[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61476-61482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23392]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7828-8]


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 
MACT); 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) website 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 e-mail at: [email protected]. For technical questions 
about the individual applicability determinations or monitoring 
decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual 
documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author 
of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The General Provisions to the 
NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that

[[Page 61477]]

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, refer to as the Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, and section 111(d) of 
the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific regulatory provision 
that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA does respond 
to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and 
section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek 
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which 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 32 such documents added to 
the ADI on September 17, 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.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on September 17, 2004; 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 number                               Category                                  Subparts                             Title
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M040016.................................  MACT....................................  EEEE, FFFF..............................  Application of Multiple
                                                                                                                               MACT Standards.
M040025.................................  MACT....................................  SSSS....................................  Streamlining NSPS Subpart
                                                                                                                               TT/NESHAP Subpart SSSS.
M040017.................................  MACT....................................  PPPP....................................  Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
                                                                                                                               Used in Chemical Welding
                                                                                                                               Process.
M040018.................................  MACT....................................  GGG.....................................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                                                               Parameters for Carbon
                                                                                                                               Adsorbers.
M040019.................................  MACT....................................  EEE.....................................  Waivers & Alternative
                                                                                                                               Monitoring for
                                                                                                                               Incinerator/ Scrubber.
M040020.................................  MACT....................................  EEE.....................................  Waivers & Alternative
                                                                                                                               Monitoring for Condenser/
                                                                                                                               Absorber & Scrubber.
M040021.................................  MACT....................................  EEE.....................................  Waivers & Alternative
                                                                                                                               Monitoring for Condenser/
                                                                                                                               Absorber & Scrubber.
M040022.................................  MACT....................................  EEE.....................................  Waivers & Alternative
                                                                                                                               Monitoring for Condenser/
                                                                                                                               Absorber & Scrubber.
M040023.................................  MACT....................................  GG......................................  Automated Dynamic Pressure
                                                                                                                               Monitoring for Inorganic
                                                                                                                               HAPs.
M040026.................................  MACT....................................  MMMM, XXXX..............................  Rubber Tire Manufacturing.
M040024.................................  MACT....................................  S.......................................  Hot Condensing Scrubber/
                                                                                                                               Tank and Hotwell Control
                                                                                                                               Devices.
M040027.................................  MACT....................................  AAAA....................................  Definition of Landfill Gas
                                                                                                                               Treatment.
                                          ACT.....................................  AAAA....................................  Definition of Landfill Gas
                                                                                                                               Treatment.
Z040002.................................  NESHAP..................................  C.......................................  Incineration of Beryllium-
                                                                                                                               Containing Waste.
0400019.................................  NSPS....................................  TT......................................  Streamlining NSPS Subpart
                                                                                                                               TT/NESHAP Subpart SSSS.
0400020.................................  NSPS....................................  Dc......................................  Monthly Monitoring of Fuel
                                                                                                                               Usage.
0400021.................................  NSPS....................................  GG......................................  Approval of New Test Port
                                                                                                                               Location.
0400022.................................  NSPS....................................  Dc, Da, D...............................  Classification of
                                                                                                                               Petroleum-Derived Fuel.
0400023.................................  NSPS....................................  CCCC....................................  Alternative Operating
                                                                                                                               Parameter Monitoring.
0400024.................................  NSPS....................................  Dc......................................  Applicability to Fuel
                                                                                                                               Heaters.
0400025.................................  NSPS....................................  BB......................................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                                                               Scrubber.
0400026.................................  NSPS....................................  NNN.....................................  Alternative Monitoring.
0400027.................................  NSPS....................................  Dc, Db..................................  Carbon Burn-Out Process.
0400028.................................  NSPS....................................  WWW.....................................  Definition of Landfill Gas
                                                                                                                               Treatment.
0400029.................................  NSPS....................................  Kb, VV, III, NNN, RRR...................  Ethanol Manufacturing
                                                                                                                               Plant.
0400030.................................  NSPS....................................  QQQ.....................................  Junction Box Tight Seal &
                                                                                                                               Infrequently Used Drain.
0400031.................................  NSPS....................................  QQQ.....................................  Junction Box Tight Seal &
                                                                                                                               Infrequently Used Drain.
0400032.................................  NSPS....................................  WWW.....................................  Definition of Landfill Gas
                                                                                                                               Treatment.
0400033.................................  NSPS....................................  WWW.....................................  Changes In Monitoring and
                                                                                                                               Recordkeeping Procedures.
0400034.................................  NSPS....................................  GG......................................  Custom Fuel Sulfur
                                                                                                                               Monitoring Schedule.

[[Page 61478]]

 
0400035.................................  NSPS....................................  GG......................................  Custom Fuel Sulfur
                                                                                                                               Monitoring Schedule.
400036..................................  NSPS....................................  CCCC....................................  Air Curtain Incinerator
                                                                                                                               for Clearing Dead Trees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [M040016]

    Q: May the Ashland Specialty Chemical Company facility located at 
Neville Island in Pittsburgh, subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP 
of 40 CFR part 63 and potentially subject to future Miscellaneous 
Organic NESHAP (MON) and Organic Liquids Distribution NESHAP (OLD) 
standards, avoid being subject to the MON and OLD standards by taking 
enforceable limits and becoming a minor source?
    A: Per the EPA guidance memorandum entitled, ``Potential to Emit 
for MACT Standards--Guidance on Timing Issues,'' dated May 16, 1995, a 
facility that is subject to a MACT standard is not necessarily a major 
source for future MACT standards. For example, if after compliance with 
a MACT standard, a source's potential to emit is less than the 10/25 
tons per year applicability level, EPA will consider the facility to be 
an area source for a subsequent standard.'' Consistent with this 
guidance, EPA would consider the Company to be an area source for 
purposes of determining the applicability of the MON and OLD if the 
Company takes an enforceable limit which makes the facility a minor 
source of HAPs prior to the compliance dates of the MON and OLD 
standards.

Abstract for [M040017]

    Q: Methyl ethyl ketone is used to soften plastic parts at the 
Sonoco Products plant in Union, South Carolina, so that they can be 
joined or welded together in a process that does not leave any 
nonvolatile residual material on the joined parts. Is this process 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP?
    A: No. Applicability of MACT subpart PPPP depends on the mass of 
coating solids remaining on the joined pieces to determine an emission 
limit. Since this process does not involve any mass of coating solids, 
the provisions of MACT subpart PPPP do not apply to the operation.

Abstract for [M040018]

    Q1: May the Abbott Laboratories facility in North Chicago, 
Illinois, that is subject to the pharmaceutical MACT standard of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart GGG, establish an alternative monitoring parameter for 
regenerating its carbon adsorption beds that is based on load?
    A1: No. EPA will not approve an alternative monitoring parameter 
that does not also recognize the critical factor of time and include 
minimum regeneration frequencies.
    Q2: May the Abbott facility establish 212 degrees F as a minimum 
temperature to which the bed is heated during regeneration?
    A2: Yes. Based on the manufacturer's recommendation and temperature 
data collected during the performance test, the facility may establish 
212 degrees F as a minimum temperature to which the bed is heated 
during regeneration.
    Q3: May the Abbott facility establish 170 degrees F as the maximum 
temperature to which the bed is cooled, measured within 15 minutes of 
completing cooling?
    A3: Yes. Based on the manufacturer's recommendation and temperature 
data collected during the performance test, the facility may establish 
170 degrees F as the maximum temperature to which the bed is cooled, 
measured within 15 minutes of completing cooling.
    Q4: May the Abbott facility use an alternative minimum regeneration 
stream flow rate of 4,877 lb/hr to maintain a methylene chloride 
emissions control efficiency of 98 percent?
    A4: No. The facility may not use an alternative minimum 
regeneration stream flow rate of 4,877 lb/hr to maintain a methylene 
chloride emissions control efficiency of 98 percent. The flow rate 
during the performance test was 5,419 lb/hr. A flow rate of 4.877 lb/hr 
is based on the facility's assumption that 90percent of the performance 
test rate is appropriate to sufficiently maintain a 98+ percent 
methylene chloride emissions control efficiency. EPA can find no 
support for this assumption.

Abstract for [M040019]

    Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to 
establish an Operating Parameter Limit (OPL) on the maximum solids 
content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and 
either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level for the fluid bed 
incinerator at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana?
    A1: Yes. Provided the Title 5 permit is rewritten to include an 
operating condition requiring the use of once through scrubber water, 
EPA will waive the requirement.
    Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum scrubber water pH?
    A2: Yes. Provided that the facility includes a water pH of 6.5--9.0 
and a requirement to use once through water in its Title 5 permit, and 
provided that the facility's Title 5 permit is rewritten to include an 
operating condition requiring the use of once through scrubber water, 
EPA will waive the requirement.
    Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to analyze the No. 2 fuel oil 
for regulated constituents?
    A3: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement based upon the historical 
data provided by the facility. However, the facility must continue to 
analyze the No. 2 fuel oil for principal organic hazardous constituents 
(POHCS).
    Q4: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring for the sludge waste 
feed rate if the facility continuously monitors the feed rate to the 
presses and monitors on a monthly basis the ash percentage after the 
presses?
    A4: Yes Provided that the facility also measures the density of the 
solids before the press on a monthly basis, EPA will approve the 
requested alternative monitoring for the sludge waste feed rate.

Abstract for [M040020]

    Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to 
establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the maximum solids 
content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and 
either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level at the condenser/
absorber for the T149 Trane incinerator at the Eli Lilly, Tippecanoe 
Laboratories facility in Shadeland, Indiana?
    A1: Yes. Because the maximum solids content of the scrubber 
solution, or the minimum blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber 
tank volume or liquid level are being measured at the Hydro-Sonic 
scrubber, this OPL does not need to be measured at the condenser/
absorber.
    Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum pressure drop across the condenser/absorber?
    A2: No. Because some hydrochloric acid (HCl) removal occurs at the 
condenser/ absorber through the liquid

[[Page 61479]]

to gas interface, EPA will not waive the requirement to establish an 
OPL on the minimum pressure drop.
    Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum liquid feed pressure at the condenser/absorber?
    A3: No. Because some HCl removal occurs at the condenser/absorber 
through the liquid to gas interface, it is appropriate to establish an 
OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure to ensure that the feed is at 
least the amount present during the performance test.
    Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?
    A4: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to 
the air pollution control system (APCS) at the condenser/absorber, not 
at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber. Thus, it is appropriate to establish an 
OPL on the pH of the caustic/water solution as it enters the condenser/
absorber to ensure that the pH of this solution is at least that of the 
solution used during the performance test.
    Q5: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum liquid to gas ratio or the minimum liquid and maximum flue gas 
flow rates for the condenser/absorber?
    A5: No. The justification provided in your request that ``the 
condenser/absorber is not the HCl/Cl2 control device'' is insufficient. 
However, EPA approves the facility's subsequent request to set the 
minimum liquid feed rate at the level recommended by the manufacturer 
or lower, if demonstrated during the comprehensive performance test 
(CPT).
    Q6: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure 
drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent 
differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation 
developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
    A6: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its CPT plan if 
it maintains a minimum equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches. 
If Lilly still wants to develop a site-specific model, it must submit 
all supporting data to U.S. EPA for review and approval.

Abstract for [M040021]

    Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to 
establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop across the condenser/
absorber for the T03 and T04 Trane incinerators at the Eli Lilly, 
Tippecanoe Laboratories facility in Clinton, Indiana?
    A1: No. Because some hydrochloric acid (HCl) removal occurs at the 
condenser/absorber through the liquid to gas interface, EPA will not 
waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the minimum pressure drop.
    Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum liquid feed pressure at the condenser/absorber?
    A2: No. Because some HCl removal occurs at the condenser/absorber 
through the liquid to gas interface, it is appropriate to establish an 
OPL on the minimum liquid feed pressure to ensure that the feed is at 
least the amount present during the performance test.
    Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum liquid to gas ratio or the minimum liquid and maximum flue gas 
flow rates for the condenser/absorber?
    A3: No. The justification for the source's original request that 
the condenser/absorber is not the HCl/Cl2 control device is 
insufficient. However, EPA approves the facility's alternate request 
made in a follow up conversation that the minimum liquid feed rate be 
set at the level recommended by the manufacturer.
    Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?
    A4: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to 
the air pollution control system (APCS) at the condenser/absorber. 
Thus, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the pH of the caustic/
water solution as it enters the condenser/absorber to ensure that the 
pH of this solution is at least that of the solution used during the 
performance test.
    Q5: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure 
drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent 
differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation 
developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
    A5: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its CPT plan if 
it maintains a minimum equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches. 
If Lilly still wants to develop a site-specific model, it must submit 
all supporting data and involve U.S. EPA in the development of the 
model.
    Q6: Will EPA approve annual calibrations as an alternative to the 
requirement to conduct daily zero and high-level calibration drifts on 
several instruments?
    A6: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.
    Q7: Will the U.S. EPA waive the requirement for immediate repair of 
a CMS found at 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(I)?
    A7: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.

Abstract for [M040022]

    Q1: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE requirement to 
establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the minimum liquid feed 
pressure at the condenser/absorber for the T49 Trane incinerator at the 
Eli Lilly Tippecanoe Laboratories facility in Shadeland, Indiana?
    A1: Yes. Because the condenser/absorber uses a flow distributor 
plate rather than spray nozzles, EPA waives the requirement to 
establish an operating parameter limit (OPL) on the minimum liquid feed 
pressure.
    Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
maximum solids content of the scrubber solution, or the minimum 
blowdown rate and either the minimum scrubber tank volume or level at 
the condenser/absorber?
    A2: No. The facility must establish an OPL somewhere in the air 
pollution control system (APCS), since it recycles some water. The most 
appropriate location for this OPL is at the condenser/absorber.
    Q3: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL on the 
minimum scrubber water pH at the condenser/absorber?
    A3: No. The facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up water to 
the APCS at the condenser/absorber, not at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber. 
Thus, it is appropriate to establish an OPL on the pH of the caustic/
water solution as it enters the condenser/absorber to ensure that the 
pH of this solution is at least that of the solution used during the 
performance test.
    Q4: Will EPA approve an alternative OPL for the minimum pressure 
drop across the Hydro-Sonic scrubber, based on an equivalent 
differential pressure which would be calculated based on an equation 
developed by the manufacturer of the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
    A4: Conditional. The facility may use the model in its 
comprehensive performance test plan if it maintains a minimum 
equivalent differential pressure of 25 inches. If Lilly still wants to 
develop a site-specific model, it must submit all supporting data and 
involve EPA in the development of the model.
    Q5: Will EPA waive the requirement to establish an OPL for the 
minimum scrubber water pH at the Hydro-Sonic scrubber?
    A5: Yes. Because the facility adds a mixture of caustic and make-up 
water to the APCS at the condenser/absorber, not at the Hydro-Sonic 
scrubber.
    Q6: Will EPA approve annual calibrations as an alternative to the 
requirement to conduct daily zero and

[[Page 61480]]

high-level calibration drifts on several instruments?
    A6: Eli Lilly withdrew this request.
    Q7: Will the U.S. EPA waive the requirement for immediate repair of 
a CMS found at 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(I)?
    A7: Eli Lilly withdrew this request. Recent revisions of the 
General Provisions changed these requirements in a way that is suitable 
to Eli Lilly.

Abstract for [M040023]

    Q: Will EPA approve an automated dynamic pressure monitoring system 
for a 3-stage high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart GG, standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities, for the Honeywell plant in South Bend, Indiana?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the automated dynamic pressure monitoring 
system for a 3-stage HEPA filter. The system eliminates the need for 
manual observations, recordkeeping, and equipment adjustments. To 
maintain the manufacturer's recommended pressure drop, the automated 
design includes velocity pressure sensors and a motor-controlled lineal 
air flow rate which ensures that the pressure drop is not exceeded.

Abstract for [M040024]

    Q: Are the hot condensing scrubber/hot condensing tank and the 
hotwell at the Wausau-Mosinee Paper magnesium-based sulfite pulp mill 
in Brokaw, Wisconsin, air pollution control devices covered by the pulp 
and paper Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart S?
    A: Yes, they are considered control devices. Although EPA did not 
name the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) control systems needed to meet 
specific emission reduction for a sulfite mill, any technology that 
reduces HAP emissions is considered a MACT control option regardless of 
why the technology was installed. The hot condensing scrubber and its 
auxiliary tank and the hotwell all reduce emissions of methanol, a HAP. 
Thus, the vents, wastewater and condensate streams from these control 
devices must be controlled per 40 CFR 63.444(c)(2).

Abstract for [M040025] and [0400019]

    Q: If a facility is subject to the metal coil surface coating 
requirements of both 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart TT, and uses thermal incinerators or catalytic oxidizers to 
comply, would EPA find streamlining of these two monitoring 
requirements acceptable?
    A: Yes. EPA concludes that for facilities using thermal 
incinerators, the MACT subpart SSSS effluent gas monitoring 
requirements may be streamlined with the similar subpart TT monitoring 
requirements. Also, EPA determines that for facilities using catalytic 
oxidizers, either of the MACT subpart SSSS monitoring requirements may 
be streamlined with the NSPS subpart TT monitoring requirements.

Abstract for [M040026]

    Q1: Does Trelleborg Wheel Systems operate a ``rubber processing 
affected source'' as described in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT 
standard at 40 CFR 63.5982(b)(4)?
    A1: Yes. Trelleborg mixes the raw materials for solid rubber tires 
in a Banbury mixer to produce mixed rubber compound. EPA concludes that 
this constitutes a rubber processing affected source.
    Q2: Are the adhesives that Trelleborg uses to hold layers of mixed 
rubber compound to a steel rim ``cements and solvents'' as defined in 
the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT standard at 40 CFR 63.6015 or a 
``rubber to metal coating'' as defined in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts 
Coating NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.3981?
    A2: Even though the adhesives meet the definition of ``cements and 
solvents,'' EPA concludes that the adhesives are more correctly 
designated as a rubber to metal coating because the definition of 
rubber to metal coating explicitly describes Trelleborg's use of the 
adhesives.
    Q3: Does Trelleborg operate a ``tire production affected source'' 
as described in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing MACT standard at 40 CFR 
63.5982(b)(1)?
    A3: One defining characteristic of ``cements and solvents'' is 
their use as process aids in the production of rubber tires. EPA 
concludes that the organic compounds in Trelleborg's mixed rubber 
compound are integral components of the product, and do not merely 
facilitate or assist the production of rubber tires. Therefore, EPA 
concludes that Trelleborg's adhesive coating lines and tire production 
operations do not meet the definition of a tire production affected 
source.

Abstract for [M040027], [M040028], [0400028] and [0400032]

    Q1: What is the definition of ``treatment'' under NSPS subpart WWW 
at 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
    A1: EPA has determined that compression, de-watering, and filtering 
the landfill gas down to at least 10 microns is considered 
``treatment'' under NSPS Subpart WWW, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). EPA 
made the same determination under ADI Control Numbers 0200019, 0200028, 
and 0300121, available on the ADI website.
    Q2: Do the municipal solid waste landfill regulations apply to the 
gas once treatment has occurred?
    A2: No. Once landfill gas has been treated, NSPS subpart WWW no 
longer applies to the treated gas. However, all gas before treatment, 
and respective control equipment, would be subject.

Abstract for [Z040002]

    Q: The Duratek Services facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, proposes 
to sort and repackage wastes for off-site disposal and will incinerate 
secondary wastes which are incidental to the primary sorting operation. 
The wastes which are sorted and repackaged will include some beryllium 
machine shop waste. Will the facility be subject to the NESHAP subpart 
C requirements?
    A: If any beryllium-containing waste will be incinerated, the 
incinerator will be subject to NESHAP subpart C. If the company can 
confirm that emissions from incinerating the waste will be in 
compliance with the standard, a waiver from emission testing 
requirements may be appropriate.

Abstract for [0400020]

    Q: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, the use of 
monthly fuel usage monitoring for the new package boiler at the ISG 
facility in Steelton, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve the use of monthly fuel usage monitoring 
and recording rather than daily monitoring as required by subpart Dc 
due to the fact that the new package boiler is only permitted to 
combust pipeline-quality natural gas as fuel.

Abstract for [0400021]

    Q: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, new test port 
locations for conducting the oxygen traverse and gas sampling for the 
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Marsh Run facility in Virginia?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve the new test port location and reduced 
amount of oxygen traverse data in the exhaust stack from the turbine, 
provided that the oxygen range for the 8 traverse points does not 
exceed 0.5 percent oxygen and the average oxygen content is greater 
than 15 percent.

Abstract for [0400022]

    Q1: Will the combustion of a fuel produced during the 
polymerization of distillates from petroleum refining operations at the 
Resinall facility in

[[Page 61481]]

Severn, North Carolina be regulated under the NSPS subpart Dc?
    A1: Yes. Because the fuel is derived from petroleum and is 
described as having properties similar to those of lightweight fuel 
oils, it is considered equivalent to oil under NSPS subpart Dc. Under 
NSPS subpart Dc, the same SO2 standard will apply whether the fuel is 
classified as No. 2 fuel oil or residual oil. If the fuel does not meet 
the No. 2 fuel oil criteria, it would be classified as residual oil.
    Q2: Will this fuel be considered a ``fossil fuel'' as defined in 
NSPS subparts D and Da?
    A2: Yes. Based on the description provided by the company, the fuel 
appears to meet the definition of fossil fuel provided in NSPS Subparts 
D and Da in that it is a liquid fuel derived from petroleum for the 
purpose of creating useful heat.

Abstract for [0400023]

    Q: Grupo Antolin Kentucky, in Lexington, Kentucky, proposes to 
maintain baghouse inlet temperature and pressure drop to ensure 
continuous compliance with lead emissions standards. Are these proposed 
operating parameters sufficient to ensure compliance with the lead 
standards in NSPS subpart CCCC?
    A: Yes. Maintaining temperature and pressure drop in accordance 
with the conditions mentioned in this letter will ensure reasonable 
assurance of compliance with NSPS subpart CCCC.

Abstract for [0400024]

    Q: Natural gas-fired fuel heaters at a Gulfstream Pipeline facility 
in Florida will heat glycol which will be used to heat natural gas 
prior to its use in combustion turbines as fuel. Will the heaters be 
subject to NSPS subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. Because the fuel heaters will heat a heat transfer medium 
(glycol), they will be steam generating units subject to NSPS subpart 
Dc.

Abstract for [0400025]

    Q: Will EPA allow continuous monitoring of fan amps and the total 
scrubbing liquid flow rate as an alternative to the required monitoring 
parameters under NSPS subpart BB, for a smelt dissolving tank dynamic 
scrubber at a MeadWestvaco Coated Board facility in Alabama?
    A: Yes. Because the dynamic scrubber operates near atmospheric 
pressure, the proposed monitoring is an acceptable alternative to the 
NSPS subpart BB requirement to monitor the pressure loss of the gas 
stream and the scrubbing liquid supply pressure.

Abstract for [0400026]

    Q: Are proposed alternative monitoring procedures at an Eastman 
Chemical facility in Tennessee, regarding flow indicator location, 
acceptable for two process units which may comply with the NSPS subpart 
NNN by using either a flare or boilers?
    A: Yes. The proposed alternatives meet the intent of NSPS subpart 
NNN by ensuring that affected vent streams are directed to the 
combustion device used to control VOC emissions.

Abstract for [0400027]

    Q: A proposed carbon burn-out unit with a heat input of 95.57 
mmBtu/hr will be used to burn fly ash and heat feedwater going to 
electric utility steam generating units at a Progress Energy facility 
in North Carolina. Will the carbon burn-out unit be a steam generating 
unit subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. The carbon burn-out unit will be an affected facility 
subject to NSPS subpart Dc and will be subject to the recordkeeping 
requirements of that standard. No NSPS subpart Dc emission limits will 
be applicable to the combustion of fly ash since fly ash is not 
considered ``coal'' under this rule. However, if the heat input exceeds 
100 mmBtu/hr, the carbon burn-out unit will be subject to NSPS subpart 
Db and will be subject to the emission limits for ``coal'' as defined 
in NSPS subpart Db because the definition includes fly ash.

Abstract for [0400029]

    Q: Do the NSPS subparts Kb, VV, III, NNN, and RRR apply to any of 
the Liquid Resources of Ohio facilities in Medina, Ohio, a plant that 
manufactures ethanol from waste beverages and distills ethanol from 
waste alcohol containing beverages?
    A: NSPS subparts Kb and VV apply to all affected operations at the 
plant. NSPS subpart NNN applies only to the distillation of waste 
alcohol containing beverages. NSPS subparts III and RRR do not apply to 
any facilities at this plant.

Abstract for [0400030]

    Q1: Are covers on junction boxes at the Marathon Ashland Petroleum 
facility in St. Paul Park, Minnesota, required to be equipped with a 
gasket or other type of seal in order to satisfy the ``tight seal'' 
requirements for junction box covers in NSPS subpart QQQ?
    A1: Yes. The tight seal requirements in 40 CFR 60.692-2(b)(2) 
implicitly require that all junction box covers be equipped with a 
gasket and clamp. [This determination has been superseded by 
determination number 0400031, summarized below.]
    Q2: May infrequently used drains be equipped with a tightly sealed 
cap or plug in lieu of the water seal controls required by 40 CFR 
60.692-2(a)(1)?
    A2: Yes. Tightly sealed caps or plugs may be used on drains that 
are not used more than twice in a two month time frame. However, all 
other drains must be equipped with water seals.
    Q3: Do hatches and valves satisfy the ``tightly sealed cap or 
plug'' requirement under 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(4)?
    A3: Yes. Any type of cap or plug which provides a gas tight barrier 
to the atmosphere meets the requirements of 40 CFR 60.692-2(a)(4).

Abstract for [0400031]

    Q1: In a December 4, 2003 letter, EPA determined that a gasket is 
required to satisfy the ``tight seal'' requirements for junction box 
covers under 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ. Would another type of seal 
which prevents leaks to the atmosphere, such as external caulking, 
satisfy these requirements?
    A1: Yes. Any type of seal that prevents detectable leaks around the 
edges is sufficient to comply with the ``tight seal'' requirements in 
40 CFR 60.692-2(b)(2).
    Q2: Are drains which are not open to the atmosphere more than 24 
hours per month used infrequently enough to allow the usage of a 
tightly sealed cap or plug in lieu of the water seal requirements in 40 
CFR 60.692-2(a)(1)?
    A2: Yes. Drains open less than 24 hours per month are used 
infrequently enough to forgo the water seal requirements.

Abstract for [0400033]

    Q1: Will EPA grant the request of the Central Disposal Systems 
facility in Lake Mills, Iowa, for flexibility under NSPS, subpart WWW, 
to modify the design of its collection and control system?
    A1: The facility may make changes to the design of the collection 
and control system by submitting a revised collection and control 
system design plan to and receiving approval from the Iowa Department 
of Natural Resources (IDNR). The facility must then follow the revised 
design plan if approved by IDNR.
    Q2: Will EPA allow use of a temporary collection system, leachate 
collection system, and leachate recirculation system until final grades 
are achieved?
    A2: The facility may use these types of collection systems if they 
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.759 and are approved in the design 
plan.

[[Page 61482]]

    Q3: Will EPA exempt leachate recirculation piping, temporary 
horizontal collection trenches, and leachate sump/riser connections 
from the oxygen/nitrogen, temperature, and pressure requirements under 
NSPS subpart WWW?
    A3: No. The facility states that these gas collection systems are 
not part of the Landfill NSPS collection and control system. However, 
it appears that these gas collection systems would be part of the 
Landfill NSPS collection and control system if they are collecting gas 
from an area, cell, or group of cells if the initial solid waste has 
been in place for a period of five years or more (if active), or two 
years or more (if closed or at final grade). Although an exemption will 
not be granted, the facility may still propose an alternative 
monitoring procedure.
    Q4: Will EPA allow the facility to exclude dangerous areas from the 
surface monitoring?
    A4: 40 CFR 60.753(d) allows for dangerous areas to be excluded. 
These areas will be reviewed by IDNR as part of the facility's surface 
monitoring design plan.
    Q5: Will EPA allow the facility to apply the surface monitoring 
requirement only to closed portions of the landfill?
    A5: No. Surface monitoring is required in all areas that collection 
systems are required.
    Q6: Will EPA allow the facility to widen the spacing between 
surface monitoring intervals from 30 meters to 60 meters in areas that 
will have a final cover in place with a geomembrane component?
    A6: No.
    Q7: Will EPA allow higher oxygen levels in gas wellheads if 
temperatures are maintained below 38 degrees C?
    A7: Yes. Higher values may be set if the facility demonstrates that 
the elevated parameters do not cause fires or significantly inhibit 
anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.
    Q8: Will EPA allow the facility to place the surface monitoring 
probe inlet as close as possible, 5 to 10 centimeters from the ground, 
but further away when there are materials that could clog the probe 
tip?
    A8: No.
    Q9: Will EPA allow a variance to the 10-day window that 40 CFR 
60.755(c)(4)(ii) allows to adjust the cover and/or collection system?
    A9: No. Because this is not an alternative monitoring request, EPA 
Region 7 does not have the authority to allow this.
    Q10: Will EPA allow the facility to not perform surface monitoring 
during the winter quarter?
    A10: No. The facility is apparently concerned that the flame 
ionization detector will not work unless the ambient air is above 
freezing. There are days during each quarter that are warm enough to do 
surface monitoring. The facility has not proposed any alternative 
monitoring.
    Q11: Will EPA allow the facility to record the flow to the flare 
instead of the presence of a pilot flame?
    A11: No. The regulations require continuous records of the flare 
pilot flame. EPA notes that it does understand that the lack of flame 
at the flare is not necessarily a violation.
    Q12: Will EPA approve a final cover design that includes the use of 
a geomembrane or synthetic cover and that may have positive pressure at 
wellheads under certain conditions?
    A12: Yes. Positive pressure under these circumstances is allowed by 
40 CFR 60.753(b)(2). Pressure limits should be included in the design 
plan for approval by IDNR.

Abstract for [0400034]

    Q: Will EPA approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring 
schedules under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for natural gas-fired 
turbines at three Basin Electric Power Cooperative facilities in 
Wyoming?
    A: Yes. Based on an EPA directive dated August 14, 1987, EPA will 
approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural 
gas-fired turbines at the facilities in question.

Abstract for [0400035]

    Q: Will EPA approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring 
schedules under NSPS subpart GG, for two natural gas-fired emergency 
turbine generators at the LaBarge Black Canyon Dehydration Facility in 
Sublette County, Wyoming?
    A: Yes. Based on an EPA directive dated August 14, 1987, EPA will 
approve the use of custom fuel sulfur monitoring schedules for natural 
gas-fired turbines at the facility in question.

Abstract for [0400036]

    Q: The California Parks and Recreation Department owns and operates 
an air curtain incinerator that burns clean wood for the purpose of 
clearing dead trees at state parks. Is this unit subject to NSPS 
subpart CCCC?
    A: No. The activity of this unit is neither commercial nor 
industrial, and does not burn commercial and industrial waste as 
defined in 40 CFR 60.2265.

Lisa C. Lund,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-23392 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P