[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41256-41261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15533]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7783-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 
and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or 
operator may request a determination of whether certain intended 
actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or 
modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly 
termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. 
Although the part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) of the Clean and Air Act 
regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may 
request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written 
inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) 
programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to 
use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated 
requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 
63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed 
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written 
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory 
requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These 
inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the 
regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written 
responses to these inquiries are broadly termed regulatory 
interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination 
Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-
issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone 
regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic 
index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda 
pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and 
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, 
citation, control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 33 such documents added to 
the ADI on April 2004. The subject, author, recipient, date and header 
of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a 
brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these 
documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: 
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability.

[[Page 41257]]

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Control                     Category              Subpart                       Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A040001..........................  Asbestos............  M..................  Application of Solvent to Floor
                                                                               Mastic.
A040002..........................  Asbestos............  M..................  Application of Solvent to Floor
                                                                               Mastic.
C040001..........................  CFC.................  F..................  Safe Disposal of Appliances.
M040001..........................  MACT................  T..................  Switching to non-HAP Solvent.
M040002..........................  MACT................  T..................  Modifications to Alt. Monitoring
                                                                               Method.
M040003..........................  MACT................  RRR................  Alt. Monitoring Based on Scrap
                                                                               Inspection Program.
M040004..........................  MACT................  EEE................  Alt. Monitoring for Automatic
                                                                               Waste Feed Cutoff.
M040005..........................  MACT................  O..................  Alt. Monitoring for Aeration Room
                                                                               Vent.
M040006..........................  MACT................  RRR................  Test Waiver for Secondary Aluminum
                                                                               Ring Crusher.
M040007..........................  MACT................  GGG, U.............   Basing Parametric Monitoring
                                                                               Levels on Old Test Data.
M040008..........................  MACT................  MMM................  Compliance & Parameters Based on
                                                                               Old Emission Test Data.
M040013..........................  MACT................  GGG................  Off-site Interim Wastewater
                                                                               Storage Facilities.
M040012..........................  MACT................  GGG................  Off-site Interim Wastewater
                                                                               Storage Facilities.
M040009..........................  MACT................  RRR................  Alt. Test Duration--Secondary
                                                                               Aluminum Scrap Shredder.
M040010..........................  MACT................  NNNN...............  Non-household Floor Cleaning and
                                                                               Vacuuming Equipment.
M040011..........................  MACT................  HH.................  Leak Detection on Ancillary
                                                                               Equipment for Alt. Monitoring.
M040014..........................  MACT................  NNN................  Binder Switch from Formaldehyde to
                                                                               Acrylic.
M040015..........................  MACT................  YYYY...............  Stationary Gas Turbines.
0400001..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Alt. Nitrogen & Sulfur
                                                                               Monitoring\Use of CEMS.
0400002..........................  NSPS................  Dc.................  Alt. Fuel Usage Recordkeeping &
                                                                               Reporting.
0400003..........................  NSPS................  Db,Dc..............  Boiler Derate.
0400004..........................  NSPS................  Db.................  Alt. Opacity Monitoring.
0400005..........................  NSPS................  QQQ................  Modification\Reconstruction of
                                                                               Aggregate Facilities.
0400006..........................  NSPS................  Db.................  Alt. Opacity Monitoring.
0400007..........................  NSPS................  Dc.................  Carbon Burn-Out Unit.
0400008..........................  NSPS................  Db.................  Monitoring Requirements.
0400011..........................  NSPS................  OOO................  Non-metallic Mineral Production
                                                                               Line.
0400012..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Sulfur Monitoring
                                                                               Schedule.
0400013..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Alt. Measurement of SO2.
0400014..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Sulfur Monitoring
                                                                               Schedule.
0400015..........................  NSPS................  Ka, Kb.............  Modification of Storage Tanks.
0400016..........................  NSPS................  OOO, UUU...........  Applicability to Lime Plants.
0400017..........................  NSPS................  UUU................  Sand Reclamation at Foundries.
0400018..........................  NSPS................  OOO................  Adding Grinding Circuit to Stand-
                                                                               Alone Screening Operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract for [M040001]

    Q: Will the Associated Spring facility remain subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart T, if it permanently stops using hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) solvent and switches to a non-HAP solvent?
    A: No. The Associated Spring facility no longer uses one of the 
listed solvents. Based on its commitment to continue in that mode for 
the forseeable future, EPA has determined that the facility is no 
longer subject to the halogenated solvent National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Abstract for [M040002]

    Q: Will EPA approve revisions to an alternative monitoring method 
under 40 CFR 63.8(f) for complex continuous web cleaning machines 
subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart T at the 
Alcoa Mill Products' Davenport Works facility?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve an alternative monitoring method to 
replace the specific monitoring requirements previously approved under 
NSPS subpart T.

Abstract for [M040003]

    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring program for the 
Alcoa, Lafayette, Indiana secondary aluminum smelter subject to the 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRR?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve the alternative monitoring program because 
the scrap inspection program includes, among other requirements, that 
the facility make it clear to suppliers that it will not accept painted 
dealer extrusion scrap.

Abstract for [M040004]

    Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring for the 32 rotary kiln 
incinerators at the Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan facility? 40 CFR 
63.1206(c)(3) requires that a hazardous waste incinerator have an 
automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) that immediately and automatically 
cuts off hazardous waste feed under certain conditions. Dow requests 
that EPA allow continued feed of certain waste streams while the 
process information management system (PIMS), part of the AWFCO, is 
down. 40 CFR 63.1209(g)(1) allows EPA to approve alternative 
monitoring.
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring request. When the 
PIMS is down, hourly rolling average concentrations will be 
interrupted. However, the continuous monitoring systems will read and 
electronically record instantaneous real time data of each monitored 
parameter, and Dow Chemical will base compliance on this data. Dow can 
continue to burn wastes as long as the instantaneous operating 
conditions do not exceed the operating parameters established under the 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), and must stop feeding 
containers or lab packs and new liquids. In the event of an AWFCO

[[Page 41258]]

while the PIMS is down, the kiln will be fed only auxiliary fuel until 
the MACT parameters are within range and the PIMS has resumed 
operation. Triggering the AWFCO on instantaneous data at the MACT 
limits is more conservative than the hourly and the 12-hour rolling 
average limits the MACT allows. The PIMS does not control the operation 
of the kiln nor does it directly impact emissions. Continued operation 
with limited feeds will minimize any excess emissions from complete 
shutoff of the feed.

Abstract for [M040005]

    Q: Will EPA approve the alternative monitoring request at the Cook, 
Incorporated sterilization facility in Ellettsville, Indiana for the 
dry bed reactors on the aeration room vent to comply with 40 CFR part 
63, subpart O?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring request. Cook 
proposes to monitor the aeration room vents control equipment using a 
gas chromatograph (GC), and will conduct bag sampling at the dry bed 
system outlet on a weekly basis, measure the ethylene oxide 
concentration in the sample using the GC, and record the results. The 
facility will comply with the 1 ppmv standard at 40 CFR 63.362(d). 
Cook's request includes a description of the dry bed reactors, 
satisfactory performance specifications and quality assurance 
procedures for the GC, and complete performance test results, and the 
test results show compliance with the standard.

Abstract for [M040006]

    Q: May the ring crusher at the Wabash Alloys secondary aluminum 
facility in Wabash, Indiana obtain a waiver of the performance testing 
required for scrap shredders to demonstrate compliance with the Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology particulate matter (PM) emission standard 
of 40 CFR 63.1505(b)(1)?
    A: Yes. The facility has demonstrated that it is technically 
infeasible to use Method 5 to measure emissions. Method 9 visible 
emissions readings were taken for three runs, and each run was 
continuous for at least one hour. Visible emissions were 0 percent 
opacity at the transition from the crusher to the conveyor throughout 
all three runs. The opacity standard for scrap shredders with air 
pollution control devices, 40 CFR 63.1505(b)(2), is 10 percent. This 
facility's scrap shredder is uncontrolled. Since the visible emissions 
readings showed uncontrolled opacity far below the limit for a 
controlled source, this provides assurance that the ring crusher is in 
continuous compliance with the PM standard.

Abstract for [M040007]

    Q: May the Dow Chemical Midland, Michigan facility use data from an 
April 15, 1988, performance test to establish alternative parametric 
monitoring levels for monitoring compliance with the pharmaceutical 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and the Group 
I polymer and resins NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG and U?
    A: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that represents 
current operation, and resubmit a request to establish alternative 
parametric levels.

Abstract for [M040008]

    Q1: May the Dow Chemical facility in Midland, Michigan use data 
from an April 15, 1988 performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the pesticide active ingredient National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM?
    A1: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that 
represents current operation.
    Q2: May the facility use data from a pharmaceutical Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) performance test to demonstrate 
compliance with the pesticides NESHAP?
    A2: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that 
represents current operation.
    Q3: May the facility use the Title V renewable operating permit 
flexible group requirements as the pesticides MACT control device 
limits?
    A3: No. Dow Chemical must conduct a performance test that 
represents current operation and resubmit a request to establish 
parametric levels. The proposed Method 25A may be insufficient to 
capture emissions from chlorinated, oxygenated and nitrogenated 
compounds. Dow must perform simultaneous Method 25 and Method 25A 
tests. Testing must be at maximum (worst case) operating conditions, 
including steady and non-steady state conditions.

Abstract for [M040009]

    Q: May the Wabash Alloys secondary aluminum facility in Cleveland, 
Ohio demonstrate compliance under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR by 
conducting a test consisting of three runs, each with a duration of one 
hour, in place of the required three three-hour test runs?
    A: Yes. The larger processing rate achieved during a one hour run 
will better represent maximum operations and emissions. This approval 
is granted provided that an adequate sample is obtained during a one 
hour run, and it applies only to continuous processes.

Abstract for [M040010]

    Q: Is the Tennant facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which makes 
non-household floor cleaning and vacuuming equipment for the service 
industry, subject to the large appliance surface coating Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT), 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN?
    A: Yes. During development of the standard, EPA visited a facility 
that makes products similar to those made by the Tennant facility. The 
background document for the proposed standard lists non-household 
vacuum cleaners and sweepers as examples of a large appliance, and 
lists the Tennant facility as a potential major source subject to MACT 
subpart NNNN. The final rule exempts household waxers and polishers 
that fall under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3639. 
However, the non-household products made by Tennant fall under SIC code 
3589. There are no statements in the Federal Register or rulemaking 
record that would lead one to believe that there was an intent to 
exclude the equipment in Tennant's product line from MACT subpart NNNN.

Abstract for [M040011]

    Q: Will EPA approve the alternative monitoring of quarterly visual 
inspections of equipment in ethylene glycol jacket water service 
(considered ``in VHAP service'') as a substitute for Method 21 under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart HH at Chevron's Carter Creek Gas Plant in 
Evanston, Wyoming?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that quarterly visual inspections of 
equipment in jacket water service at a gas plant is an acceptable 
substitute for Method 21.

Abstract for [M040012]

    Q: Do the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5) of the 
pharmaceutical Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), subpart 
GGG, apply to off-site interim wastewater storage facilities that store 
but do not treat affected wastewaters, or that are not major sources as 
defined in section 112(a) of the Clean Air Act?
    A: Yes. The language of the regulation and the background documents 
clarify that the intent is not simply to regulate offsite facilities 
that manage and treat affected wastewaters, and allow unregulated 
transfer of wastewaters and residuals from other types of facilities. 
It is also not the intent of the rule to

[[Page 41259]]

prohibit such transfer as long as the transferee certifies that it will 
manage and treat the wastewater in accordance with the rule. These are 
technical compliance requirements, not threshold applicability issues. 
As originally promulgated, MACT subpart GGG did not allow off-site 
treatment of wastewater containing 50 ppmw or more of partially soluble 
hazardous air pollutants. However, MACT subpart GGG has been amended to 
allow such transfers, as long as the transferee certifies that the 
wastewater or residual will be managed and treated in accordance with 
the rule. While the requirements of MACT subpart GGG apply to owners or 
operators of pharmaceutical manufacturing operations that are major 
sources, the requirements of 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5) apply to any 
transferee. The transferee must certify in writing to the EPA that the 
transferee will comply with those requirements. Lacking that 
certification, the owner or operator of the subject pharmaceutical 
operation may not transfer the wastewater or residual. By providing the 
certification, the transferee voluntarily accepts the compliance 
responsibility in 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5)(ii) and 63.1256(a)(5)(iv). If 
the facility decides to accept subject wastewater and residual from an 
affected source, the request for this applicability determination does 
not substitute for the required written certification.

Abstract for [M040013]

    Q1: Facility A that is subject to the pharmaceutical Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology, subpart GGG, sends affected wastewater 
to Facility B that is an off-site, non-treatment certified facility. 
Facility B intends to send the wastewater to Facility C, another off-
site non-treatment facility. Must Facility B ensure that Facility C is 
certified before sending the wastewater?
    A1: Yes. By providing the original certification, Facility B has 
accepted responsibility for compliance with 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5)(ii), 
which does not allow transfer of affected wastewater without a 
certification. However, if Facility C is under the control of the 
entity that submitted the certification for Facility B, no new 
certification is needed because a transferee is bound by the 
certification no matter which facility it uses.
    Q2: Do the certification requirements of 40 CFR 63.1256(a)(5) apply 
to temporary sites where drums or tankers are stored but never opened 
or unloaded?
    A2: Yes. After the transferee has certified that it will comply, 40 
CFR 63.1256(a)(5)(ii) requires that it must do so no matter where it 
stores the affected wastewater.

Abstract for [M040014]

    Q: Is a facility that switches from a formaldehyde binder to an 
acrylic binder still subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN?
    A: No, the facility no longer meets the definition of a ``wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility'' as defined in 40 CFR 63.1381, and 
therefore is no longer subject to the standard.

Abstract for [M040015]

    Q: Is a turbine at the Wisdom Generating Station near Spencer, 
Iowa, that commenced construction prior to the proposed date of the 
Turbine Maximum Achievable Control Technology, subpart YYYY, considered 
an existing source?
    A: Yes, the facility is an existing facility if construction was 
``commenced'', as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, prior to the date the rule 
was proposed.

Abstract for [0400001]

    Q1: May Reliant Energy's Portland Station facility use a certified 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to monitor and record 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in lieu of continuous 
monitoring of a water-to-fuel ratio under New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) subpart GG if it has the following characteristics: It 
is a simple cycle combustion turbine, with dry low NOX 
burners with water injection; it is permitted to burn only natural gas 
or No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content not to exceed 0.05% by 
weight; and it is an Acid Rain affected unit required to monitor and 
report emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 75?
    A1: Yes. This request is consistent with the EPA guidance 
memorandum dated March 12, 1993, approving the use of CEMS for 
NOX as an alternative to monitoring the water to fuel ratio. 
The facility is required to report excess NOX emissions as 
required in 40 CFR 60.7.
    Q2: May Reliant Energy's Portland Station facility waive the 
requirement to correct CEMS results to International Standards 
Organization (ISO) standard day conditions since the permitted 
NOX limits are considerably more stringent than the 
applicable NSPS subpart GG limit?
    A2: Yes. Because the proposal would ensure compliance with the 
applicable ISO-corrected NSPS subpart GG standard under reasonably 
expected ambient conditions, except conditions that might occur with 
very high ambient temperature, EPA approves this waiver of the 
requirement to correct CEMS results to ISO standard day conditions on a 
continuous basis when ambient temperature is no higher than 105 degrees 
F.
    Q3: May the facility waive the nitrogen monitoring requirement of 
40 CFR 60.334(b)(2) for natural gas?
    A3: Yes. EPA developed a National Policy dated August 14, 1987, 
that waives the nitrogen monitoring requirement for pipeline quality 
natural gas.
    Q4: May the facility waive the nitrogen monitoring requirement of 
40 CFR 60.334(b)(1) for fuel oil?
    A4: Yes. The facility may waive the nitrogen monitoring requirement 
because a certified NOX CEMS is being used to satisfy 
NOX emissions monitoring requirements.
    Q5: May the facility waive the sulfur content monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2) for natural gas and in lieu thereof 
use 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D section 2.3.1.4 ``Documentation that a 
Fuel is Pipeline Natural Gas''?
    A5: Yes. The facility may waive the sulfur content monitoring 
requirements because this request is consistent with the intent of 
National Policy. However, the facility will be required to report 
excess emissions under 40 CFR 60.7(c).
    Q6: May the facility waive the sulfur content monitoring 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2) for fuel oil and in lieu thereof 
use 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D section 2.2 to monitor sulfur content of 
fuel oil?
    A6: Yes. The facility may waive the sulfur content monitoring 
requirements because the unit in question is permitted to burn only 
natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content not to 
exceed 0.05% by weight.

Abstract for [0400002]

    Q: Will EPA allow Conoco Phillips under New Source Performance 
Standards subpart Dc to maintain fuel usage records on a monthly basis 
and submit reports on an annual basis for a boiler at its Chatom Gas 
Treating & Processing facility which uses only natural gas as a fuel?
    A: Yes. The alternative recordkeeping and reporting frequencies are 
acceptable.

Abstract for [0400003]

    Q: Will EPA approve a proposal under New Source Performance 
Standards subpart Db to derate a boiler at North Carolina Baptist 
Hospital which consists of limiting the combustion air flow by

[[Page 41260]]

welding a mechanical stop to limit the travel of the inlet valve 
dampers?
    A: No. The proposed derate does not meet the criteria specified in 
other proposals approved by EPA. In order to be an acceptable derate, a 
permanent physical change must be made. The proposed method is not 
considered permanent and could be reversed rather easily.

Abstract for [0400004]

    Q: May the U.S. Sugar Corporation facility in Clewiston, Florida 
use EPA Method 9 instead of a continuous opacity monitoring system for 
a boiler with an annual capacity factor of ten percent when firing 
distillate oil under New Source Performance Standards subpart Db?
    A: Yes. The proposed alternative monitoring is acceptable and is 
consistent with alternative opacity monitoring procedures approved for 
other similar operations with a low annual capacity factor for 
distillate oil.

Abstract for [0400005]

    Q: Should the installation costs of two oily wastewater storage 
tanks at the Hunt Refining Company in Tuscaloosa, Alabama be considered 
when determining if a modification or reconstruction of aggregate 
facilities has occurred under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 
subpart QQQ?
    A: No. Since the two storage tanks are not affected facilities 
under NSPS subpart QQQ, the costs of the tanks are not considered. The 
tanks, which are subject to the NSPS subpart Kb emission standards at 
40 CFR 60.112b, are not oil water separators and are not part of an 
aggregate facility.

Abstract for [0400006]

    Q: May the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (LM Aero) facility in 
Marietta, Georgia, use an alternative monitoring procedure based on EPA 
Reference Method 9 data instead of using a continuous opacity 
monitoring system while firing distillate oil under New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Db ?
    A: No. The proposed alternative monitoring procedure does not limit 
the annual capacity factor while firing distillate oil to ten percent 
or less and, thus, is not acceptable under NSPS subpart Db.

Abstract for [0400007]

    Q: A proposed carbon burn-out unit at Progress Energy's Roxboro 
Plant will be used to burn fly ash and heat feedwater going to electric 
utility steam generating units. Will the carbon burn-out unit, subject 
to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Dc, be a 
modification of the existing electric utility steam generating units or 
a new stand-alone affected facility?
    A: The carbon burn-out unit will be a new steam generating unit 
affected facility subject to NSPS subpart Dc.

Abstract for [0400008]

    Q: May an owner/operator of a 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db boiler 
demonstrate compliance with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 
standard on a 30-day rolling average during the ozone season, perform a 
cylinder gas audit during the 45-day period prior to the onset of the 
ozone season annually, rather than 3 of 4 calendar quarters each year, 
and perform the relative accuracy test audit (RATA) test once every 5 
years, rather than every year?
    A: No. Compliance must be demonstrated not only during the ozone 
season, but for the entire year as long as the boiler is operating. 
Also, Appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 requires that a RATA be performed on 
an annual basis, at a minimum, and that cylinder gas audits be 
conducted in three of four calendar quarters. The NSPS does not provide 
for alternative schedules for implementing the auditing procedures 
needed to assure that quality continuous emission monitoring system 
data is collected.

Abstract for [0400011]

    Q: Are the 20-inch discharge elevator 64010, E/W belt 64020, N/S 
belt 64030, E/W belt 64040, and pellet building supply elevator 64050 
in the water softener pellet line at the Morton Salt facility in 
Rittman, Ohio subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 
subpart OOO?
    A: Yes. EPA indicated in a clarification of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
OOO, published at 62 FR 62953 (November 26, 1997), that all facilities 
listed in 40 CFR 60.670(a)(1) are subject to NSPS subpart OOO as long 
as crushing or grinding occurs anywhere at a non-metallic mineral 
processing plant. Moreover, based on the diagram submitted by Morton 
Salt, we conclude that the belt conveyors and bucket elevators in 
question are connected together to the crushers within the pellet 
system production line.

Abstract for [0400012]

    Q: Will EPA approve the use under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG of 
custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural gas-fired turbines 
which are used to drive natural gas liquids (NGL) pumps at Enterprise 
Products' Rock Springs and Granger facilities?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring 
schedules for natural gas-fired turbines which are used to drive the 
NGL pumps.

Abstract for [0400013]

    Q: Will EPA waive for Exxon Mobil's Shute Creek Plant the inlet 
measurements of fuel required by 40 CFR 60.334(b) and allow the outlet 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) continuous emissions monitoring system 
(CEM) measurements to be submitted as documentation of compliance with 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA Region VIII approves the use of the SO2 CEM 
in lieu of monitoring sulfur and nitrogen content of the fuel required 
under NSPS subpart GG, because Exxon Mobil proposes monitoring 
emissions directly and continuously and is required to do so under 
their permit, and because the permit emission limits are below the 
emission limitation according to 40 CFR 60.332.

Abstract for [0400014]

    Q: Will EPA approve the use under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG of 
custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural gas-fired turbines 
at eight Williams Field Services facilities?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring 
schedules for natural gas-fired turbines at the eight facilities.

Abstract for [0400015]

    Q: Does the addition of a floating roof coupled with a switch in 
the material stored constitute a modification of a storage tank under 
40 CFR 60.14(e)(4)?
    A: Yes, if there is an increase in emissions to the atmosphere and 
the change in storage materials is coupled with a change in vessel 
design to make the vessel capable of accommodating the switch in 
storage materials.

Abstract for [0400016]

    Q: Is the processing of lime product at the Greer Lime Company in 
Riverton, West Virginia, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO?
    A: No, equipment used to process lime product is not subject to New 
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart OOO.
    Q: Is a limestone dryer at the Greer Lime Company in Riverton, West 
Virginia, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU?
    A: No, limestone is not a listed mineral in the definition of a 
``mineral processing plant,'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.730, and 
therefore is not subject to NSPS subpart UUU.

[[Page 41261]]

Abstract for [0400017]

    Q: Are sand reclamation processes located at foundries subject to 
40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU?
    A: Yes, calciners or dryers used for sand reclamation at a foundry 
are subject to NSPS subpart UUU.

Abstract for [0400018]

    Q: Would a stand-alone screening operation at the Lyons Evaporation 
Plant in Lyons, Kansas, become subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO 
if a new grinding circuit is added to the plant?
    A: Yes, the stand-alone screening operation would become subject to 
this NSPS with the addition of a grinding circuit because the facility 
would meet the definition of a ``mineral processing plant'' as defined 
in 40 CFR 60.671.

Abstract for [C040001]

    Q: There are instances in which small appliances, motor vehicle air 
conditioning (MVAC), and MVAC-like appliances arrive at a disposal 
facility and the disposal facility is uncertain whether EPA would 
consider these appliances subject to the disposal regulations of 40 CFR 
82.156(f). Would the following circumstances result in appliances being 
subject to the safe disposal regulations: (1) Receipt of an appliance 
in which some components of the refrigerant circuit have been removed; 
(2) receipt of portions of the refrigerant circuit (e.g., compressor); 
(3) receipt of an appliance in which the entire refrigerant circuit has 
been removed; or (4) receipt of an appliance which has previously been 
through a process in which refrigerant would have been released or 
recovered?
    A: Activities (1) and (2), as described above, would be subject to 
the safe disposal regulations. Activities (3) and (4), as described 
above, would not be subject to the safe disposal regulations.

Abstract for [A040001]

    Q: Is the use of solvent and a mechanical buffer to remove 
asbestos-containing floor mastic subject to the Asbestos National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, subpart M?
    A: Yes, because the application of solvent followed by the buffer 
is considered abrading the floor mastic. This situation is 
distinguishable from the facts in previous determinations cited in the 
request for a determination.

Abstract for [A040002]

    Q: Notwithstanding a prior determination, is the use of solvent and 
a mechanical buffer to remove asbestos-containing floor mastic subject 
to the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP), subpart M, under the specific circumstances 
defined in the request for determination?
    A: Yes, because the application of solvent followed by the buffer 
is considered abrading the floor mastic. As defined in 40 CFR 61.141, 
regulated asbestos-containing material can be a Category I non-friable 
asbestos-containing material that will be or has been subjected to 
sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading. Floor mastic, a Category I 
material, is potentially subject if it is sanded, ground, cut or 
abraded. While the use of solvent softens the floor mastic, the buffer 
and pad abrade the floor mastic, making this subject to the Asbestos 
NESHAP.

    Dated: June 28, 2004.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-15533 Filed 7-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P