additional time is 
not necessary to install the hydrogen fluorides continuous emission 
monitoring systems. Further, the regulations do not allow compliance 
extension requests for the installation of testing/monitoring 
equipment. Therefore, ODEQ must revise or revoke the compliance 
extension.
Abstract for [M030022]
    Q1: Are the crude oil storage tanks at the Valdez Marine Terminal 
(VMT) source subject to the leak detection and repair (LDAR) 
requirements set forth by 40 CFR 63.563(c)?
    A1: No. The storage tanks are not part of the vapor collection 
system and do not operate as part of a vapor balancing system as 
defined by the Marine Vessel Loading NESHAP. Therefore, the LDAR 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.563(c) do not apply to the VMT's crude oil 
storage tanks.
    Q2: 40 CFR 63.562(e)(2) requires the development and maintenance of 
an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan that describes a program of 
corrective action for varying (i.e., exceeding baseline parameters) air 
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment. Should the plan 
also address variances that occur within the vapor collection 
equipment, for example if vapor recovery system shutdowns have occurred 
as a result of high measured oxygen levels?
    A2: No. The O&M plan requirements of 40 CFR 63.562(e)(2) and (e)(3) 
apply only to the VMT's control device. The vapor recovery system is 
not required to be covered by a specific O&M plan. Potential failure of 
the vapor recovery system should be anticipated and accounted for in 
the facility's O&M procedures.
    Q3: Is the operator required to show an overall reduction of 98 
percent of the captured vapors, per 40 CFR 63.565(l), or is the 
operator only required to show that the control device can achieve 98 
percent destruction efficiency?
    A3: The 98 weight-percent volatile organic compounds/hazardous air 
pollutants reduction requirement applies only to the VMT's control 
devices pursuant to 40 CFR 63.562(d)(2).
Abstract for [M030023]
    Q: The Longview plant has been granted an additional year to 
achieve compliance with the Primary Aluminum MACT at North Plant 
potlines A, B, and C. Can the company receive an additional compliance 
extension for these potlines to perform fume collection system 
improvements to achieve compliance with the Primary Aluminum MACT?
    A: Yes. Because an additional period of time is necessary for 
installation of controls to comply with the standards, EPA intends to 
grant an additional compliance extension for all three potlines, 
subject to the terms and conditions in the letter, pursuant to 40 CFR 
63.6(i)(10).
Abstract for [M030024]
    Q: Do the exceptions in 40 CFR 63.420(a)(1) or (a)(2) apply to the 
Pocatello terminal, such that the terminal is not subject to the 
Gasoline Distribution MACT?
    A: No. EPA has determined that: (a) The Pocatello terminal does not 
satisfy the emissions screening factor prescribed in 40 CFR 
63.420(a)(1); and (b) the terminal has not proven that it is not a 
major source, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Furthermore, the terminal 
qualifies for neither the Potential to Emit Transition Policy nor the 
Gasoline Distribution MACT Limited Relief Policy. Therefore, the 
requirements of the Gasoline Distribution MACT apply to the terminal in 
Pocatello, Idaho.
Abstract for [M030025]
    Q: Will EPA extend the compliance date for a paste production plant 
subject to MACT subpart LL?
    A: No. Because the facility has successfully demonstrated 
compliance with the applicable polycyclic organic matter emission 
standard, EPA finds no reason to extend the compliance date.
Abstract for [M030026]
    Q: Will EPA approve the High Efficiency Air Filtration (HEAF) 
Scrubber System Parametric Monitoring Plan for a paste production plant 
subject to Primary Aluminum MACT?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the use of the proposed plan because 
the proposed parametric monitoring limits are not reasonable. The 
amended plan shall include the information satisfying the requirements 
of 40 CFR 63.848(k). EPA also suggests incorporating the daily visual 
emissions monitoring into the plan.
Abstract for [M030027]
    Q: Will EPA approve the revised HEAF Scrubber System Parametric 
Monitoring Plan (refer to determination M030026 on this ADI update) for 
the paste production plant?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the amended plan because the 
revised parametric monitoring limits are reasonable and the plan 
identifies the accuracy requirements.
Abstract for [M030028]
    Q: Will EPA extend the compliance date for a paste production plant 
subject to MACT subpart LL?
    A: No. EPA has found that additional time is not necessary for 
installation of controls in order to comply with the applicable 
polycyclic organic matter emission standard. EPA received no additional 
information or arguments in support of the request within 15 calendar 
days of receipt of the denial notice. EPA is hereby formally denying 
the compliance extension request.
Abstract for [M030029]
    Q: Will EPA approve a request for a compliance extension for three 
horizontal stud soderberg potlines at Kaiser's Tacoma Works subject to 
the Primary Aluminum MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL)?
    A: Yes. EPA grants a compliance extension for all three potlines 
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i)(10), subject to the terms and conditions in 
the letter, because an additional period of time is necessary for 
installation of controls in order to comply with the Primary Aluminum 
MACT.
Abstract for [M030030]
    Q: Will EPA approve a site-specific test plan under the Primary 
Aluminum MACT for three horizontal stud soderberg potlines at Kaiser's 
Tacoma Works?
    A: No. The test plan shall be revised to reflect EPA's comments on 
the stack sampling rotation approach and resubmitted for approval. The 
proposed ALCOA Methods and the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) methods are approved as alternative test methods to 
Referenced Method 13A/13B.
Abstract for [M030031]
    Q: Will EPA approve a site-specific test plan under the Primary 
Aluminum MACT for Alcoa's Wenatchee Works facility?
    A: Yes. EPA approves with conditions the test plan which specifies 
sampling and analytical procedures to measure emissions from four 
center-worked prebake (CWPB1) potlines and an anode bake furnace, and 
the hydrogen fluoride continuous emission monitoring system method for 
use at Wenatchee Works.
Abstract for [M030032]
    Q: For 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL, may Wenatchee get an exemption 
of flow angle measurement testing at potline 3 based on testing of 
other potlines?
    A: Yes. Given the physical and operational similarities among the 
three

[[Page 7930]]

potlines and potline reactor modules, EPA finds that the flow angle 
measurement results from potline 1 and 2 may be applied to potline 3.
Abstract for [M030033]
    Q: Will EPA approve a site-specific test plan, and an operation, 
maintenance and monitoring plan (OM&MP) for the Alcoa Wenatchee Works 
facility subject to MACT subpart RRR?
    A: Yes. Based on the information submitted, EPA approves the 
revised OM&MP and the revised site-specific test plan.
Abstract for [M030034]
    Q: Will EPA approve the parametric monitoring plan, and the 
alternate test method plan proposed on January 28, 2000 by Industrial 
Chrome Plating (ICP)to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart N?
    A: No. ICP's latest parametric monitoring and alternate test method 
proposals are not acceptable. EPA requests that within 30 days of 
receipt of the letter, ICP submit revised proposals for approval that 
incorporate the changes agreed upon during a conference call and that 
are consistent with the recommendations noted in the letter.
Abstract for [M030035]
    Q: Will EPA grant an extension to achieve compliance with the MACT 
I standards at Port Townsend facility subject to Pulp and Paper MACT?
    A: No. The facility's request does not relate to the installation 
of controls. Therefore, the request does not meet the criteria for the 
granting of this extension. Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i)(12)(iii), EPA 
intends to deny the request. The facility has the opportunity to 
present in writing, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the letter, 
additional information to EPA before the request is formally denied.
Abstract for [M030036]
    Q1: For sources with gasoline throughput and/or hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) emissions below specific applicability thresholds as 
of the initial compliance dates, does the source calculate throughput 
and/or actual annual HAPs emissions on a 12-month rolling average or 
once per calendar year basis to determine if the thresholds in 40 CFR 
part 63, subparts Y and CC are subsequently exceeded?
    A1: Region 10 interprets the rules to require both ARCO Cherry 
Point Refinery (ARCO) and the Tosco Ferndale Refinery (Tosco) to 
calculate gasoline throughput and annual HAPs emissions only once each 
year on September 30 for the purpose of determining if the applicable 
thresholds are exceeded.
    Q2: If annual gasoline throughput exceeds 10 mega barrels, and/or 
actual annual HAPs emissions are greater than 10 or 25 TPY, what is the 
prescribed schedule to achieve compliance with the applicable 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and/or MACT emission 
standard in 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y?
    A2: In the event annual gasoline throughput exceeds 10 mega 
barrels, and/or actual annual HAPs emissions increase beyond 10 or 25 
TPY, the affected source is required to achieve compliance with the 
applicable RACT and/or MACT emission standard within three years of 
such exceedance.
    Q3: Does the extraordinary nature of the Olympic Pipeline accident 
warrant providing regulatory relief to the petroleum refineries?
    A3: No. Region 10 is not aware of any provision within section 112 
of the CAA to grant regulatory relief to either petroleum refinery due 
to the Olympic Pipeline accident.
Abstract for [M030037]
    Q: Will EPA approve a site-specific test plan for a facility 
subject to the Primary Aluminum MACT?
    A: Yes. EPA approves with conditions a test plan which specifies 
sampling and analytical procedures to measure emissions from five 
center-worked prebake two (CWPB2) potlines and an anode bake furnace, 
and the hydrogen flouride continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) 
monitoring method.
Abstract for [M030038]
    Q: Will EPA approve a site-specific test plan under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LL to measure emissions from three side-worked prebaked (SWPB) 
potlines and an anode baking furnace?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that the test plan specifying sampling 
and analytical procedures to measure emissions from the three SWPB 
potlines and the anode baking furnace is acceptable.
Abstract for [M030039]
    Q: For 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, will EPA approve an extension to 
comply with the pulp process condensate requirements which the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has already approved? The 
extension applies both for adding a steam stripper to control 
condensates or in the alternative to allow the facility to resolve 
issues if it decides to use a ``hard-piping option'' to comply.
    A: In the event EPA amends the Pulp & Paper MACT to withdraw 
certain control requirements for biological treatment systems [40 CFR 
63.453(j)(2)(ii)(B)] such that the facility elects then not to install 
a steam stripper, a one-year compliance extension may not be warranted. 
To accommodate such an event, EPA recommends that the state agency 
modify the approved compliance extension so that it expires within 30 
days of the effective date of the rule amendment. As for Pope & Talbot, 
Incorporated's (P&T's) request for an extension to comply with the 
hard-piping option, EPA finds no reason to grant such an extension.
Abstract for [M030040]
    Q: Which condensates at Longview are regulated evaporator system 
condensates under the Pulp and Paper MACT?
    A: Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.446(b)(3), the following condensates are 
regulated evaporator system condensates: (a) Condensates from vapors 
from the feed effect(s); (b) condensates from effects that have a 
higher vacuum than the feed effect(s); and (c) condensates from the 
surface condenser and vacuum system(s). These condensates contain a 
majority of hazardous air pollutants within the evaporator system.
Abstract for [M030041]
    Q1: Will EPA grant a one-year extension to comply with the Pulp and 
Paper MACT for the Longview Fibre facility?
    A1: Yes. With certain conditions, EPA grants the extension to 
comply with 40 CFR 63.443 in order to install a low volume, high 
concentration system.
    Q2: Will EPA grant a one-year extension to conduct performance 
testing on the facility's dedicated control device?
    A2: No. EPA intends to deny the request because it is not related 
to the installation of pollution controls, which is a required 
condition for an extension under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A). However, 
Longview Fibre has 15 calendar days upon receipt of the letter to 
provide additional information to EPA before the request is formally 
denied.
Abstract for [M030042]
    Q: Will EPA grant a one-year extension to conduct performance 
testing on the dedicated control device at Longview Fibre's facility?
    A: No. Based on the reason outlined in the August 31, 2000 letter, 
and based on the fact that EPA received no

[[Page 7931]]

additional information relating to this request, EPA denies the 
request.
Abstract for [M030043]
    Q: May Weyerhaeuser receive a one-year extension to comply with the 
condensate collection standards, and with the bleaching system 
standards at its Longview (WA) facility?
    A: EPA intends to deny Weyerhaeuser's request for an extension for 
the condensate collection system because the Pulp and Paper MACT 
provides several options to compensate for the variability of methanol 
content in the condensate stream which the company has concerns about. 
A source has 15 calender days upon receipt of the letter to provide 
additional information to EPA before the request is formally denied. 
For its bleaching system, EPA grants a conditional approval for an 
extension as the company states that the installation of new washers 
would only be necessary should other options fail to bring the mill 
into compliance with the MACT standards.
Abstract for [M030044]
    Q: Will EPA extend the compliance date for a paste production plant 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL?
    A: No. Given that the facility has successfully demonstrated 
compliance with the polycyclic organic matter emission standard, EPA 
finds no reason to extend the compliance date.
Abstract for [M030045]
    Q: Will EPA extend the compliance date for a paste production plant 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL?
    A: No. EPA has found that additional time is not necessary for 
installation of controls in order to comply with the applicable 
polycyclic organic matter emission standard. EPA received no additional 
information or arguments in support of the request within 15 calendar 
days of receipt of the denial notice (refer to determination M030044 on 
this ADI update). EPA is hereby formally denying the compliance 
extension request.
Abstract for [M030046]
    Q1: Are the performance test results for Tank 5 and Tank 6 
acceptable to determine initial compliance with MACT subpart N?
    A1: Yes. EPA accepts the performance test results despite the 
sampling deviations because of the large margin of compliance. However, 
the company is required to request EPA approval prior to conducting 
additional performance testing utilizing the deviations.
    Q2: May a company monitor continuous compliance with the 0.015mg/
dscm total chromium emission standard by conducting a week-long test 
three times per year?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve the proposed monitoring plan because 
it does not adequately determine continuous compliance.
    Q3: May the company receive a performance test waiver for Tank 4 
and Tank 26 based partly upon the performance test results for Tank 5 
and Tank 6, and the implementation of the proposed monitoring plan?
    A3: No. EPA denies the request because the operating conditions for 
Tank 4 and Tank 26 are different from those for Tank 5 and Tank 6. In 
addition, EPA denies the proposed monitoring plan.
Abstract for [M030047]
    Q: Will EPA grant a performance test waiver for the hard chromium 
electroplating operation subject to MACT Subpart N?
    A: Yes. EPA grants the facility a waiver from the performance 
testing requirements of 40 CFR 63.344 because the facility satisfies 
the conditions established in EPA's source test waiver policy issued on 
January 16, 1998, for very small hard chromium electroplaters.
Abstract for [M030048]
    Q: Will EPA require a facility to conduct another performance test 
for the hard chromium electroplating operation while operating a 12,000 
amperage rectifier given that an initial performance test was conducted 
while operating a 6,000 amperage rectifier?
    A: Yes. Given the unknown compliance status of the operation while 
utilizing the 12,000 amperage rectifier, Region 10, utilizing the 
Administrator's authority under section 114(a) of the CAA, requires the 
facility to conduct another performance test.
Abstract for [M030049]
    Q1: Will EPA approve a compliance extension request under Part 63, 
Subpart LL for a primary aluminum facility in Goldendale, Washington?
    A1: Because the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) has the 
interim authority to grant compliance extensions, EPA defers to WDOE to 
process the request.
    Q2: Will EPA approve the use of a high efficiency air filtration 
(HEAF) scrubber system to control polycyclic organic matter emissions 
(POM) for the paste production plant?
    A2: No. EPA cannot determine whether the HEAF scrubber system is an 
acceptable alternative to the dry coke scrubber before receiving 
information demonstrating that the HEAF scrubber system achieves 
emissions less than 0.011 pounds POM per ton paste produced.
Abstract for [M030050]
    Q1: Will EPA approve the use of an high efficiency air filtration 
(HEAF) scrubber system to control polycyclic organic matter emissions 
for the paste production plant?
    A1: Yes. Based upon the September 8-10, 1999, emissions data and 
EPA's inspection, EPA has concluded that the HEAF system can achieve 
the applicable emission rate. Therefore, EPA approves the use of the 
HEAF system as an alternative control device.
    Q2: Will EPA approve a plan to monitor the emission control device?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring plan because it satisfies the 
requirements and intent of 40 CFR 63.848(f).
Abstract for [M030051]
    Q: Under part 63, subpart MM, may a company with a smelt dissolving 
tank that is equipped with a dynamic scrubber conduct monitoring of 
amperage in lieu of pressure drop across the control device?
    A: Yes. Pressure drop is not the best indicator of control device 
performance for low-energy entrainment scrubbers. Measuring the 
scrubbing liquid flow rate and amperage, since fan speed does not vary 
for the fans used in this application, should be sufficient for 
demonstrating continuous compliance.
Abstract for [M030052]
    Q: Will EPA approve a standard for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 
metal emissions for a mineral wool production facility in lieu of the 
particulate matter (PM) emission standard in 40 CFR 63.1178?
    A: No. The PM surrogate is used because sufficient industry data is 
not available to establish a metals emissions limit and because 
reliable monitoring for some HAP metals is not currently available.
Abstract for [M030053]
    Q: May a facility with a recovery furnace that is equipped with an 
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) monitor precipitator power level as an 
alternative to the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required 
by 40 CFR 63.864(a)?
    A: Because the existing stack configuration is not conducive to a 
COMS application and would probably not be conducive to applying a

[[Page 7932]]

particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system, EPA is 
willing to consider an alternative monitoring approach based on ESP 
power values and device design, and requests a monitoring plan to 
support this proposal.
Abstract for [M030054]
    Q: Will EPA allow an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for the 
continuous opacity monitoring (COM) requirements set in MACT subpart 
UUU?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP for opacity readings from the fluid 
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator because opacity 
measurements cannot be accurately read by a COM due to the presence of 
condensed water in the wet scrubber stack. The alternative is the same 
plan already approved for the unit under a preexisting permit condition 
as part of an alternative NSPS monitoring plan, and the MACT and NSPS 
limits for particulate matter are the same emission limits.
Abstract for [M030055]
    Q: Will EPA allow monitoring amperage in lieu of pressure drop 
across the control device of a smelt dissolving tank equipped with a 
dynamic scrubber?
    A: Yes. Pressure drop is not the best indicator of control device 
performance for low-energy entrainment scrubbers. Measuring the 
scrubbing liquid flow rate and amperage, since fan speed does not vary 
for the fans used in this application, should be sufficient for 
demonstrating continuous compliance.
Abstract for [M030056]
    Q: Will EPA approve a standard for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 
metal emissions in lieu of the PM emission standard in 40 CFR 63.1178 
for a mineral wool production facility (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD)?
    A: No. The PM surrogate is used because sufficient industry data is 
not available to establish a metals emissions limit and because 
reliable monitoring for some HAPs metals is not currently available.
Abstract for [M030057]
    Q: A facility with a recovery furnace equipped with an 
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) proposes monitoring precipitator power 
level as an alternative to the continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) required by 40 CFR 63.864(a). Is this acceptable?
    A: Because the existing stack configuration is not conducive to 
COMS application and would probably not be conducive to applying a 
particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system, EPA is 
willing to consider an alternative monitoring approach based on ESP 
power values and device design. A monitoring plan to support this 
proposal is requested.
Abstract for [M030058]
    Q1: If gasoline loading racks for a bulk gasoline terminal located 
at a petroleum refinery subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, load 
Isomerate, a gasoline blending stock, into cargo tank trucks, is the 
owner or operator of the racks and terminal required to continuously 
demonstrate compliance with the hazardous air pollutant vapor 
processing unit's emission standard of 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, as 
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC?
    A1: Yes. The Isomerate blending stock produced at the refinery 
satisfies the definition of ``gasoline'' in 40 CFR 63.641.
    Q2: For the purpose of implementing NESHAP part 63 regulations, is 
the definition of ``gasoline'' in 40 CFR part 80, applicable under 40 
CFR part 63?
    A2: No. The definition of ``gasoline'' in 40 CFR part 80 was 
published to enable implementation of a section of the CAA other than 
section 112 and the part 80 definition is not applicable for the 
purpose of implementing NESHAP part 63.
Abstract for [M030059]
    Q. A facility wishes to take restrictions on its hazardous air 
pollutant potential to emit after January 20, 2003, the compliance date 
for the amino/phenolic resins MACT standard (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
OOO). Does it remain subject to the MACT standard and the Title V 
operating permit program as a major source?
    A. Yes. Under EPA's May 16, 1995 policy ``Potential to Emit for 
MACT standards--Guidance on Timing Issues,'' if a facility is a major 
HAP source on the compliance date for that standard and it meets the 
applicability criteria for the standard, it remains permanently subject 
to that standard as a major source. It follows that it remains subject 
to the Title V operating permit program.
Abstract for [M030060]
    Q: Is the B & B Metals Processing Company facility in Newton, 
Wisconsin, subject to the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRR?
    A: Yes. The facility melts and alloys aluminum scrap in a furnace 
operation.
Abstract for [M030061]
    Q1: May the Lubrizol hazardous waste incinerator in Painesville, 
Ohio (Lubrizol), subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, combine the 
total and pumpable waste feed rates to the primary and secondary 
combustion chambers, in lieu of establishing maximum total and pumpable 
feed rate limits to each chamber?
    A1: Yes, provided that Lubrizol demonstrates compliance with 
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) and dioxin/furan standards 
with maximum feed rates during the comprehensive performance test 
(CPT).
    Q2: May Lubrizol establish minimum and maximum pressure drops 
across its bag house and monitor that pressure drop? The U.S. EPA has 
withdrawn the requirement to do this across each cell of a bag house.
    A2: Yes. Until the U.S. EPA promulgates monitoring requirements for 
baghouses, the monitoring requirements for particulate matter control 
devices other than wet scrubbers apply.
    Q3: To ensure that the concentration of suspended particles in the 
scrubber liquid does not exceed the concentration during the CPT, may 
Lubrizol elect to establish a minimum blowdown rate only, if 40 CFR 
63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B)(1) also requires sources to either establish a 
minimum scrubber tank volume or liquid level if electing this option in 
lieu of a scrubber liquid solids concentration limit?
    A3: Yes. Scrubber liquid can exit the scrubber only through a fixed 
overflow line. A minimum blowdown rate ensures that the scrubber liquid 
level remains within a few inches of the overflow line's height. If 
blowdown falls below the minimum rate, an automatic waste feed cutoff 
system engages.
    Q4: For Lubrizol, will the EPA waive the requirement to establish a 
minimum pressure for the liquid feed to the wet scrubber?
    A4: Yes. Lubrizol's wet scrubber uses an orifice plate, rather than 
spray nozzles, to distribute the scrubber liquid. The EPA can waive the 
liquid feed pressure requirement for a wet scrubber that does not rely 
upon atomization to maintain removal efficiency.
    Q5: For Lubrizol, will the EPA waive the requirement to monitor the 
concentration of regulated pollutants in natural gas, combustion air, 
and feed streams from vapor recovery systems, fed to the incinerator?
    A5: Yes. To qualify for a waiver, the regulation requires that 
Lubrizol document the expected levels of

[[Page 7933]]

regulated pollutants in the feed stream and account for them in 
documenting compliance with feed rate limits. Lubrizol uses natural gas 
only during startup, uses only ambient air for combustion, and has no 
feed streams from vapor recovery.
    Q6: May Lubrizol use its methodology to extrapolate feed rate 
limits for semi-volatile metals (SVM) and low volatile metals (LVM)? 
Lubrizol's methodology uses the removal efficiency demonstrated during 
the CPT, the volumetric flow rate at the exhaust stack, an equation to 
calculate the maximum emission rate at 75 percent of the SVM and LVM 
limits, and an equation to calculate the allowable SVM and LVM feed 
rate limits.
    A6: Yes. Lubrizol has documented the historical range of metal feed 
rates for each feed stream. In addition, Lubrizol has demonstrated that 
the metal concentrations in spiked feed streams are greater than 
detection limits, and that the spike feed rates will result in exhaust 
concentrations that are greater than reference method detection limits.
    Q7: Will EPA approve a request to waive the requirement to conduct 
a mercury performance test?
    A7: Yes, based on the information provided by the source, EPA can 
reasonably believe that Lubrizol can continuously demonstrate 
compliance with the mercury emission standard.
Abstract for [M030062]
    Q1: In order to verify proper operation of its electrostatic 
precipitators, may Von Roll America use the electrostatic 
precipitator's (ESP) automated voltage/current controllers (``AVC'') 
and establish a minimum total power limit and be in compliance with 
part 63, subpart EEE?
    A1: Yes. EPA concludes that the use of the AVC and a minimum total 
power operating parameter limit are appropriate monitoring requirements 
to demonstrate proper operation of the ESP. At the time of this 
approval, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE had no specific required 
operating parameter limits (OPLs).
    Q2: Do the pressurized shrouds and dual seals on the inlet and 
outlet ends of a rotary kiln and OPLs control combustion system leaks 
in a manner that is equivalent to maintaining the pressure in the 
maximum combustion zone below the ambient pressure during pressure 
spikes? May Von Roll establish three operating parameter limits that 
will engage the automatic waste feed cut-off system when exceeded?
    A2: EPA concludes that the pressurized shrouds, dual seals and OPLs 
control combustion system leaks in a manner that is equivalent to 
maintaining the maximum pressure in the combustion zone below the 
ambient pressure during pressure spikes. EPA concludes that the 
proposed OPLs address situations when a pressure spike may exceed the 
shrouds' ability to prevent combustion leaks, and Von Roll may 
establish the OPLs that the company proposed.
Abstract for [Z030002]
    Q: Will EPA approve the construction and waive emission tests of 
two incinerators subject to Mercury NESHAP?
    A: Yes. Since Phillips estimates that in an anticipated worst case 
scenario, mercury emissions from the two proposed incinerators would be 
less than one tenth of the emission standard, EPA approves the 
construction and waives emission tests of the proposed incinerators 
pursuant to 40 CFR 61.08(b) and 61.13(i)(1).
Abstract for [Z030003]
    Q: Are the electric toilets at BP's Northstar Development Project 
subject to NSPS subpart O and NESHAP subpart E?
    A: No. These units are not subject to NSPS subpart O and NESHAP 
subpart E based on the information provided by BP that these units do 
not engage in such activities as stated in 40 CFR 60.150 and 61.50.
Abstract for [Z030004]
    Q1: Tosco combines affected process wastewater streams for 
centralized treatment. Is the waste stream flowing to the Roughing 
Filter with less than 10 ppm benzene exempt from control requirements 
per NESHAP subpart FF?
    A1: No. Based on a detailed review of the regulations and 
supporting discussion in the 1990 preamble to 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
FF, the exemption of 40 CFR 61.342(c)(2) does not apply because the 
facility uses a centralized wastewater treatment system that treats 
aggregate waste streams, some of which may have benzene concentrations 
greater than 10 ppm. The control requirements do not allow for avoiding 
control requirements through intentional or unintentional dilution of 
waste streams. Thus, waste management units, including the Roughing 
Filter, are subject to control requirements of 40 CFR 61.348(b).
    Q2: Does the exemption of 40 CFR 61.348(b)(2)(ii)(B) apply to 
Tosco's Roughing Filter?
    A2: No. The Roughing Filter is not an enhanced biodegradation unit 
as defined NESHAP subpart FF.
    Q3: What procedures apply if Tosco wanted to seek approval for an 
alternative means of emission limitation for its Roughing Filter 
system?
    A3: EPA Region 10 does not have the authority to grant Tosco an 
alternative means of emission limitation. The Assistant Administrator 
of the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) along with the Director of the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) possess such 
authority, and the determination indicates how Tosco should follow up 
on this matter if it remains interested in this option.
Abstract for [0300040]
    Q: May a facility derate a boiler whose burner has been replaced 
with a new natural gas burner such that the Btu/hr?
    A: Yes. The facility is eligible to derate the boiler's heat input 
capacity. A performance test shall be conducted to determine the 
derated value and a test plan submitted to EPA for approval.
Abstract for [0300047]
    Q1: May an opacity monitoring plan be amended to reflect the unique 
atmospheric and physical conditions for a boiler subject to NSPS 
subpart D?
    A1: Yes. EPA will amend the proposed monitoring plan such that the 
facility may attempt to conduct at least one observation each day of 
the month to satisfy the monthly opacity monitoring requirement.
    Q2: Will EPA allow the facility to correlate scrubber operating 
parameters to particulate matter emissions rather than opacity?
    A2: No. Opacity monitoring is required to indicate a boiler's 
compliance status with the 20 percent opacity standard. Therefore, it 
is appropriate to correlate scrubber operating parameters to Reference 
Method 9 opacity observations.
Abstract for [0300048]
    Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule for sulfur 
and nitrogen for turbines subject to NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the customized fuel monitoring for the 
turbines when using natural gas.
Abstract for [0300049]
    Q: Is a boiler whose heat input capacity is less than 10 MMBtu per 
hour subject to NSPS subpart Dc?
    A: No. A boiler whose heat input capacity is less than 10 MMBtu per 
hour is not subject to NSPS subpart Dc.
Abstract for [0300050]
    Q: Will EPA waive the requirement to conduct performance testing of 
the

[[Page 7934]]

refinery fuel gas system for designated heaters?
    A: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement to conduct performance 
testing pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) based on the continuous emission 
monitoring results that indicate daily hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) concentrations consistently are well below the 
emission standard and on the understanding that the modifications to 
the Kenai Refinery will not impact the source's ability to maintain the 
refinery fuel gas system's standard of environmental performance.
Abstract for [0300051]
    Q: Will EPA approve an amended custom fuel monitoring schedule 
incorporating an annual reporting frequency under NSPS subpart GG for 
the turbines at Kuparuk Central Production Facility-1 (CPF-1)?
    A: Yes. Given documented compliance history and consistent with 
reporting frequencies for other affected facilities at Kuparuk, EPA 
approves the request for an annual reporting frequency.
Abstract for [0300052]
    Q: Will EPA accept plans for retrofitting a buffer gas system and 
replacing degassing tanks for bringing compressor seal systems into 
compliance with NSPS subpart KKK compressor requirements?
    A: Yes. The proposed changes are acceptable.
Abstract for [0300053]
    Q: May a facility test one of the turbines in each category to 
demonstrate compliance with the nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
emissions standard of 40 CFR 60.332 and waive the performance test for 
the other identical turbines?
    A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver contingent upon forthcoming 
performance test results clearly demonstrating compliance with the 
NOX emissions standard.
Abstract for [0300054]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring plan for a 
boiler subject to NSPS subpart D?
    A: Yes. EPA approves of the alternative opacity monitoring plan. 
Initial Reference Method 9 opacity observations shall be conducted 
within six months of the date of this letter and the records shall be 
maintained on-site for a period of five years.
Abstract for [0300055]
    Q: Will EPA approve assignment of a dry molecular weight value of 
30.0, in lieu of actual measurements, to flue gas from dryers at hot 
mix asphalt plants under 40 CFR part 60, subpart I?
    A: Yes. As demonstrated through source tester experience at fossil 
fuel-fired combustion sources, utilizing an approximate value for dry 
gas molecular weight is sufficient to determine an acceptable sample 
nozzle diameter and isokinetic sampling rate.
Abstract for [0300056]
    Q: Will EPA approve the use of the manufacturer's emissions tests 
to satisfy the subpart GG performance test requirements and waive the 
requirement to separately test the turbine at the Barrow Utilities and 
Electric Cooperative, Incorporated, power plant?
    A: No. EPA denies this request because the conditions at the 
testing location are not identical to those at the operating site.
Abstract for [0300057]
    Q1: What is the ``permanent storage capacity'' of a grain handling 
and storage facility?
    A1: Based on the definition in NSPS subpart DD, the permanent 
storage capacity must include the silos and bins used to store grain 
regardless of designation by the facility.
    Q2: Should the permanent storage capacity take into consideration 
the ``pack factor,'' as determined by the Department of Agriculture?
    A2: No. Permanent storage capacity should not take into 
consideration the ``pack factor.'' The permanent storage capacity at 
the facility in question falls below the 2.5 million bushel threshold; 
thus, the facility is not a grain terminal elevator as defined in NSPS 
subpart DD.
    Q3: If the facility is determined to be subject to subpart DD, 
should the facility be subject to Title V and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) requirements as a result of fugitive emissions?
    A3: If a facility would be subject to an NSPS such as NSPS subpart 
DD based on the size and type of the facility, but is not subject to 
the NSPS solely based on the date of construction, then the Title V and 
PSD definitions of ``major source'' (or ``major stationary source'') 
require that fugitive emissions be considered in determining if the 
emissions from the facility exceed the major source threshold for 
purposes of those permit programs. Because the facility in question 
does not meet the definition of a grain terminal elevator in NSPS 
subpart DD, its fugitive emissions should not be included in 
determining PSD applicability and Title V permitting.
Abstract for [0300058]
    Q: EPA has approved Ponderay Newsprint Company's (PNC's) predictive 
emissions monitoring system (PEMS) as an alternative monitoring method 
for the NSPS subpart Db propane boiler. Will EPA amend some of the 
approval conditions to address PNC's concerns regarding PEMS downtime 
and the RATA test schedule?
    A: Yes. EPA has amended the alternative emissions monitoring 
approval to allow for PEMS downtime due to system breakdown and repair, 
and to allow for some flexibility in conducting an annual RATA.
Abstract for [0300059]
    Q: For part 60, subpart GG, will EPA approve a request to update an 
existing custom fuel monitoring schedule (CFMS) by incorporating a 
portable Solar Saturn T-1300 turbine into the CFMS?
    A: Yes. EPA will incorporate a portable Solar Saturn T-1300 turbine 
into the CFMS.
Abstract for [0300060]
    Q: Will EPA approve a custom monitoring and reporting schedule 
under NSPS Subpart Dc for the boiler at Providence Alaska Medical 
Center?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a monthly fuel usage monitoring schedule while 
firing pipeline quality natural gas. However, EPA denies the request 
for a custom monitoring and reporting schedule while firing distillate 
oil because Providence has not yet demonstrated compliance with the 0.5 
weight-percent fuel oil sulfur limit.
Abstract for [0300061]
    Q: For NSPS subpart GGG Federal Plan Requirements, does Region 10 
approve of a test plan for the City of Spokane's Northside Landfill 
that incorporates alternative sampling and testing procedures already 
approved by the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards (OAQPS)?
    A: While the alternative procedures have already been approved, EPA 
Region 10 determines that the test plan is incomplete, and the facility 
must amend and resubmit the plan to include sufficient information on 
specific, enumerated topics to assure that testing is conducted 
properly in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Abstract for [0300062]
    Q: May the requirements for compliance with each aspect of NSPS 
subpart WWW be avoided (and left out of a Title V permit) for the 
landfill if a landfill collects its landfill gas and sends it to a 
separate facility located on leased landfill property for combustion 
and generation of electricity?

[[Page 7935]]

    A: No. The Title V permit must incorporate all aspects of NSPS 
subpart WWW and require the owner and operator of the affected facility 
to certify compliance with its requirements. The other entity could 
also be held responsible for those aspects of compliance with NSPS 
subpart WWW. However, the owner of a regulated facility cannot contract 
away its liability nor is it relieved of the compliance requirements 
simply because it has entered into a contract with another entity to 
perform the regulated activities.
Abstract for [0300063]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative recordkeeping schedule for 
burners subject to NSPS subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request to record fuel usage quarterly 
because the burners combust only natural gas fuels and NSPS subpart Dc 
contains no applicable emission limitation for natural gas combustion.
Abstract for [0300064]
    Q1: May BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) use a custom fuel 
monitoring schedule for certain natural gas-fired turbines?
    A1: Yes. BPXA may monitor the sulfur content of natural gas once 
per month rather than once per day because the existing analytical data 
show that the sulfur content of the gas is consistently well below the 
0.8 percent by weight limit.
    Q2: May BPXA use ``length-of-stain'' detector tube techniques as 
prescribed by the American Society for Testing and Materials and the 
Gas Processors Association to measure the sulfur content of natural 
gas?
    A2: Yes. Given that the sulfur content of the natural gas is well 
below the standard, these methods are sufficiently accurate to make a 
compliance determination.
    Q3: May BPXA get a waiver of nitrogen monitoring during performance 
testing and during periodic monitoring?
    A3: Yes. Nitrogen monitoring can be waived for pipeline quality 
natural gas since there is no fuel-bound nitrogen.
Abstract for [0300065]
    Q: Are the electric toilets at British Petroleum Exploration (BP) 
Northstar Development Project subject to NSPS subpart O and NESHAP 
subpart E?
    A: No. These units are not subject to NSPS subpart O and NESHAP 
subpart E based on the information provided by BP that these units do 
not engage in such activities as stated in 40 CFR 60.150 and 61.50.
Abstract for [0300066]
    Q: A company with two 55 MMBtu/hr boilers intends to modify the 
condensate return system such that high temperature feed water is 
pumped to the boilers at a much higher pressure. Will such a 
modification, which will increase the steam generating capacity of the 
boilers, trigger NSPS Subpart Dc applicability?
    A: No. Based on the facts presented, the requirements of NSPS 
subpart Dc will not apply to either boiler upon completion of the 
proposed project because the project does not constitute a modification 
under 40 CFR 60.14(a) (i.e., there is no indication that emissions will 
increase) and does not constitute a reconstruction project under 40 CFR 
60.15(b) (i.e., the project budget is only about 10 percent of 
replacement cost).
Abstract for [0300067]
    Q1: Will EPA approve a request to waive the requirement to monitor 
nitrogen content and to monitor sulfur content of pipeline quality 
natural gas on a semiannual schedule under NSPS Subpart GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA will waive nitrogen monitoring for pipeline quality 
natural gas, as there is no fuel-bound nitrogen. Fuel gas sulfur 
monitoring shall be conducted semiannually with hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) concentration less than 2,000 ppmw and daily with 
H2S concentration greater than 2,000 ppmw.
    Q2: Will EPA approve an alternative method for sulfur content 
analysis of the natural gas fuel for the Unocal gas turbines?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves Unocal's use of an alternate analytical 
method using the length-of-stain tube test, provided that the sulfur 
content of the gaseous fuel is well below the 2,000 ppmw threshold.
Abstract for [0300068]
    Q: A company plans to burn fuel oil infrequently in an NSPS subpart 
Db boiler which is equipped to burn natural gas as its primary fuel. 
Will EPA approve an alternative to the use of a continuous opacity 
monitoring system?
    A: No. EPA denies the request because the boiler's annual capacity 
factor for No. 2 distillate fuel oil is not limited to 10 percent or 
less.
Abstract for [0300069]
    Q: Will EPA approve Pacific Gas and Electric Gas Transmission's 
request to revise the May 8, 1996, custom fuel monitoring schedule 
(CFMS) for 12 compressor stations subject to NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the revision to the CFMS to reflect the use of 
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Reference Methods 
ASTM D 3031-82 and ASTM D 4084-94.
Abstract for [0300070]
    Q: Under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, may a company conduct 
quarterly sampling of Light Straight Run (LSR) fuel to determine its 
sulfur and nitrogen content?
    A: Yes. The historical sampling data indicates that the sulfur and 
nitrogen concentrations of the LSR fuel are consistently and 
significantly less than allowable level. Therefore, less frequent 
sampling of the fuel is appropriate.
Abstract for [0300071]
    Q: Will EPA approve an extension of the previously approved waiver 
of the nitrogen content testing requirement, an alternate monitoring 
plan and an alternate test method to be applicable to other affected 
stationary gas turbines under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A: Yes, the previous approvals dated May 4, 1998, and June 8, 1999, 
are also applicable to the three other turbines located at Barrow, 
Alaska.
Abstract for [0300072]
    Q1: Will EPA approve the Port Townsend Paper Company's (PTPC'S) 
request to maintain fuel receipts of reprocessed fuel oil as a means of 
demonstrating compliance with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
emission limit for an NSPS subpart Db boiler?
    A1: No. EPA denies this request for the following reasons: (1) The 
reprocessed fuel oil does not meet the definition of distillate oil as 
defined in 40 CFR 60.41b; and (2) PTPC recently received a Notice of 
Violation from the WDOE for burning fuel in the boiler that contained 
more than 0.5 weight-percent sulfur.
    Q2: Will EPA approve an alternate SO2 monitoring plan 
for an NSPS subpart D boiler?
    A2: Because EPA has not promulgated a fuel sampling method under 
60.45(d) that applies to subpart D boilers, EPA cannot approve an 
alternative SO2 monitoring plan under NSPS. Instead, EPA 
defers to the Title V permitting process to establish a monitoring plan 
for demonstrating compliance.
    Q3: Will EPA approve an alternate opacity monitoring plan for the 
NSPS subpart D boiler?
    A3: PTPC proposed to continuously monitor scrubber liquid and air 
flow rates. EPA denies this proposal because monitoring these 
parameters is

[[Page 7936]]

insufficient to ensure compliance with the standard.
Abstract for [0300073]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternate opacity monitoring plan for an 
NSPS subpart D boiler?
    A: No. EPA cannot approve the proposed opacity monitoring 
alternative for the boiler. Instead, a monitoring plan for similar 
scrubber operating parameters is enclosed for the company to review.
Abstract for [0300074]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for the 
NSPS subpart J monitoring requirements that apply to a John Zinc 
Thermal Oxidizing Flare at a truck loading rack?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP because it is consistent with EPA's 
guidance in ``Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS subpart J Refinery 
Fuel Gas'' and because the monitoring data demonstrate that the 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content will be significantly less 
than the requirement of less than 162 ppmv.
Abstract for [0300075]
    Q: May a source receive a waiver of the initial performance test 
for nitrogen oxides (NO2) for a new gas turbine subject to 
NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. This waiver is granted because the source has demonstrated 
that the turbine would be in compliance with the applicable standard 
for NO2 emissions.
Abstract for [0300076]
    Q: Due to a permanent physical change to a boiler, its heat input 
capacity decreased to less than 100 MMBtu/hr. Will the boiler be 
subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart Db?
    A: No. The boiler is no longer subject to the requirements of NSPS 
subpart Db. However, given that the boiler commenced construction after 
June 9, 1989, the requirements of NSPS subpart Dc apply.
Abstract for [0300077]
    Q: Will EPA approve a request under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG to 
waive the requirement to monitor nitrogen content and to monitor sulfur 
content of pipeline quality natural gas on a semiannual basis?
    A: Yes. EPA will waive nitrogen monitoring for pipeline quality 
natural gas, as there is no fuel-bound nitrogen. Fuel gas sulfur 
monitoring shall be conducted on a semiannual schedule. Specific 
conditions for confirming sulfur variability of the pipeline quality 
natural gas must be followed.
Abstract for [0300078]
    Q1: Will EPA approve the use of an Alternative monitoring plan 
(AMP) as the performance test under NSPS subpart Dc for various 
combustion units firing light straight run (LSR) fuel?
    A1: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), EPA waives the requirement 
for performance testing because the monthly sampling data demonstrate 
the facility's compliance with the applicable standard.
    Q2: Will EPA reconsider and approve the request to reduce the 
hydrogren sulfide (H2S) fuel gas monitoring frequency?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the request for less frequent H2S 
fuel gas sampling based upon historical monitoring data and current 
operating conditions. The approval is contingent upon the 
implementation of a 5-day rolling average action level of 80 ppm for 
each sulfatreat vessel.
Abstract for [0300079]
    Q: Will EPA approve a request for an exemption from performance 
testing requirements for a heater subject to NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. Because the historical data sufficiently demonstrate 
compliance with the standard, EPA waives the requirement to conduct 
performance testing per 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4).
Abstract for [0300080]
    Q: Will EPA approve a NOX PEMS to comply with NSPS 
subpart Db?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the PEMS as an alternative monitoring system 
because the PEMS satisfies the performance specifications prescribed by 
EPA Region 10. As a condition of this approval, the company must comply 
with certain requirements.
Abstract for [0300082]
    Q: Will EPA approve a request to waive the requirement to monitor 
nitrogen content and to monitor sulfur content of pipeline quality 
natural gas on a semiannual basis under NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA will waive nitrogen monitoring for pipeline quality 
natural gas, as there is no fuel-bound nitrogen. Fuel gas sulfur 
monitoring shall be conducted on a semiannual schedule. Specific 
conditions for confirming sulfur variability of the pipeline quality 
natural gas must be followed.
Abstract for [0300083]
    Q1: Will EPA approve the use of a continuous emission monitoring 
system (CEMS) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an alternate 
method for monitoring the ratio of water to fuel for the turbines 
subject to NSPS subpart GG?
    A1: Yes. Because the NOX CEMS is expected to provide 
direct emissions data, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i), EPA approves the 
use of the NOX CEMS as an alternative monitoring system to 
the parametric monitoring system.
    Q2: Will EPA approve a waiver of the requirement to conduct 
performance testing for NOX for the turbines at four load 
levels?
    A2: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement to conduct performance 
testing for NOX for each turbine at four load levels, if a 
CEMS is used to monitor the emissions of NOX, and the 
Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) test results of 40 CFR part 75 are 
used to demonstrate compliance under NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [0300084]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to use 
scrubber parameter monitoring instead of a continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS) for opacity monitoring of the catalyst 
regenerator under NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP with the provision that weekly 
sampling and analysis for weight-percent solids in the scrubber liquid 
shall be added as an additional operating parameter to the AMP.
Abstract for [0300085]
    Q: A company deviated from the testing requirements of EPA 
Reference Method 1 while conducting a performance test of a rotary 
dryer. May the performance test results be used to determine compliance 
with NSPS subpart I?
    A: Yes. Given the minor nature of the deviation and the facility's 
ample margin of compliance, EPA has determined that the conducted 
testing is adequate to determine compliance with the standards. In the 
future, the company shall utilize a 5x5 sampling matrix per the 
requirements of Method 1.
Abstract for [0300086]
    Q: BPXA utilizes dry low nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
technology to control NOX emissions and intends to conduct 
source testing in April 1999 for two turbines at the Badami Project. 
Will EPA waive the initial performance test requirement for the two 
turbines based on these two conditions?
    A: No. These two conditions do not demonstrate each turbine's 
compliance with the NOX and SO2 emissions 
standards of NSPS subpart GG. Performance testing shall be conducted

[[Page 7937]]

within 180 days of initial startup per 40 CFR 60.8(a).
Abstract for [0300087]
    Q: Will EPA approve use of the length-of-stain detector tube test 
to determine sulfur content of natural gas fuel for turbines at the 
Badami Project on the North Slope of Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request because the existing data show 
that the sulfur content of the gas is well below the 8,000 ppmw limit 
and is not expected to vary significantly.
Abstract for [0300088]
    Q: Will EPA grant a source test waiver for one of two identical 
natural gas-fired turbines subject to NSPS subpart GG at the Badami 
Project?
    A: Yes. Testing on one of the two identical turbines can be waived 
if one turbine is tested and the nitrogen oxides concentration in the 
exhaust from the tested unit is less than half of the applicable 
standard.
Abstract for [0300089]
    Q: May BP Exploration (Alaska), Incorporated (BPXA), record fuel 
usage quarterly rather than daily as prescribed in 40 CFR 60.48c(g) for 
two heaters at the Badami Project?
    A: Yes. Because NSPS subpart Dc contains no emission limit for 
steam generating units combusting only natural gas fuels, EPA approves 
BPXA request to record fuel usage quarterly. This approval becomes void 
if the heaters combust a fuel other than natural gas.
Abstract for [0300090]
    Q: May BP Exploration (Alaska), Incorporated (BPXA) record fuel 
usage quarterly rather than daily as prescribed in 40 CFR 60.48c(g) for 
the heater at the Liberty Project?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request provided that only natural gas or 
low sulfur fuel oil are used. This approval is based on the facts that 
subpart Dc establishes no emission limit for natural gas combustion, 
and that BPXA intends to demonstrate compliance with the applicable 
5,000 ppmw sulfur limit by maintaining fuel supplier certifications per 
40 CFR 60.48c(f) while firing diesel fuel.
Abstract for [0300091]
    Q1: Will EPA approve an alternate test method to measure sulfur 
content of gaseous fuels for certain turbines subject to NSPS subpart 
GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternate test method incorporating the 
``length of tube'' methodology to measure hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) provided that the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel 
is well below the applicable limit of 8,000 ppmw.
    Q2: Will EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan (AMP) to measure 
sulfur content of gaseous fuels for turbine GT-2901 at the Milne Point 
C-Pad?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the enclosed AMP which addresses monitoring 
and recordkeeping requirements and provides a schedule for sulfur 
monitoring.
    Q3: Will EPA grant a waiver from the gaseous fuel nitrogen 
monitoring requirement for turbine GT-2901 at the Milne Point C-Pad?
    A3: Yes. Contingent upon the use of pipeline quality natural gas, 
the waiver is granted.
    Q4: Will EPA approve a variance from RM 20 testing requirements for 
the turbines at Milne Point C-Pad and Badami?
    A4: EPA approves the proposed preliminary oxygen (O2) 
traverse procedure which represents a minor deviation from RM 20 given 
the existing test port configuration and the associated cost to add 
another port at Badami. However, stack testing conducted with only one 
point sampling and at only one load level at Milne Point C-Pad 
represents a major deviation from reference test methods, and EPA 
Region 10 has not been delegated the authority to either approve or 
disapprove such major deviations.
Abstract for [0300092]
    Q1: Will EPA approve an alternate test method to measure sulfur 
content of gaseous fuels for the turbines subject to NSPS subpart GG at 
the Liberty Project?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternate test method incorporating 
``length of tube'' methodology to measure hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) provided that the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel 
is well below the applicable limit of 8,000 ppmw.
    Q2: Will EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan (AMP) to measure 
sulfur content of gaseous fuels for the turbines at the Liberty 
Project?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the enclosed AMP which addresses monitoring 
and recordkeeping requirements and provides a schedule for sulfur 
monitoring.
    Q3: Will EPA grant a waiver from gaseous fuel nitrogen monitoring 
requirement for the turbines at the Liberty Project?
    A3: Yes. Contingent upon the use of pipeline quality natural gas, 
the waiver is granted.
Abstract for [0300093]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative test method under NSPS subpart 
GG for a gas turbine?
    A: Yes. EPA approves use of the port location at 54 inches from the 
exhaust exit because it is considered reasonable given the exhaust 
stack configuration, and use of an 8-hole probe in the existing 4 ports 
as long as the multi-hole probe was designed and conforms to the tests 
specified in EPA Guideline Document GD-031.
Abstract for [0300094]
    Q1: May Benton Public Utility District (PUD) use relative accuracy 
test audit (RATA) data for a nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), specified in 40 CFR part 
75, as an alternative for initial compliance testing under NSPS subpart 
GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the request because the measurement 
differences in collecting data at the sample points allowed in the 40 
CFR part 75 CEMS certification procedures for Method 20 sample point 
selection procedures would not be expected to affect the compliance 
status under NSPS subpart GG.
    Q2: May Benton PUD use the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) Reference Method D3246-81 as an alternative to 40 CFR 
60.335(b) and (c) for initial compliance testing for hydrogen sulfide 
(SO2)?
    A2: Yes. The use of ASTM Method D3246-81 is approved for both 40 
CFR 60.8 (performance testing) and 60.13 (monitoring) of the General 
Provisions for sulfur content.
    Q3: May Benton PUD receive a waiver of requirement to monitor 
nitrogen content of natural gas?
    A3: Yes. Nitrogen monitoring shall be waived for natural gas as 
there is no fuel-bound nitrogen.
    Q4: May Benton PUD monitor sulfur content of the gas fuel using an 
analytical method identified under 40 CFR part 75, appendix D?
    A4: Yes. This alternate monitoring method can only be used when 
natural gas is being burned, and it must be in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 75, appendix D, section 2.3.3.1.
    Q5: May Benton PUD monitor sulfur content of the gas fuel on an 
annual schedule?
    A5: Yes. Sulfur monitoring shall be conducted annually for natural 
gas in accordance with 40 CFR part 75, appendix D, Table D-5. A change 
to either supplier or the source of fuel shall be reported to EPA 
within 30 days.

[[Page 7938]]

Abstract for [0300095]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring method under 
NSPS subpart Db for two boilers which burn natural gas as primary fuel 
but will fire distillate oil infrequently?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request because neither boiler may 
approach a fuel oil capacity factor of 10 percent given the permitted 
fuel oil consumption limit. After reviewing Pacific Northwest Sugar 
Company's (PNSC) proposal and the WDOE Order, EPA concludes that an 
alternative based upon EPA Reference Method 9 is acceptable. PNSC may 
institute the opacity monitoring alternative subject to the prescribed 
conditions.
Abstract for [0300096]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 
turbines subject to NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP as attached to EPA's determination.
Abstract for [0300097]
    Q: Are two BPXA natural gas-fired burners to be located inside a 
turbine exhaust stack at its Northstar facility on the North Slope of 
Alaska subject to NSPS subparts Dc and Db?
    A: EPA determines that the supplemental burner with heat input 
capacity of 52.2 MMBtu/hr is subject to NSPS subpart Dc and is also a 
duct burner as defined in 40 CFR 60.41c, and the fresh-air burner with 
heat input capacity of 107.5 MMBtu/hr is subject to NSPS subpart Db and 
is not a duct burner per the definition provided in 40 CFR 60.41b.
Abstract for [0300098]
    Q: A company deviated from the testing requirements of EPA 
Reference Method 1 while conducting a performance test of a rotary 
dryer. May the performance test results be used to determine compliance 
with NSPS subpart I?
    A: Yes. Given the minor nature of the deviation and the facility's 
ample margin of compliance, EPA determines that the conducted testing 
is adequate to determine compliance with the standards. In the future, 
the company shall utilize a five-by-five sampling matrix per the 
requirements of Reference Method 1.
Abstract for [0300101]
    Q1: Will EPA allow a source to conduct the initial nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) performance testing at base load only instead of at 
all four loads under NSPS subpart GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA will allow the testing to be conducted at base load 
only under the following conditions: the turbine burns pipeline quality 
natural gas, the NOX continuous emission montioring system 
(CEMS) provides a continuous record of emissions, and the base load is 
the peak load.
    Q2: Will EPA allow the use of data collected during the 
NOX CEMS Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) as an 
alternative to performance testing based on Reference Method 20?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of data collected using RATA methods 
in place of Reference Method 20 because this alternative approach has 
been approved previously in Region 10 and other EPA Regions, and the 
amount of sampling conducted during a RATA provides enough 
representative emissions data to determine compliance.
Abstract for [0300102]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for natural gas 
fuel use from the daily monitoring required by 40 CFR 60.48c(g) to a 
monthly monitoring schedule?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request for a monthly natural gas 
monitoring schedule because compliance with NSPS subpart Dc can be 
adequately verified by keeping fuel usage records on a monthly basis if 
only natural gas and/or low sulfur oil is burned. The approval is 
conditioned on the source maintaining records that apportion the fuel 
use to the affected NSPS subpart Dc boiler separate from fuel use at 
other, non-subpart Dc boilers at the source.
Abstract for [0300103]
    Q1: Will EPA allow use of a monthly fuel usage monitoring system as 
an alternative to the daily monitoring of fuel usage required under 40 
CFR 60.48c(g), NSPS subpart Dc?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the request for an alternative fuel usage 
monitoring system because compliance can be adequately verified by 
keeping fuel usage records on a monthly basis if only natural gas, 
propane, and/or low sulfur oil are burned.
    Q2: To apportion fuel use for the affected NSPS Subpart Dc boilers, 
will EPA approve of an indirect method of recording fuel consumption 
through the use of burner on-times and vendor-provided maximum propane 
fuel usage rates?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the proposed indirect method of recording 
fuel consumption rates because fuel consumption is not used directly to 
determine compliance with an emission limit.
Abstract for [0300104]
    Q: Should the heat input rate for an NSPS subpart D steam 
generating unit be based on the peak one-hour rate at which it is 
capable of operating, or on a rate that takes into account the test 
period for demonstrating compliance and similar definition language in 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A: The input rate of the steam generating unit should be based on a 
24-hour full load demonstration measuring peak Btu/hour heat input 
after achieving steady state conditions. Maximum heat input capacity is 
``the ability of a steam generating unit to combust a stated maximum 
amount of fuel on a steady state basis, as determined by the physical 
design and characteristics of the steam generating unit.'' The facility 
in question has units that operate at an input rate of 242.55 MMBtu/hr, 
even though the units are capable of reaching a peak one-hour rate in 
excess of 250 MMBtu/hr. Thus, the provisions of 40 CFR 60.40 under NSPS 
subpart D do not apply.
Abstract for [0300105]
    Q1: What is the affected facility for purposes of NSPS subpart GG 
where the source has a package unit that consists of separate gas and 
reactor equipment components?
    A1: The gas turbine affected facility for purposes of NSPS subpart 
GG is the ``Mainline Unit Package,'' which is comprised of a gas 
component that produces the high-energy exhaust gas flow and a reaction 
component that receives the exhaust gas flow and is made up of the 
diffuser/bladed wheel and shaft.
    Q2: If the gas component of the ``Mainline Unit Package'' turbine 
is removed routinely for maintenance and replaced by an identical 
model, does this rotation constitute a modification of the affected 
facility?
    A2: If the rotation of the gas components increases emissions, the 
source must review the replacement to determine if the Mainline Unit 
Package is subject to NSPS subpart GG pursuant to the modification 
provisions. The source also must review the rotation of the gas 
components to determine whether the replacement of a gas component 
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of the ``Mainline Unit 
Package'' which would constitute a ``reconstruction'' under 40 CFR 
60.15.
    Q3: Does the addition of rim cooling to a ``Mainline Unit Package'' 
result in a modification that would make the turbine an affected 
facility under NSPS subpart GG?
    A3: Based on the information presented by the source, the addition 
of

[[Page 7939]]

rim cooling does result in an increase in emissions of air pollutants, 
but this increase occurs as a result of an increase in production rate. 
Under the NSPS modification provisions, increases in production rate 
that increase emissions will trigger applicability only if the 
increased production rate requires a capital expenditure. EPA believes 
that in this case a capital expenditure may have occurred, but the 
source may evaluate and provide further documentation to show that no 
capital expenditure was required.
Abstract for [0300106]
    Q: Will EPA approve a variance to the daily fuel monitoring 
requirement of 40 CFR 60.48c(g) to a monthly monitoring schedule for a 
boiler subject to NSPS subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request for a monthly monitoring schedule 
of fuel usage for the boiler because compliance can be adequately 
verified by keeping fuel usage sulfur oil are burned. The approval is 
conditioned on the source maintaining records that apportion the fuel 
use to the affected subpart Dc boiler separate from fuel use at other, 
non-subpart Dc boilers at the source. The information provided by the 
source indicates that at least one other boiler is at the facility, and 
no regulatory determinations about that boiler were requested or made 
in this determination.
Abstract for [0300107]
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for two 
NSPS subpart Dc boilers so that the recording and maintenance of the 
amount of fuel combusted can be performed on a monthly basis instead of 
daily?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request to reduce fuel monitoring 
frequency from daily to monthly because compliance can be adequately 
verified by keeping fuel usage records on a monthly sulfur oil are 
burned as defined at 40 CFR 60.41c. The approval is conditioned on the 
source maintaining records that apportion the fuel use between the two 
affected subpart Dc boilers.
Abstract for [0300108]
    Q: Will EPA allow a variance to the daily fuel monitoring 
requirement of 40 CFR 60.48c so that the source can record natural gas 
usage for two NSPS subpart Dc boilers on a monthly basis using natural 
gas fuel bills?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative method requested because 
compliance can be adequately verified by keeping fuel usage records on 
a monthly basis if only natural gas and/or low sulfur oil are burned. 
EPA also approves the method proposed by the source to apportion the 
fuel usage between the two boilers.
Abstract for [0300109]
    Q: Will EPA concur in an interpretation that a source can use 
vendor receipts to document the fuel oil combusted in an NSPS subpart 
Db boiler?
    A: Yes. EPA concurs with the monitoring approach because fuel 
receipts from fuel vendors is documentation in compliance with 40 CFR 
60.42b(j), 60.45b(c), (d), and (j), 60.47b(a) and (b), and 60.49b(r).
Abstract for [0300111]
    Q: Will EPA approve a periodic monitoring plan of hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) concentration in fuel gas as an alternative monitoring 
plan (AMP) to the required continuous monitoring system?
    A: Yes. EPA accepts the AMP because it provides adequate assurance 
that the H2S concentration in the fuel gas will be less than 
the NSPS subpart J emission limitation.
Abstract for [0300112]
    Q: Will EPA approve a waiver of the fuel gas nitrogen monitoring of 
stationary gas turbines required by 40 CFR 60.334?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the waiver of natural gas nitrogen monitoring 
since only pipeline-quality natural gas is used, which is virtually 
free of fuel-bound nitrogen. The waiver is subject to specific 
conditions enumerated in EPA's determination letter.
Abstract for [0300113]
    Q: Will EPA accept an alternative monitoring plant to reduce the 
recording of fuel usage in two NSPS subpart Dc steam generating boilers 
from daily to monthly?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request to reduce the recording of fuel 
usage because compliance can be adequately verified by keeping fuel 
usage records on a monthly basis if only natural gas and/or low sulfur 
oil are burned. EPA also provides an acceptable method for apportioning 
the fuel usage between the two affected boilers.
Abstract for [0300114]
    Q1: Will EPA approve keeping records of natural gas fuel usage on a 
monthly basis for NSPS subpart Dc boilers, rather than on a daily basis 
as required by 40 CFR 60.48c(g)?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the request to reduce fuel gas usage 
recordkeeping because compliance can be adequately verified by keeping 
fuel usage records on a monthly basis if only natural gas and/or low 
sulfur oil are burned.
    Q2: Will EPA approve of an apportionment method to estimate the 
amount of natural gas used between boilers where more than one boiler 
is attached to a fuel gas meter?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the request for an apportionment method to 
divide each boiler's design heat input capacity by the total design 
input capacities of all the natural gas-fired combustion units. This 
method is consistent with the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 
60.48c(g) that applies to each separate affected facility (i.e., 
boiler) regulated under NSPS subpart Dc.
Abstract for [0300115]
    Q1: Will EPA accept the waiver of the nitrogen monitoring 
requirement for owners and operators of combustion turbines subject to 
NSPS subpart GG without intermediate bulk storage for fuel?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the waiver because this fuel does not contain 
fuel-bound nitrogen, and any free nitrogen that it may contain does not 
contribute appreciably to the formation of nitrogen oxides emissions.
    Q2: Will EPA approve an alternative custom fuel monitoring plan for 
gas-fired combustion turbines?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the request for an alternative fuel 
monitoring plan because it is consistent with EPA's August 1987 fuel 
monitoring policy which approves the reduction of monitoring from a 
daily to a semiannual basis.
    Q3: Will EPA accept the replacement of the multiple load-testing 
requirements with a single load test while operating the combustion 
turbine at maximum load conditions?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves the waiver from multiple load testing because 
for combustion turbines equipped with nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), the monitors will provide 
credible evidence regarding the unit's compliance status on a 
continuous basis following the initial test.
    Q4: Will EPA accept the waiver of the requirement to report 
NOX performance test results on an ISO-corrected basis?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves the waiver because the level of compliance 
assurance provided in this case is sufficient.
Abstract for [0300116]
    Q: Are kilns heated using indirect fired natural gas burners 
subject to 40 CFR 60.40c (NSPS subpart Dc)?
    A: No. The kilns are not subject to subpart Dc because they do not 
transfer

[[Page 7940]]

heat from the combustion gases to a heat transfer medium across a 
physical barrier as a steam generating unit would.
Abstract for [0300117]
    Q: Does NSPS subpart GG apply to quality control (QC) testing 
operations at Pratt & Whitney's Willgoos facility?
    A: No. The GG8 engines undergoing QC testing are not subject to 
NSPS subpart GG. The determination is based on several unique factors 
cited in the July 25, 2002 letter and is therefore limited to the 
quality control (QC) testing of the GG8 engines at Willgoos.
Abstract for [0300118]
    Q: Will EPA approve recording fuel use on a monthly basis and 
reporting it on an annual basis for a facility with a pipeline natural 
gas-fired auxiliary boiler under NSPS subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. Because none of the emission standards of Subpart Dc apply 
to units fired with natural gas, fuel usage records are kept to verify 
the type of fuel combusted. However, it is necessary to keep separate 
records of the amount of natural gas burned in each such boiler.
Abstract for [0300119]
    Q1: Can a facility with combined cycle turbine units burning only 
pipeline natural gas waive the daily fuel nitrogen content monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.334(b) and 40 CFR 60.335?
    A1: Yes. The daily fuel nitrogen monitoring requirements can be 
waived based on the National Policy, dated August 14, 1987, which 
allows EPA approval of NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules 
on a case-by-case basis, and the knowledge that pipeline quality 
natural gas does not contain fuel-bound nitrogen.
    Q2: Can the facility waive the daily fuel sulfur content monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.334(b) and in lieu thereof use 40 CFR part 
75, appendix D, section 2.3.1.4, ``Documentation that a Fuel is 
Pipeline Natural Gas,'' and (from 40 CFR part 75, appendix D, section 
2.3.1.1) a default SO2 emission rate of 0.0006 lb./MMbtu?
    A2: Yes. Based on National Policy dated August 14, 1987 for 
stationary gas turbines which combust pipeline quality natural gas as 
fuel. However, the facility is required to report excess SO2 
emissions under 40 CFR 60.7(c).
    Q3: Can this facility waive the sulfur oxides (SO2) 
compliance testing requirements of 40 CFR 60.335 and in lieu thereof 
use 40 CFR part 75, appendix D, section 2.3.1.4 ``Documentation that a 
Fuel is Pipeline Natural Gas'' and (from 40 CFR part 75, appendix D, 
section 2.3.1.1) a default SO2 emission rate of 0.0006 lb./
MMbtu?
    A3: Yes, provided the facility successfully documents that they are 
using pipeline natural gas following 40 CFR part 75, appendix D, 
section 2.3.1.4, ``Documentation that a Fuel is Pipeline Natural Gas.''
    Q4: Rather than demonstrating nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
emission limit requirements for the combustion turbines in 
International Standard Organization (ISO) ambient conditions as 
required in 40 CFR 60.335(c)(1), may the facility demonstrate 
compliance with an hourly limit of 3.5 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen?
    A4: Yes. The facility proposes maintaining NOX emission 
rates in ppmvd with a limit of 3.5 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen, which is 
more than an order of magnitude below the NSPS subpart GG standard. EPA 
approves this request since it ensures compliance with the applicable 
standard under all reasonably expected ambient conditions. However, the 
facility must maintain records of ambient temperature, combustor inlet 
pressure and humidity to allow an ISO correction.
    Q5: Can this facility waive the requirement to conduct four load 
Reference Method 20 sampling, and in lieu thereof use NOX 
continuous emission monitoring system Relative Accuracy Test Audit 
(RATA) data for demonstrating compliance with the 3.5 ppmvd limit?
    A5: Yes, because demonstration of initial compliance with the 
hourly limit of 3.5 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen ensures compliance with 
the applicable standard under all reasonably expected ambient 
conditions.
    Q6: Does EPA concur that emissions reporting under 40 CFR 60.334(c) 
is not applicable since the combustion turbines at this facility do not 
utilize water injection to control NOX emissions? Will EPA 
accept excess emissions reporting in accordance with the Plan Approval 
in lieu of reporting under 40 CFR 60.7(c)?
    A6: No. Although EPA agrees the parameters used to determine excess 
NOX emissions in 40 CFR 60.334(c), fuel-bound nitrogen and 
water-to-fuel ratio, are not appropriate in this instance, the facility 
will operate NOX CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 and 
provide reports under 40 CFR 60.7(c).
    Q7: Will EPA allow testing and monitoring for all emissions to be 
conducted in the stack after the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) 
and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems rather than for the 
NSPS Subpart Da duct burners alone as stated in 40 CFR 60.40a(b), since 
there are no acceptable testing locations upstream and downstream of 
the duct burners?
    A7: No. An alternative method is unnecessary since there are 
testing options already provided in the current regulation that allow 
sampling the combined effluent. These options are explained in the 
determination letter.
    Q8: For the duct burners subject to NSPS subpart Da, can this 
facility waive the SO2 compliance testing requirements of 40 
CFR 60.46a and 60.48a and in lieu thereof use 40 CFR part 75, appendix 
D, section 2.3.1.4, ``Documentation that a Fuel is Pipeline Natural 
Gas,'' and (from 40 CFR part 75, appendix D, section 2.3.1.1) a default 
emission rate of 0.0006 lb SO2/MMbtu?
    A8: Yes. EPA approves your request to use 40 CFR part 75, appendix 
D, section 2.3.1.4 and section 2.3.1.1 in lieu of 40 CFR 60.46a and 
60.48a compliance testing to demonstrate compliance with the 40 CFR 
60.43a standard, because SO2 emissions generated by burning 
pipeline natural gas should be at least one order of magnitude below 
the standard in NSPS subpart Da.
    Q9: Will EPA approve use of the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for SO2 emissions in 40 CFR part 75 in lieu of 
the requirements in 40 CFR 60.49a?
    A9: No. The facility must satisfy the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for SO2 emissions in 40 CFR 60.49a.
    Q10: Will EPA approve use of the initial compliance demonstration 
with a NOX limit of 3.5 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen to 
demonstrate compliance with the 1.6 lb./mw-hr standard listed in 40 CFR 
60.44a(d)(1)?
    A10: Yes, because the proposed alternative is more than an order of 
magnitude more stringent than the NSPS subpart GG standard.
    Q11: In the event the Administrator requests demonstration of the 
lb./mw-hr limit at a later date, may the facility use the 40 CFR part 
75 monitoring records to reproduce emission rates?
    A11: Yes, the 40 CFR part 75 monitoring records will be sufficient 
to reproduce NOX emission rates.
    Q12: Can the facility use the NOX reporting requirements 
in their Plan Approval to meet the NOX reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.49a and 60.7(c).
    A12: No. The facility must satisfy the reporting requirements for 
NOX emissions in 40 CFR 60.49a and 60.7(c).

[[Page 7941]]

Abstract for [0300120]
    Q1: Is an internal combustion (IC) engine considered an ``enclosed 
combustor'' as defined in NSPS subpart WWW?
    A1: In the preamble to the 1991 Federal Register proposal of the 
Landfill NSPS/Emissions Guidelines (56 FR 24468, 5/30/91), EPA included 
a listing of enclosed combustion devices, which also included IC 
engines. Therefore, the IC engines at the Ridgewood Power plant located 
at the Central Landfill are considered enclosed combustors.
    Q2: If the IC engines are enclosed combustors subject to NSPS 
subpart WWW, will EPA approve an alternative parameter monitoring plan 
for the engines?
    A2: Yes, EPA will approve the plan, as provided for and enumerated 
in EPA's determination letter.
Abstract for [0300121]
    Q: What constitutes a ``treatment system'' according to NSPS 
subpart WWW, and does the treatment system at Ridgewood Power 
Associates in Johnston, Rhode Island satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 
60.752?
    A: The pretreatment system employed by Ridgewood Power does meet 
EPA's criteria for a treatment system as defined under 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Treatment of the landfill gas in this manner is a 
means of compliance with the gas control requirements of the NSPS. EPA 
Region 1 concurs that the IC engines combusting the treated landfill 
gas are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B).
Abstract for [0300122]
    Q: As an alternative to installing and certifying a COMS, can 
Penreco perform Reference Method 9 for visible emissions observations 
whenever oil is burned in an NSPS subpart Dc boiler?
    A: Yes. Alternative opacity monitoring can be performed in lieu of 
installing and certifying a COMS, however, specific procedures outlined 
in EPA's response must be followed to ensure compliance with this 
approval. The procedures are consistent with those that EPA has 
approved for other NSPS subpart Dc boilers that burn gas as a primary 
fuel and that have an annual capacity factor of 10 percent or less for 
oil when used as a backup fuel.
Abstract for [0300123]
    Q: Is coke oven gas considered equivalent to coal under NSPS 
subpart Db?
    A: Yes. As defined in NSPS subpart Db, coal includes coal-derived 
synthetic fuels. Since coke oven gas is a synthetic fuel derived from 
coal, it is considered equivalent to coal.
Abstract for [0300124]
    Q: When determining whether a piece of equipment is in light liquid 
service or heavy liquid service under NSPS subpart VV, should the vapor 
pressure of water be considered?
    A: No. The vapor pressure of water is not considered. Applicability 
of NSPS subpart VV is based on the content of VOC in the process fluid 
and the volatility of the VOC components.
Abstract for [0300125]
    Q: Is the Janesville Disposal Facility (JDF), which is governed by 
a federal consent decree, and for which applicable or relevant and 
appropriate requirements (ARARs) apply pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1990 
(CERCLA), also subject to the Federal Plan at 40 CFR part 62?
    A: Yes. The municipal solid waste landfill is affected by the EPA's 
Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfills, and the 
Federal Plan promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR part 62, because it is 
adjacent to and part of a facility that is subject to the Federal Plan. 
However, it is not subject to specific provisions of the Federal Plan. 
This is because the ARARs established under CERCLA govern the 
landfill's emissions controls. Moreover, the ARARs for the Superfund 
site do not include administrative requirements such as reporting; 
hence, EPA will not require an initial design capacity report for the 
JDF portion of the landfill.
Abstract for [0300126]
    Q: Does the replacement of an individual coal conveyor constitute 
construction or reconstruction of an affected facility or must one view 
the conveyors collectively as a group when determining if the 
replacement or construction of an individual conveyor constitutes the 
construction or reconstruction of an affected facility?
    A: Each conveyor must be evaluated individually to determine if the 
replacement of a single conveyor creates an affected facility subject 
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y. Based on the wording of the regulation, 
each conveyor is viewed individually. This determination was also based 
on previous determinations concerning the applicability of NSPS subpart 
Y.
Abstract for [0300127]
    Q1: Does the replacement of an individual coal conveyor constitute 
construction or reconstruction of an affected facility or must one view 
the conveyors collectively as a group when determining if the 
replacement or construction of an individual conveyor constitutes the 
construction or reconstruction of an affected facility?
    A1: Each conveyor must be evaluated individually to determine if 
the replacement of a single conveyor creates an affected facility 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y. Based on the wording of the 
regulation, each conveyor is viewed individually. This determination 
confirms an earlier determination (refer to determination 0300126 on 
this ADI update) and was also based on previous determinations 
concerning the applicability of NSPS subpart Y.
    Q2: When evaluating applicability of NSPS subpart Y to coal 
processing and conveying equipment at a coal preparation plant, does 
one include all coal preparation equipment as a whole (system) or does 
one view each piece of processing and conveying equipment as a separate 
affected facility?
    A2: The NSPS General Provisions in subpart A define affected 
facility as any apparatus to which a standard is applicable. In 
general, when EPA seeks to regulate a process as a whole, the 
regulation will refer to a system or facility or will use the term 
``all'' when describing the equipment that is part of the affected 
facility. Because NSPS subpart Y defines coal processing and conveying 
equipment to be any machinery and because EPA did not identify coal 
processing and conveying equipment as a system, the affected facility 
is each individual coal conveyor.

    Dated: January 30, 2004.
Lisa Lund,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-3716 Filed 2-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P