[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36141-36147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12358]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7925-5]


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 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. For example, these inquiries 
may pertain 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 42 such documents added to 
the ADI on May 20, 2005. 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 36142]]

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on May 20, 2005; the 
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as 
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, 
which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also 
included an abstract of each document identified with its control 
number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert 
the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as 
substitutes for the full text of the documents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on April X, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Control                       Category                Subparts                    Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M050001............................  MACT..................  OOOO, JJJJ............  Laminators.
M050002............................  MACT..................  F, G..................  Gas Streams and Process
                                                                                      Vents.
M050003............................  MACT..................  EEE...................  Alternative Span for CO
                                                                                      Monitors in High Oxygen
                                                                                      Applications.
M050004............................  MACT..................  GGG...................  Carbon Adsorber Minimum
                                                                                      Regeneration Frequency.
M050005............................  MACT..................  EEE...................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                      Hazardous Waste
                                                                                      Incinerator.
M050006............................  MACT..................  LLL...................  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring Procedures.
M050007............................  MACT..................  JJJJ..................  Papermill Machinery.
M050008............................  MACT..................  EEEE, S...............  Methanol Storage Tanks for
                                                                                      Pulp Bleaching.
M050009............................  MACT..................  OOOO..................  Carbon Fiber Manufacturing.
M050010............................  MACT..................  GGGGG.................  Site Remediation--Threshold
                                                                                      Quantity of HAPs.
M050011............................  MACT..................  MM....................  Scrubber Pressure Drop
                                                                                      Monitoring Parameters.
M050012............................  MACT..................  MM....................  Early Particulate
                                                                                      Performance Test for
                                                                                      Recovery Furnace.
M050013............................  MACT..................  MM....................  Alternative Compliant
                                                                                      Operating Parameter Range.
M050014............................  MACT..................  MM....................  Compliant Scrubber Liquor
                                                                                      Flow Rate and Supply
                                                                                      Pressure.
M050015............................  MACT..................  MM....................  Testing to Establish
                                                                                      Parameter Operating Range.
M050016............................  MACT..................  RRR...................  Aluminum Die Casting
                                                                                      Facility as Area Source.
M050017............................  MACT..................  RRR...................  Alternative Reactive Flux
                                                                                      Injection Monitoring.
M050018............................  MACT..................  RRR...................  Group 2 Furnaces at Area
                                                                                      Source.
M050019............................  MACT..................  MM....................  Pressure Drop Monitoring.
Z050001............................  NESHAP................  FF....................  Junction Box Tight Seal
                                                                                      Requirements.
Z050002............................  NESHAP................  M.....................  Removal or Relocation of
                                                                                      Facility.
Z050003............................  NESHAP................  M.....................  Polarized Light Microscopy
                                                                                      (PLM) and Point Count
                                                                                      Methods for Vermiculite
                                                                                      Insulation.
0400037............................  NSPS..................  VVV...................  Polymeric Coating and
                                                                                      Sailcloth.
0400038............................  NSPS..................  NNN...................  Fuel Ethanol Exemption
0500001............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0500002............................  NSPS..................  III...................  Gas Streams and Process
                                                                                      Vents.
00500003...........................  NSPS..................  Dc....................  Custom Fuel Usage
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500004............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  New Test Port Locations.
0500005............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Oxygen Stratification
                                                                                      Testing.
0500006............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Extension of Time to Test.
0500007............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
0500008............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
0500009............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
0500010............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring. ]
0500011............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Fluid Catalytic Cracking
                                                                                      Units (FCCU) Compliance
                                                                                      Options.
0500012............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
0500013............................  NSPS..................  Dc....................  Alternative Monitoring,
                                                                                      Recordkeeping, and
                                                                                      Reporting.
0500014............................  NSPS..................  K, Ka, Kb.............  Installation of Floating
                                                                                      Roofs.
0500015............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
0500016............................  NSPS..................  KKK, HH...............  Injection of Processed
                                                                                      Natural Gas into Wells.
0500017............................  NSPS..................  Da, Db, Dc, D.........  Autoflame Control System
                                                                                      Technology for Boiler
                                                                                      Derate.
0500018............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [0400037]

    Q1: Are various coating/lamination lines at the Dimension Polyant 
Sailcloth manufacturing company in Putnam, Connecticut subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VVV?
    A1: EPA has reviewed the processes and has clarified which 
processes at this facility are covered by NSPS subpart VVV and which 
are not.
    Q2: If the affected facility uses less than 95 Mg of Volatile 
Organic Compound (VOC) emissions VOC per 12-month period, is it subject 
only to the requirements of NSPS subpart VVV in 40 CFR 60.744(b), 
60.747(b) and 60.747(c)?
    A2: EPA has determined that as long as the amount of VOC used on 
each coating line is less than 95 Mg per 12-month period from the NSPS 
subpart VVV-covered activities on that coating line, the facility is 
subject only to the requirements of 40 CFR 60.744(b), 60.747(b), and 
60.747(c).

Abstract for [0400038]

    Q: Will EPA waive the requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
NNN, for the Penn Mar Ethanol facility in York,

[[Page 36143]]

Pennsylvania, as this is a fuel ethanol production facility?
    A: Yes. Consistent with previous EPA Region V determinations, EPA 
Region III waives the NSPS subpart NNN requirements for fuel ethanol 
facilities that do not in any way produce beverage alcohol.

Abstract for [0500001]

    Q: Will EPA allow the use of fuel supplier certifications under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GG, for numerous shipments of distillate oil to 
the Easton Utilities turbines in Easton, Maryland?
    A: Yes. EPA will allow the use of fuel supplier certifications 
under NSPS subpart GG on the sulfur and nitrogen content of distillate 
oil for stationary gas turbine fuel.

Abstract for [M050001]

    Q: Is the Shawmut facility in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, 
subject to either Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart 
OOOO, the fabric coating MACT, or MACT subpart JJJJ, the paper and 
other web coating MACT? It laminates fabrics and other textiles to 
plastic films, fabrics to foams, as well as foams to fabrics, using a 
rotogravure roll in its adhesive lamination process to apply adhesive 
and laminators at ambient temperature and without drying ovens.
    A: EPA has determined that because the existing and proposed 
laminators will operate at ambient temperature and without drying 
ovens, the adhesive lamination process is not subject to MACT subpart 
OOOO. EPA also has determined that the adhesive lamination process 
meets the definition of web coating line in MACT subpart JJJJ and 
therefore, it is subject to the standard.

Abstract for [M050002]

    Q: Are gas streams from vents off of tanks collecting condensed 
steam, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants from 
carbon adsorption regeneration systems at the Sunoco Chemicals phenol 
plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania subject to the process vent 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subparts F and G?
    A: Yes. These gas streams meet all of the criteria for process 
vents outlined in 40 CFR 63.107. The total resource effectiveness (TRE) 
factor needs to be calculated after the last recovery device. For these 
systems, this point is after the gas streams from the tanks collecting 
condensed steam combine with the vent stream off of the carbon 
adsorption systems, but prior to the flash back preventers which are 
directly upstream of the catalytic incinerator.

Abstract for [0500002]

    Q: Are gas streams from vents off of tanks collecting condensed 
steam, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants from 
carbon adsorption regeneration systems at the Sunoco Chemicals phenol 
plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania subject to the process vent 
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart III?
    A: Yes. These gas streams meet the definition for vent stream in 40 
CFR 60.611. The total resource effectiveness (TRE) factor needs to be 
calculated after the last recovery device. For these systems, this 
point is after the gas streams from the tanks collecting condensed 
steam combine with the vent stream off of the carbon adsorption 
systems, but prior to the flash back preventers which are directly 
upstream of the catalytic incinerator.

Abstract for [0500003]

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

Abstract for [0500004]

    Q: Will EPA approve new test port locations for conducting the 
oxygen traverse and gas sampling under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for 
the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Marsh Run facility in Louisa, 
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 
under NSPS subpart GG 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 [0500005]

    Q: Will EPA approve fewer sampling points for measuring oxygen 
stratification from stationary gas turbines under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG, if an identical turbine station at Old Dominion Electric 
Cooperative's Louisa, Virginia facility has already been tested?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve the request for a reduced number of oxygen 
stratification testing points under NSPS subpart GG because the 
facility has already tested identical turbines with identical exhaust 
gas stack configuration.

Abstract for [0500006]

    Q: Will EPA allow different start-up dates under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG, for Old Dominion Electric Cooperative's new Marsh Run 
facility in Fauquier County, Virginia; one start-up date for its 
stationary gas turbine on natural gas fuel and one separate start-up 
date for its stationary gas turbine on distillate oil combustion?
    A: Yes. EPA will allow separate start-up dates to test the 
emissions of its stationary gas turbines under NSPS subpart GG.

Abstract for [M050003]

    Q: Will EPA waive the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, 
appendix section 6.3.4, regarding adjustments to carbon monoxide (CO) 
monitor spans when monitoring in high oxygen environments, for the 
Solite Corporation lightweight aggregate kilns in Arvonia and Cascade, 
Virginia?
    A: No. EPA will not waive the provisions of Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) subpart EEE. Failure to account for a high 
oxygen correction factor would adversely affect the facilities' ability 
to demonstrate compliance with the CO emission standard. Several 
alternative approaches are discussed.

Abstract for [M050004]

    Q: May the Abbott Laboratories facility in North Chicago, Illinois, 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, establish an alternative 
monitoring parameter for regenerating its carbon adsorber? (For the 
active mode with the processes running, the minimum regeneration 
frequency is 51 minutes. For the idle mode when only storage tanks 
operate, the facility proposes to decrease this frequency to 14 
days.)A: Yes. EPA will allow the facility to establish an alternative 
monitoring parameter under Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
subpart GGG. However, rather than 14 days, EPA approves a minimum 
regeneration frequency of 7 days, which the facility has shown to be 
adequate. The facility must maintain records of when the adsorber 
operates in the active and idle modes.

Abstract for [0500007]

    Q1: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG for the fuel sulfur content of pipeline quality 
natural gas at Allegheny Energy Supply Company's St. Joseph Generating 
facility near New Carlisle, Indiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the custom fuel monitoring schedule based on 
its August 14, 1987 guidance, ``Authority

[[Page 36144]]

for Approval of Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedules Under NSPS Subpart 
GG.''
    Q2: Will EPA waive the fuel bound nitrogen requirement for pipeline 
quality natural gas under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A2: Yes. EPA waives the fuel bound nitrogen requirement based on 
its August 1987 guidance for NSPS subpart GG.
    Q3: Will EPA approve nitrogen oxides (NOX)emission 
monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG using NOX 
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) rather than monitoring 
water-to-fuel injection rates?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves NOX emission monitoring using CEMS 
under NSPS subpart GG.
    Q4: Will EPA waive the requirement under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG 
to make the International Standards Organization (ISO) correction for 
NOX CEMS data that is used to determine compliance?
    A4: No. EPA determines that under NSPS subpart GG, facilities using 
NOX CEMS data to determine compliance must also maintain 
records of the data necessary to correct the CEMS data to ISO 
conditions (i.e., ambient temperature, ambient humidity and combustor 
inlet pressure).
    Q5: Will EPA approve under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG the initial 
NOX compliance testing at full load rather than multiple 
load points?
    A5: Yes. Facilities that are using NOX CEMS to 
demonstrate compliance may conduct the initial compliance demonstration 
at ``peak load'' only, as that term is defined at 40 CFR 60.331(i), 
rather than at multiple loads.
    Q6: Will EPA approve the use of NOX CEMS the relative 
accuracy test audit (RATA) data as an alternative performance test for 
NOX under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A6: Yes. EPA approves the use of NOX CEMS RATA data 
under NSPS subpart GG.

Abstract for [0500008]

    Q1: Is it acceptable to use certified nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for the 
initial compliance demonstration under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, 
rather than EPA Reference Method 20 for Ameren Energy Generating 
Company's Elgin Energy Center in Elgin, Illinois?
    A1: Yes. For facilities that burn pipeline quality natural gas, 
this is acceptable under NSPS subpart GG.
    Q2: Will EPA approve the use of certified NOX CEMS as an 
alternative to the monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of certified CEMS as alternative 
monitoring under NSPS subpart GG.
    Q3: Will EPA approve the use of the procedures in 40 CFR part 75, 
appendix D, section 2.3.1 as an alternative to the daily fuel sampling 
required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves the alternative under NSPS subpart GG, 
provided that the natural gas meets the definition of pipeline natural 
gas as that term is defined in the Acid Rain regulations at 40 CFR part 
72 section 72.2.
    Q4: Will EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG requirement for 
the fuel bound nitrogen determination for pipeline quality natural gas?
    A4: Yes. EPA waives the fuel bound nitrogen determination under 
NSPS subpart GG.

Abstract for [0500009]

    Q1: Will EPA approve the use of the relative accuracy test audit 
(RATA) data from nitrogen oxides (NOX) Continuous Emission 
Monitoring Systems(CEMS) at Aquila's Goose Creek Energy Center in 
Deland, Illinois, as an alternative to EPA Reference Method 20 required 
by 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for natural gas-fired turbines?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of certified NOX CEMS RATA 
data for the initial compliance demonstration under NSPS subpart GG for 
natural gas-fired turbines.
    Q2: If using NOX CEMS for its initial performance test, 
can a natural gas-fired turbine conduct its initial performance test at 
one load rather than 4 loads, as required by 40 CFR 60.335(c)(2)?
    A2: Yes. If a source is using data from a certified NOX 
CEMS as its initial performance test, data only needs to be collected 
at ``peak load,'' as defined at 40 CFR 60.331(i).

Abstract for [0500010]

    Q: Will EPA approve the use of Gas Processors Associations Standard 
(GPA) 2377-86 as an alternative to the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) method cited in 40 CFR 60.335 for measuring the sulfur 
content of natural gas at Calpine's Zion Energy Center in Zion, 
Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative measurement because: (1) It 
has numerical repeatability, reproducibility and bias statements, and 
has sufficient quality control requirements; (2) it is anticipated that 
the sulfur level will be substantially below the 0.8 weight percent 
allowed; (3) this method will not be used for performance tests; (4) 
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of NSPS subparts A and GG 
apply; and (5) if GPA Standard 2377-86 is revised in the future, this 
portion of this approval is no longer valid and the owner/operator must 
submit a new alternative monitoring request for sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
with a copy of the revised GPA Standard.

Abstract for [0500011]

    Q1: Will EPA allow Flint Hill Resources's fluid catalytic cracking 
units (FCCU), operating without a scrubber, to comply with the 50 ppm 
emission limit compliance option under the 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards for FCCU catalyst 
regenerators?
    A1: Yes. Because the 50 ppm emission limit compliance option is the 
most stringent of all options available under 40 CFR 60.104(b), FCCU 
feed hydrotreating and low-SOX catalyst additives may be 
used to meet the 50 ppmv SO2 emission limit. However, as 
determination of the inlet SO2 concentration is not possible 
using low-SOX catalyst additives, the 90 percent reduction 
portion of 40 CFR 60.104(b)(1) may not be chosen.
    Q2: Can the compliance option chosen to comply with 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J be changed in the case of a scheduled startup or shutdown of 
the hydrotreater?
    A2: Yes. The option chosen to comply with 40 CFR 60.104(b) may be 
changed in the case of a scheduled startup or shutdown of the 
hydrotreater as long as daily compliance tests demonstrating compliance 
with that standard are started 7 days before the shutdown.

Abstract for [Z050001]

    Q: Are covers on junction boxes at Marathon Ashland Petroleum's 
facilities required to be equipped with a gasket in order to satisfy 
the ``tight seal'' requirements for junction box covers under 40 CFR 
part 61, subpart FF?
    A: No. 40 CFR 61.346(b)(2)(1) requires that junction boxes prevent 
leaks to the atmosphere in order to satisfy the ``tight seal'' 
requirements. However, consistent with a prior determination for 
similar provisions under 40 CFR part 60, a gasket is not necessarily 
required to achieve the tight seal.

Abstract for [0500012]

    Q1: Is it acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG to conduct 
the nitrogen oxides (NOX) initial compliance determination 
at full load rather than at multiple load points at the Mirant Sugar 
Creek, LLC Power Plant in West Terre Haute, Indiana?
    A1: Yes. Facilities using certified NOX continuous 
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for the initial compliance 
determination can make

[[Page 36145]]

this determination at peak load rather than multiple load points under 
NSPS subpart GG.
    Q2: Will EPA approve the use of NOX CEMS as an 
alternative to the NOX monitoring required in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart GG?
    A2: Yes. Provided that these conditions are met: (1) Each gas 
turbine must meet the emission limitation determined according to 40 
CFR 60.332; (2) each NOX CEMS must meet the applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification 
2, and appendix F for certifying, maintaining and assuring quality of 
the system; (3) the NOX CEMS must be used to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limitation determined at 40 CFR 60.332 on 
a continuous basis; (4) recordkeeping requirements shall follow the 
requirements specified at 40 CFR 60.7; (5) each NOX CEMS 
must be operated in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(e); and (6) data 
substitution methods or data exclusion methods provided for at 40 CFR 
part 75 may not be used to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG.

Abstract for [M050005]

    Q1: Does EPA approve 3M's requests to use the minimum atomization 
header pressure for the rotary kiln's burners and lances as an 
operating parameter limit to ensure good operation of each waste firing 
system and to use the manufacturer's specifications to set the value of 
the operating parameter limit under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A1: Yes. EPA grants the request under Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) subpart EEE to use the minimum atomization header 
pressure as an operating parameter.
    Q2: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE 
for a combined minimum blow down rate operating parameter limit as an 
alternative to the requirement to establish separate minimum blow down 
rate operating parameter limits for two low energy wet scrubbers that 
use a common scrubber liquor tank?
    A2: Yes. EPA grants the request under MACT subpart EEE for a 
combined minimum blow down rate operating parameter limit.
    Q3: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE 
for a combined minimum scrubber liquor pH operating parameter limit for 
the two low energy wet scrubbers in series that use a common scrubber 
liquor tank?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart EEE for a 
combined minimum scrubber liquor pH operating parameter limit.
    Q4: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE, for the first of two low energy scrubbers in series, that EPA 
waive the requirements to establish the following operating parameter 
limits: a minimum pressure drop, a minimum liquid feed pressure, and 
either a minimum liquid-to-gas ratio or a minimum scrubber liquor flow 
rate and a maximum flue gas flow rate? Does EPA approve 3M's request to 
approve the maximum outlet flue gas temperature from this wet scrubber 
as an alternative monitoring requirement?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves both requests under MACT subpart EEE.
    Q5: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE, for the second of two low energy scrubbers, to waive the 
requirement to establish a minimum pressure drop operating parameter 
limit based on the manufacturer's specifications?
    A5: Yes. EPA waives the requirement under MACT subpart EEE to 
establish a minimum pressure drop operating parameter limit.
    Q6: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE 
to waive the monitoring requirement to establish a minimum scrubber 
tank liquid level for a high energy wet scrubber?
    A6: Yes. EPA waives the requirement under MACT subpart EEE to 
establish a minimum scrubber tank liquid level.
    Q7: Does EPA approve 3M's request under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE, for a minimum secondary power operating parameter limit for a wet 
electrostatic precipitator as a representative and reliable indicator 
that the control device is operating within the same range of 
conditions as during the comprehensive performance test?
    A7: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart EEE for a 
minimum secondary power operating parameter limit.

Abstract for [0500013]

    Q: Will EPA allow the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco manufacturing plant in 
Franklin Park, Illinois, which has natural gas-fired boilers, to record 
and maintain monthly records of fuel usage instead of the daily records 
required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. Based on past determinations, records of fuel usage for 
natural gas-fired boilers may be kept on a monthly basis in 
satisfaction of NSPS subpart Dc.

Abstract for [0500014]

    Q: Magellan Pipeline Company installed floating roofs to existing 
petroleum storage tanks in conjunction with changes in fuels stored at 
five facilities in Minnesota. Are these considered modifications under 
40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb?
    A: Yes. Changing fuels alone would be exempt under 40 CFR 
60.14(e)(4), and installing floating roofs alone would be exempt under 
40 CFR 60.14((e)(5). However, when both actions take place in 
conjunction, floating roofs must be part of the original construction 
specifications for the storage tanks in order for the modifications to 
be exempt. The company states that the original construction of the 
roofs did not encompass a floating roof design. Therefore, the storage 
tanks meet the criteria for modification under NSPS subparts K, Ka, and 
Kb.

Abstract for [0500015]

    Q1: Will EPA accept under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, the 
replacement of the multiple load-testing requirements with a single 
load test while operating the combustion turbine at maximum load 
conditions at the Rocky Mountain Energy Center electric power 
generation facility in Weld County, Colorado?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the waiver under NSPS subpart GG from 
multiple load testing because, for combustion turbines equipped with 
nitrogen oxides continuous emission monitoring systems (NOX 
CEMS), the monitors will provide credible evidence regarding the unit's 
compliance status on a continuous basis following the initial test.
    Q2: Will EPA accept the waiver of the NOX monitoring 
requirement for owners and operators of combustion turbines subject to 
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG without intermediate bulk storage for fuel?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the waiver under NSPS subpart GG 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.
    Q3: Will EPA accept the waiver of the requirement under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart GG to report NOX performance test results on an 
ISO-corrected basis?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves the waiver under NSPS subpart GG because the 
level of compliance assurance provided in this case is sufficient.
    Q4: Will EPA approve an alternative custom fuel (sulfur) monitoring 
plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG for gas-fired combustion 
turbines?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves the request for an alternative fuel 
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart GG because it is consistent with 
EPA's August 1987 fuel monitoring policy.

[[Page 36146]]

Abstract for [0500016]

    Q: Do natural gas storage facilities that inject processed natural 
gas (i.e., liquids have been extracted) into depleted gas/oil wells or 
other underground caverns and then extract natural gas liquids from the 
gas upon withdrawal, fall under the ``natural gas processing plant'' 
definition of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK?
    A: No. This type of facility does not meet the NSPS subpart KKK 
definition of ``natural gas processing plant'' because it is not 
extracting natural gas liquids from field gas, nor is it conducting 
fractionation of mixed natural gas liquids to natural gas products. 
NSPS subpart KKK would not apply to natural gas storage facilities that 
inject processed natural gas into depleted gas/oil wells or other 
underground caverns and then extract natural gas liquids from the gas 
upon withdrawal.

Abstract for [Z050002]

    Q: Is the removal of a facility from its foundation, followed by 
relocation of the facility onto a new foundation, a demolition or 
renovation for purposes of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
    A: Yes. This action constitutes a demolition under the regulatory 
definition because load-supporting structural members of a facility 
were taken out from the foundation when the facility was moved. The 
letter explains how two prior determinations are consistent on this 
issue and provides further regulatory clarifications related to this 
NESHAP regulation.

Abstract for [M050006]

    Q: Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, may the Mountain Cement 
Company facility in Laramie, Wyoming, which has a material handling 
process (bulk unloading system) housed entirely within a building/
closed structure, perform Method 22 observations for visual emissions 
on the sides and roof of the building?
    A: Yes. The facility can conduct Method 22 visible emissions 
observations on each side of and the roof of the building under Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart LLL. The results of the 
Method 22 observations of the building must show no visible emissions. 
If visible emissions are detected during the Method 22 monitoring of 
the building, a Method 9 reading will be required.

Abstract for [Z050003]

    Q: Do current standard polarized light microscopy (PLM) and point 
count test methods satisfy current minimum EPA regulatory requirements 
under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, for analysis of vermiculite loose fill 
insulation?
    A: Yes. PLM and point count methods satisfy EPA's minimum 
requirements under NESHAP subpart M for analysis of vermiculite loose 
fill insulation. However, EPA plans to publish a new more accurate 
method for analyzing vermiculite in the future, and is informing the 
public to consider all vermiculite as asbestos-containing material.

Abstract for [M050007]

    Q: Are size presses and on-machine coaters used by the paper 
industry subject to the Paper and Other Web Coating Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ?
    A: No. Both size presses and on-machine coaters that function as 
part of the in-line papermaking system are used to form the paper 
substrate and thus are not subject to the MACT subpart JJJJ 
requirements.

Abstract for [M050008]

    Q: Are methanol storage tanks used for the sole purpose of chlorine 
dioxide generation for pulp bleaching at pulp and paper mills subject 
to the Pulp and Paper Industry NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, or 
are they subject to the Organic Liquids Distribution NESHAP, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEEE?
    A: Methanol storage tanks used for the sole purpose of chlorine 
dioxide generation for pulp bleaching at pulp and paper mills are part 
of the mills' chlorine dioxide generation equipment, and are, 
therefore, a component of the bleaching system subject to NESHAP 
subpart S. They are not, however, subject to NESHAP subpart EEEE.

Abstract for [M050009]

    Q: Is the application of sizing to carbon fiber during its 
manufacture at the Cytec Carbon Fibers facility in Rock Hill, South 
Carolina subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO?
    A: No. Carbon fiber manufacturing is a synthetic fiber 
manufacturing process which is exempt from Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) subpart OOOO.

Abstract for [0500017]

    Q: Will EPA approve the Autoflame Control System Technology to 
derate a boiler for purposes of determining applicability of the NSPS 
subparts for boilers (40 CFR part 60, subparts D, Da, Db, and Dc)?
    A: No. EPA will not approve the Autoflame Control System Technology 
because derate methods that are based solely on fuel feedrate control, 
as the Autoflame Control System Technology is, are not acceptable 
derate methods for determining the rated capacity of a boiler under 
NSPS subparts D, Da, Db, and Dc.

Abstract for [0500018]

    Q1: Will EPA allow Riverside Energy Center to conduct the initial 
NOX performance testing at only 50 and 100 percent of 
maximum operating load, instead of at all four loads as required under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA will waive the requirement under NSPS subpart GG to 
conduct performance testing for nitrogen oxides (NOX) for 
each turbine at four load levels under the following conditions: The 
turbine burns natural gas; the NOX continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS) data provides a continuous record of 
NOX emissions; and the testing at 100 percent load is the 
same as testing peak load.
    Q2: Will EPA allow the facility under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, 
to test one of two combined cycle generating units to demonstrate both 
units in compliance with NOX, CO and VOC emission limits 
during startup and shut down, in lieu of testing all units?
    A2: No. The plant is required under NSPS subpart GG to conduct a 
performance test of each of the two identical gas turbines for purposes 
of showing NSPS compliance.
    Q3: Will EPA allow the facility under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG to 
use NOX CEMS data in lieu of monitoring the water fuel 
ratio?
    A3: Yes. The plant may use NOX CEMS monitoring instead 
of monitoring the water fuel ratio.

Abstract for [M050010]

    Q: If the total quantity of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 
contained in the remediation material that Connecticut Resources 
Recovery Authority (CRRA) of Hartford, Connecticut will excavate, 
extract, pump, or otherwise remove is less than 1 megagram per year 
(Mg/yr), is it subject only to the recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart GGGGG?
    A: Yes. EPA confirms that as long as CRRA's site remediation meets 
the conditions of 40 CFR 63.7881(c), including that the areas to be 
remediated, contain less than 1 Mg/yr of HAPs, the facility will be 
subject only to the recordkeeping requirements of Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) subpart GGGGG.

Abstract for [M050011]

    Q: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls,

[[Page 36147]]

Minnesota to monitor, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, the scrubber 
liquid supply pressure in lieu of the pressure drop across the wet 
scrubber used to control emissions from the lime kiln?
    A: Yes. EPA will allow this under Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) subpart MM, because for this particular scrubber, 
liquid supply pressure is a better indicator of scrubber performance 
and shall be monitored along with liquor flow rate to demonstrate 
compliance.

Abstract for [M050012]

    Q: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls, 
Minnesota to demonstrate, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, compliance 
using particulate emission tests conducted after the pulp mill 
combustion Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) promulgation 
date but before the compliance date?
    A: Yes. EPA will allow this under MACT subpart MM on the condition 
that the production rates achieved during the November 2003 tests 
represent the highest production rates currently achievable.

Abstract for [M050013]

    Q: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls, 
Minnesota to set, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, a compliant wet 
scrubber operating parameter range that is 10 percent lower than the 
average value recorded during a performance test?
    A: No. EPA will not allow this because Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) subpart MM requires that the compliant operating 
parameter range be established using the arithmetic average of the 
values recorded during a performance test.

Abstract for [M050014]

    Q1: Will EPA allow Boise Paper Solutions in International Falls, 
Minnesota to set, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, a minimum compliant 
scrubber liquor flow rate at 425 gallons per minute (gpm) and a minimum 
compliant scrubber liquor supply pressure at 308 pounds per square inch 
(psi)?
    A1: Yes. EPA will allow this because test data demonstrate 
compliance with the particulate matter limit of Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) subpart MM if these parameters are met.

Abstract for [M050015]

    Q2: Will EPA allow the MeadWestvaco paper mill in Chillicothe, Ohio 
to demonstrate continuous compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, 
using operating parameters for the smelt dissolving tank scrubber 
pressure drop that were established during tests not conducted in 
accordance with all the requirements of MACT subpart MM?
    A2: No. EPA cannot consider approving under MACT subpart MM this 
proposal for a compliant operating parameter range until the initial 
performance test is conducted.

Abstract for [M050016]

    Q: Is the Chicago White Metals die casting facility in Bensenville, 
Illinois subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR if it is an area source 
that only melts clean charge and internal scrap?
    A: No. Under these facts, the facility in question is not subject 
to subpart RRR. However, if the facility increases its emissions and 
becomes a major source, or if the materials charged into the remelt 
furnaces are anything other than clean charge, internal scrap, or 
customer returns, then the furnaces will be subject.

Abstract for [M050017]

    Q: May the Scepter secondary aluminum facility in Bicknell, Indiana 
use an alternative reactive flux injection monitoring method under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A: Yes. The facility may use an alternative reactive flux injection 
monitoring method under Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
subpart RRR as long as the flux rate for the entire batch cycle for 
each furnace is below that established during the performance tests.

Abstract for [M050018]

    Q: Is the Commonwealth Industries facility in Uhrichsville, Ohio 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR if it is an area source which 
reports having Group 2 furnaces?
    A: The furnaces are not subject to the testing requirements of 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart RRR. However, they 
are subject to the operating, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of MACT subpart RRR.

Abstract for [M050019]

    Q: May the Wausau-Mosinee paper mill in Brokaw, Wisconsin monitor 
the on/off status of the scrubber pumps instead of the pressure drop 
across the venturi scrubbers under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM?
    A: No. Pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate are critical 
parameters for the performance of venturi scrubbers. EPA has already 
approved monitoring the on/off status of the scrubber pumps in lieu of 
monitoring the liquid flow rate.

    Dated: May 26, 2005.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05-12358 Filed 6-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P