[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21014-21026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3808]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8160-7]


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/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. 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 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 part 63 NESHAP and 
section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific 
regulatory provision that sources may request applicability 
determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding 
applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and 
NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or 
recordkeeping which are different from the promulgated requirements. 
See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's 
written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative 
monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries 
about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as 
they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, 
for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or 
to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements 
contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries 
are broadly termed regulatory interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
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, and control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 95 such documents added to 
the ADI on February 28, 2006. 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/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on February 28, 2006; 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 February 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Control                       Category                 Subpart                    Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A050001............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Demolition of Residential
                                                                                      Trailer Homes.
M050030............................  MACT..................  A, EEE................  Stack Test Waiver for a
                                                                                      Portland Cement Plant
                                                                                      Kiln.
M050036............................  MACT..................  G.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Orthoxylene Unit.
M050037............................  MACT..................  G.....................  Waiver of Additional
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
M050038............................  MACT..................  U.....................  Alternative Reporting
                                                                                      Period.
M050039............................  MACT..................  A.....................  Waiver of Flare Performance
                                                                                      Testing.
M050040............................  MACT..................  CC, G.................  Alternative Reporting
                                                                                      Period.
M050041............................  MACT..................  CC....................  Alternative Reporting
                                                                                      Period.
M050042............................  MACT..................  S.....................  Alternative Test Method for
                                                                                      Pulp and Paper Mill.
M050043............................  MACT..................  S, VVV................  Cluster Rule Compliance
                                                                                      Plan.
M050044............................  MACT..................  PPP, FFFF.............  Primary Product
                                                                                      Determination for
                                                                                      Production Vessels.
M050045............................  MACT..................  S.....................  Cluster Rule Compliance
                                                                                      Plan.
M050046............................  MACT..................  KK, QQQQ..............  Finishing of Architectural
                                                                                      Elements.

[[Page 21015]]

 
M050047............................  MACT..................  Hon R.................  C-12 Chemical Manufacturing
                                                                                      Process Units.
Z050007............................  NESHAP................  FF, V.................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Pressure/Vacuum Relief
                                                                                      Valves.
0500048............................  NSPS..................  D.....................  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500060............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Fluidized Catalytic
                                                                                      Cracking Unit.
0500061............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Gas Turbines.
0500062............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Compliance Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Gas-Fired Boiler.
0500063............................  NSPS..................  J, Dc.................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Gasoline Loading Rack.
0500064............................  NSPS..................  Dc....................  Alternative Recordkeeping
                                                                                      of Fuel Usage.
0500065............................  NSPS..................  Da....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Duct Burners.
0500066............................  NSPS..................  NNN...................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Catalytic Incinerators.
0500067............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Gasoline Loading Rack.
0500068............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Platformer Lock Hopper.
0500069............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Vacuum Charge Heater.
0500070............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Marine Dock Thermal
                                                                                      Oxidizer.
0500071............................  NSPS..................  Dc....................  Alternative Recordkeeping
                                                                                      of Fuel Usage.
0500072............................  NSPS..................  NNN...................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Distillation Units.
0500073............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Fluidized Catalytic
                                                                                      Cracking Unit.
0500074............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Refinery Unit.
0500075............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      New Replacement Turbine.
0500076............................  NSPS..................  Db, GG, Dc............  Custom Fuel Monitoring
                                                                                      Schedule.
0500077............................  NSPS..................  UUU...................  Kyanite Processing.
0500078............................  NSPS..................  Db, GG................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Gas Turbines.
0500079............................  NSPS..................  GG, Db................  Custom Fuel Monitoring
                                                                                      Schedule.
0500080............................  NSPS..................  GG, Db................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Gas Turbines.
0500081............................  NSPS..................  Da, GG................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Gas Turbines.
0500082............................  NSPS..................  Dc, GG................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Gas Turbines.
0500083............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500084............................  NSPS..................  UUU, WWW..............  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500085............................  NSPS..................  Da....................  Stack Testing Waiver.
0500086............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Tier 2 Sampling.
0500087............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                      Proposals for Landfill.
0500088............................  NSPS..................  CC....................  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500089............................  NSPS..................  RRR, NNN..............  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Distillation Operations.
0500090............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Combustion Turbines.
0500091............................  NSPS..................  Dc....................  Alternative Recordkeeping
                                                                                      of Fuel Usage.
0500092............................  NSPS..................  LL....................  Waiver of Visible Emission
                                                                                      Test Requirements.
0500093............................  NSPS..................  D.....................  Alternative Opacity, SO2 ,
                                                                                      and NOX Monitoring.
0500094............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      Modification Request.
0500095............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Passive Flares and Waiver
                                                                                      of Testing Requirements.
0500096............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Gas Turbines.
0500097............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Temporary Disconnection of
                                                                                      Gas Collection Wells.
0500098............................  NSPS..................  Cc....................  Tier 2 Testing Deadline.
0500099............................  NSPS..................  Y, OOO................  Initial Opacity Performance
                                                                                      Testing.
0500100............................  NSPS..................  Dc....................  Opacity Monitor
                                                                                      Certification.
0500101............................  NSPS..................  III, NNN..............  Waiver of Performance Test
                                                                                      of Flare.
0500102............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Waiver of Installation of
                                                                                      Gas Collection Wells.
0500103............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Initial Performance Test
                                                                                      Waiver and Recordkeeping
                                                                                      Waiver.
0500104............................  NSPS..................  Dc....................  Initial Opacity Performance
                                                                                      Testing.
0500105............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Refinery Fuel Gas Streams.
0500106............................  NSPS..................  D.....................  Alternative Span Value.
0500107............................  NSPS..................  OOO...................  Waiver of Initial
                                                                                      Performance Test for
                                                                                      Baghouses.
0500108............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500109............................  NSPS..................  H, T, U, V............  Use of English Units for
                                                                                      Monitoring and
                                                                                      Recordkeeping.
0500110............................  NSPS..................  XX....................  VRU Bypass During Diesel
                                                                                      Loading.
0500111............................  NSPS..................  UU....................  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring and Performance
                                                                                      Testing.
0500112............................  NSPS..................  A, D, Db, Dc, Kb, DDD,  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                              III, NNN, RRR.          Startups, Shutdowns,
                                                                                      Malfunctions.
0500113............................  NSPS..................  VV, Y, OOO............  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                      Leak Detection.
0500114............................  NSPS..................  OOO, Y, Dc............  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                      Visible Emissions.
0500115............................  NSPS..................  WWW, III, NNN.........  Alternative Monitoring of
                                                                                      Surface Methane.
0500116............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Landfill Testing and
                                                                                      Emission Rate Calculation
                                                                                      Issues.
0500117............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Landfill Gas.
0500118............................  NSPS..................  CC....................  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500119............................  NSPS..................  XX, J.................  Re-Test Requirements After
                                                                                      Adding Equipment.
0500120............................  NSPS..................  TT....................  Alternative Test Method.
0500121............................  NSPS..................  VV....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Leak Detection.
0500122............................  NSPS..................  Db, Dc................  Boiler Derate Proposal.
0500123............................  NSPS..................  UUU...................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Fluidized Bed Dryer.
0500124............................  NSPS..................  GG....................  Modification of Initial
                                                                                      Performance Testing.
0500125............................  NSPS..................  J, A, I...............  Performance Test Extension
                                                                                      Request.
0500126............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for CEM Span Setting.

[[Page 21016]]

 
0500127............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Refinery Unit.
0500128............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Refinery Unit.
0500129............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Refinery Combustion
                                                                                      Unit.
0500130............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Refinery Unit.
0500131............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Vent Gas Stream.
0500132............................  NSPS..................  NNN, RRR..............  Alternative Opacity
                                                                                      Monitoring.
0500133............................  NSPS..................  NNN, RRR..............  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Distillation Units.
0500134............................  NSPS..................  B.....................  Alternative Performance
                                                                                      Specification Procedure.
0500135............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Cogeneration Unit.
0500136............................  NSPS..................  NNN...................  SOCMI Distillation
                                                                                      Operations.
0500137............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Fuel Gas Combustion Devices
                                                                                      and Process Gas Exemption.
0500138............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Fuel Gases and Fuel Gas
                                                                                      Combustion Devices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [A050001]
    Q1: Are trailer homes with different owners located in the state of 
Delaware that are recycled using two different processes through the 
Delaware Solid Waste Authority subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
    A1: No. 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, the asbestos NESHAP regulation, 
does not apply to demolition of single residential trailer homes 
because they are classified as single dwelling units and ownership 
remains with the trailer owner, not the state. A single dwelling unit 
that is being demolished is exempt from the NESHAP regulation 
throughout the entire recycling process. However, when two or more 
residential homes are located at the same demolition site and are under 
control of the same owner or operator, then the trailer homes become a 
residential installation subject to the NESHAP regulation.
    Q2: Would 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, apply if the residential 
trailer home were purchased by a commercial entity rather than being 
sent to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority?
    A2: No. A residential trailer home and its recycling process are 
exempt from the asbestos NESHAP regulation if at the time of 
demolition, it can be classified as single dwelling unit and does not 
meet the definition of a residential installation in 40 CFR 61.141.
    Q3: Given the inapplicability of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, what 
might the State of Delaware do to minimize public exposure to asbestos 
from the demolition of residential trailer homes?
    A3: EPA suggests that the State of Delaware encourage inspection 
and removal of asbestos-containing material at the Delaware Solid Waste 
Authority compaction site. The state might also consider the addition 
of a permit condition in the Delaware landfills operating permits that 
would prohibit landfills from accepting asbestos-containing material as 
landfill cover.
Abstract for [0500060]
    Q: Does EPA approve a request to discontinue calibrating a carbon 
monoxide continuous emission monitor (CEM) with a 1,000-ppmv span gas 
for a fluid catalytic cracking unit, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, 
at Flint Hill Resources Pine Bend petroleum refinery in Rosemount, 
Minnesota?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request because, based on information 
submitted to EPA, Flint Hills Resources meets the criteria for the 
exemption set forth at 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii). However, a State permit 
requires the facility to calibrate its carbon monoxide continuous 
emission monitor with a 100 ppmv span gas.
Abstract for [0500061]
    Q1: Does EPA waive the multi-load testing requirement, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, for Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near 
Lordsburg, New Mexico?
    A1: Yes. EPA waives the multi-load testing requirement under NSPS 
subpart GG because the facility has a nitrogen oxides continuous 
emissions monitor (NOX CEM).
    Q2: Does EPA approve the use of monitoring conducted in accordance 
with Part 75 in lieu of certain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart GG, at Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near 
Lordsburg, New Mexico?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of certain monitoring of part 75 in 
lieu of certain monitoring requirements of NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [0500062]
    Q: Does EPA approve a compliance monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Db, for a 185-mmBTU/hr natural gas-fired boiler at Flint 
Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
    A: Yes. On April 12, 2000, the company supplemented its request in 
accordance with EPA's initial response. The plan that Koch Fuels (FHR's 
former name) submitted included all of the information required by 40 
CFR 60.49b(c)(1), (2) and (3). Based upon a review of the information 
that the company submitted, EPA approves the proposed compliance 
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart Db.
Abstract for [Z050007]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 61, subparts V and FF, for pressure/vacuum relief valves in the 
wastewater treatment plant tanks and oil-water separator located at 
Flint Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
    A: Yes. EPA concludes that the pressure/vacuum relief valves 
function as both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings 
under NESHAP subparts V and FF. EPA did not promulgate a definition of 
``dilution air opening'' in NESHAP subpart FF. NESHAP subpart V infers 
that a pressure relief device is designed to release pressure but is 
not designed to function as a dilution air opening. Since the pressure/
vacuum relief valves relieve excess pressure in the closed vent system 
and allow dilution air to enter the closed vent system, the pressure/
vacuum relief valves are both pressure relief devices and dilution air 
openings. EPA recognizes that the requirements of 40 CFR 
61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and (C) do not account for this dichotomy, and thus 
approves FHR's request for an alternative monitoring plan to resolve 
the ambiguity.
Abstract for [0500063]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart J, to address a new refinery fuel gas that Flint Hills 
Resources (FHR) loads at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend 
Refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?

[[Page 21017]]

    A: Yes. EPA finds FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas 
meets the criteria in EPA's August 14, 1987 guidance for refinery fuel 
gas stream alternative monitoring plans, and thus it approves the 
alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500064]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping method, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for two heaters at Devon Energy's 
Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant near Bridgeport, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the changes in the fuel usage recordkeeping 
frequency for NSPS subpart Dc boilers that are fired with only natural 
gas and/or low sulfur oil.
Abstract for [M050036]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative control method, under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart G, using dual carbon canisters to reduce HAP emissions 
at the Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative method under MACT subpart G, 
conditioned on Chalmette's daily monitoring of the HAPs concentration 
after the primary canister until breakthrough has occurred three times.
Abstract for [0500065]
    Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Da, to use a sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitor 
(SO2 CEM) for duct burners located at Calpine's Channel 
Energy Center facility in Houston, Texas?
    A: No. EPA does not waive the requirement under NSPS subpart Da. 
However, EPA will consider the approval of an alternative monitoring 
plan in lieu of an SO2 CEM.
Abstract for [0500066]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart NNN, for the catalytic incinerator at BASF's Freeport, 
Texas facility, which operates at varying flowrates and must add 
hydrocarbons to the stream to generate the required delta T established 
by the performance test?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS 
subpart NNN for BASF's R-170 Catalytic Incinerator provided that: (1) 
The minimum outlet temperature will be 550 degrees C; (2) the minimum 
delta T across the bed will be 287 degrees C; (3) the minimum organic 
loading to the bed will be 89,380 lb/hr; and (4) the facility 
establishes alarms at a 15 degrees C differential to allow time for 
corrective action. In addition, BASF will keep records of organic flow 
rate to R-170 in lb/hr. Any hourly flow rates that are below the 
approved minimum will be considered a violation of NSPS subpart NNN and 
must be reported as excess emissions.
Abstract for [M050037]
    Q: Will EPA waive, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, additional 
performance testing if the scrubber/absorption system organic 
absorption medium is changed from utility water to recycle process 
wastewater at a BP Chemicals Green Lake facility in Port Lavaca, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA will waive additional testing under MACT subpart G 
because the change in medium at the scrubber/absorption system would 
lead to only a slight increase in emissions and the total emissions 
remain below the permitted emissions limit of 0.37 lb/hr.
Abstract for [0500067]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart J, for a flare used by Flint Hills Resources (FHR) 
during periods of maintenance or malfunction of a vapor recovery unit 
at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount, 
Minnesota?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel 
gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, ``Alternative Monitoring Plan 
for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas'' for refinery fuel gas stream 
alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control Number 
0500138) and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under 
NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500068]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart J, for the platformer lock hopper and switch valve 
vent refinery fuel gas stream at Flint Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum 
refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel 
gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, ``Alternative Monitoring Plan 
for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas'' for refinery fuel gas stream 
alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control No. 
0500138), and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under 
NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500069]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission 
monitor (H2S CEM) for the disulfide separator off-gas in 
Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS 
subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed 
alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance 
in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [0500070]
    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission 
monitor (H2S CEM) for the dock thermal oxidizer vent gases 
in Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS 
subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed 
alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance 
in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
    Q2: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements for 
boilers, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Frito-Lay facility in 
Mission, Texas?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements 
under subpart Dc based upon the information submitted by the facility.
Abstract for [M050038]
    Q: Does EPA approve a request to align the periodic reporting 
requirements of non-leak detection and reduction (LDAR) and LDAR to a 
single semiannual report, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart U, for the 
hypalon elastomer unit at the DuPont Dow facility in Beaumont, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request to align the periodic reporting 
requirements of non-LDAR and LDAR to a single semiannual report under 
MACT subpart U as long as the reports are submitted in such a manner 
that there are no missing days of reporting.
Abstract for [M050039]
    Q: Does EPA waive a performance test requirement for vent streams 
that contain hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and allow the use of an alternative 
method of demonstrating compliance, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, at 
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise's facility in Beaumont, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA grants the waiver of performance testing under MACT 
subpart A for flow measurement and heat content because the facility 
has

[[Page 21018]]

demonstrated compliance using alternate means.
Abstract for [0500071]
    Q: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for natural gas burning boilers at the 
Frito-Lay facility in Mission, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements 
under subpart Dc based upon the condition that it is not necessary to 
keep daily fuel usage records for units fired only with natural gas 
since the emission standards in subpart Dc are not applicable to these 
units.
Abstract for [0500072]
    Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, an 
alternative plan to monitor the total flow to the combustion device 
instead of monitoring the flow of each vent stream from several 
distillation units to the combustion device at ExxonMobil's Baytown 
Chemical Plant in Baytown, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request under NSPS 
subpart NNN with additional conditions to ensure which combustion 
devices are associated with which vent gas streams.
Abstract for [0500073]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a refinery 
generated fuel gas stream, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at Motiva 
Enterprises' Convent Refinery in Convent, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS 
subpart J, provided the facility follows the stipulated guidance in 
EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001 
(see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [M050040]
    Q: Does EPA align the 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and CC reporting 
periods for Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA aligns the reporting periods under MACT subparts G and 
CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such that no 
days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
Abstract for [0500074]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for the 
regenerative catalytic cracking unit (RCCU), under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS 
subpart J, provided that the monitored parameters and ranges at the 
facility have supporting data.
Abstract for [M050041]
    Q: Does EPA allow aligning the reporting period to a semi-annual 
calendar year, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the Shell Norco 
Chemical Plant in Norco, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA allows the aligning of the reporting period under MACT 
subpart CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such 
that no days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
Abstract for [M050042]
    Q: Does EPA approve the use of National Council for Air and Stream 
(NCASI) hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) Test Method 99.01, under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart S, to analyze condensate samples collected at Appleton 
Papers' Spring Mill in Roaring Spring Borough, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA allows the alternative method under MACT subpart S, 
provided that the appropriate correction factors are used.
Abstract for [0500075]
    Q1: Does EPA approve the continuation of the current custom fuel 
monitoring plan for the new replacement turbine, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG, at East Tennessee Natural Gas Company's Compressor Station 
3313 in Rural Retreat, Virginia?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG because it 
understands that there will be no change in fuel quality since there is 
no change in fuel source.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a sampling location, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG, where the system's three major lines connect?
    A2: Yes. Because the ownership of East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company was transferred from El Paso Energy Corporation (EPE) to a 
subsidiary of Duke Energy Gas Transmission, EPA approves a new sampling 
location at Topside Junction Metering and Control Station in Knoxville 
County, where the system's three major lines connect.
Abstract for [M050043]
    Q: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring parameters and parameter 
values for ``closed'' biological treatment systems, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart S, at the Smurfit (formerly Stone Container Corporation) 
pulp and paper mill in Hopewell, Virginia?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has 
adequately demonstrated it meets the requirements of MACT subpart S 
through both continuous monitoring of the proposed four parameters and 
continuous monitoring to ensure that UNOX oxygen purity is maintained 
at 96 percent maximum.
Abstract for [M050044]
    Q1: Does EPA approve the primary product determination for specific 
production vessels and precompliance report for pilot vessels, under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart PPP, for the CRODA Manufacturing facility in Mill 
Hall, Pennsylvania?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart PPP because it 
accepts CRODA's conclusion that specific production vessels that do not 
manufacture a polyether polyol as the primary product are not polyether 
polyol manufacturing units.
    Q2: Does EPA agree that products manufactured with epoxides do not 
meet the definition of a polyether polyol in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
PPP?
    A2: Yes. EPA agrees that products that do not meet the definition 
of polyether polyol in MACT subpart PPP are not subject to the 
requirements of that subpart.
Abstract for [M050045]
    Q: Does EPA approve the use of alternative monitoring parameters 
and parameter values to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart S for ``closed'' biological treatment systems at the St. 
Laurent Paperboard facility in West Point, Virginia?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has 
adequately demonstrated that the alternative monitoring parameters meet 
the requirements of MACT subpart S.
Abstract for [0500076]
    Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, for Millennium Inorganic Chemicals' Hawkins Point 
plant in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request in accordance with its August 14, 
1987 custom fuel monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that 
pipeline quality natural gas is the only fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500077]
    Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, apply to rotary calciners that 
are used in the production of mullite with kyanite as the raw material 
at Kyanite Mining Corporation (KMC) facilities?
    A: No. NSPS subpart UUU applies to calciners and dryers at 
``mineral processing plants,'' i.e., a facility that processes or 
produces one or more of

[[Page 21019]]

the seventeen specifically named minerals listed in 40 CFR 60.731, 
their concentrates, or mixtures which contain greater than 50 percent 
of any of these listed minerals. EPA understands that silica is formed 
as a by-product during the kyanite calcining process at KMC in 
quantities that do not constitute the majority (greater than 50 
percent) of any of the minerals processed or produced at KMC.
Abstract for [M050046]
    Q: Is a facility which primarily applies finishing to architectural 
wood molding materials subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KK?
    A: No. While EPA believes that the definitions in 40 CFR 63.822 are 
intended to be broadly applied and inclusive, we have determined that 
rotogravure printing on wood molding was not intended to be regulated 
under this rule. The facility does not produce saleable paper products 
and does use a flexographic press in its finishing operations. It 
therefore does not qualify as ``publication rotogravure printing'' as 
that term is defined in 40 CFR 63.822. However, EPA has determined that 
the molding finishing operations at the facility would be regulated 
under 40 CFR 43 Subpart QQQQ, the Wood Building Products MACT, if the 
molding products ``finished'' at the facility are not included within 
the category of surface coating (or other operations specifically 
excluded under 40 CFR 63.4681(c)(1)-(5)) and are more than 50 percent 
by weight wood.
Abstract for [0500078]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in 
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring plan request under 
NSPS subpart GG, consistent with previous determinations that provide 
for the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) equipment 
to continuously monitor compliance with the standard for nitrogen 
oxides.
Abstract for [0500079]
    Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in 
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under 
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel 
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that natural gas is the 
only fuel fired in the gas turbine.
Abstract for [0500080]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method request for 
performance testing of (nitrogen oxides) NOX emission 
limitations for two gas turbine/duct burner combined cycle units, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at the Liberty Electric Power facility in 
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG based on a 
review by the Emission, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (EMAD) of the 
Office on Air Quality, Planning and Standards, and subject to the 
conditions specified in the EMAD memorandum (C304-02) dated April 5, 
2002.
Abstract for [0500081]
    Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GG, for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in 
Fluvanna County, Virginia?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under 
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel 
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality 
natural gas is the only fuel being burned (see ADI Control Number 
NS33).
    Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, that provides for the use of CEMS equipment to 
continuously monitor compliance with the standards for nitrogen oxides 
for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in Fluvanna County, 
Virginia?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan request under 
NSPS subpart GG, based upon its consistency with previous 
determinations made by the Agency and conditions necessitating specific 
additional requirements for recordkeeping and monitoring.
Abstract for [0500082]
    Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR 
part 60 subpart GG, for Energy System North East's Cogeneration Plant 
in North East, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under 
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel 
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality 
natural gas is the only fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500083]
    Q: Does EPA waive the opacity monitoring requirement in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Db for a wood-fired boiler at the Homanit USA plant in 
Montgomery County, North Carolina?
    A: No. EPA finds that neither NSPS subpart Db nor the NSPS general 
provisions in subpart A provide the authority to completely waive the 
applicable opacity monitoring requirement of NSPS subpart Db. However, 
based upon the low probability that there will be any opacity in the 
regenerative thermal oxidizer stack downstream of the boiler, EPA would 
be willing to consider an opacity monitoring alternative.
Abstract for [0500084]
    Q: Does EPA approve use of an alternative path length correction 
factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, based on width rather than 
equivalent diameter for the continuous opacity monitoring system on 
three rectangular exhaust stacks at the 3M facility in Moncure, North 
Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request. EPA finds the alternative path 
length correction factor is acceptable under NSPS subpart UUU because 
of the high bias in the opacity data created by using equivalent 
diameter.
Abstract for [0500085]
    Q: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da requirement to 
conduct a stack test in order to determine compliance with the 
applicable sulfur dioxide limit for a duct burner at Cogentrix Energy's 
Caledonia Power Station?
    A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart Da requirement based upon the 
margin of compliance, provided that the unit is fired with only 
pipeline quality natural gas.
Abstract for [0500086]
    Q: Does EPA allow collection of Tier 2 samples from the active gas 
collection systems, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Prairie 
Bluff Landfill in Chickasaw County, Mississippi, and the Little Dixie 
Landfill in Madison County, Mississippi?
    A: Yes. Based upon NSPS subpart WWW revisions promulgated on 
October 17, 2000, EPA finds the proposed Tier 2 sampling sites to be 
acceptable, provided that they are located prior to any gas moving or 
condensate removal equipment. In addition, at least three samples must 
be collected from the proposed sampling site at each of the landfills 
in question.
Abstract for [0500087]
    Q1: Does EPA approve the proposed alternative oxygen concentration 
limit for 16 wells, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Deans 
Bridge

[[Page 21020]]

Road Landfill operated by the Augusta, Georgia Public Works and 
Engineering Department?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative concentration limit 
under NSPS subpart WWW because the temperature monitoring data for the 
wells in question indicate that oxygen levels greater than five percent 
have not poisoned methane producing bacteria.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW to conduct methane surface concentration monitoring in a closed 52-
acre section of the landfill?
    A2: No. Because NSPS subpart WWW requires that methane surface 
concentration monitoring in closed areas be conducted at least 
annually, EPA concludes that the requirement to conduct this monitoring 
cannot be waived. However, the monitoring frequency can be reduced from 
a quarterly to an annual basis if none of the methane concentration 
readings in the closed section of the landfill were 500 parts per 
million or more during the June 2003 monitoring period.
Abstract for [0500088]
    Q: Does EPA approve an opacity monitoring alternative for two glass 
melting furnaces, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at the Anchor Glass 
Company's Warner Robbins, Georgia plant?
    A: No. EPA does not approve this request under NSPS subpart CC. 
Based upon the results of testing conducted on both furnaces, there 
does not appear to be a consistent relationship between particulate 
emission rates and the operating parameter (bridgewall temperature) 
that Anchor Glass proposed to monitor in lieu of installing, 
certifying, and operating a continuous emission monitoring system.
Abstract for [0500089]
    Q: Does EPA find that the 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR monitoring 
procedures are an acceptable alternative to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
NNN requirements for volatile organic compound (VOC) excess emission 
monitoring at the distillation operation in Celanese Acetate's plant in 
Rock Hill, South Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the NSPS subpart RRR monitoring procedures 
are an acceptable alternative to the monitoring procedures required 
under NSPS subpart NNN in this case. The NSPS subpart RRR requirement 
to monitor diversions from the control device accomplishes the same end 
as the NSPS subpart NNN requirement to monitor the flow to the control 
device. In addition, based upon information in the preamble to the 
final rule promulgating NSPS subpart RRR, monitoring the combustion 
temperature for boilers and process heaters, although required under 
NSPS subpart NNN, is not necessary when a VOC vent stream is introduced 
with the primary fuel for the boiler or heater.
Abstract for [0500090]
    Q: Does EPA approve the use of Gas Producers Association (GPA) 
Method 2265, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, to measure the sulfur 
content of natural gas burned in turbines at the Clarksdale Public 
Utilities Crossroads Power Plant?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request to use GPA Method 2265 for 
monitoring natural gas sulfur content under NSPS subpart GG because it 
is an acceptable alternative similar to American Society for Testing 
Materials (ASTM) methods for measuring sulfur content and consistent 
with several other past determinations.
Abstract for [0500091]
    Q: Does EPA require requests for approval of an alternative fuel 
usage recordkeeping schedule to be submitted to EPA for review, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, especially routine requests for natural gas 
and distillate oil-fired boilers?
    A: No. Requests of this type do not have to be submitted 
exclusively to EPA for review. Because of the routine nature of such 
requests, review on a case-by-case basis at the Regional level slows 
down the approval without providing any environmental benefit. The low 
fuel emissions from natural gas and distillate oil-fired boilers means 
that monthly fuel usage recordkeeping frequencies are typically 
appropriate to verify these sources' compliance. Additionally, 
proposals to apportion total fuel usage between multiple units with a 
common fuel flow meter do not have to be submitted to EPA for review if 
the apportionment approach is at least as accurate as one that EPA 
approved for several plants operated by Tyson Foods in Region 5 in a 
determination dated May 1, 2001 (ADI control number 010005), which was 
attached to EPA's response.
Abstract for [0500092]
    Q: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
LL, to perform visible emissions tests on several affected facilities 
located inside a building at the Treibacher Schleifmittal grit plant in 
Andersonville, Georgia?
    A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart LL requirement to conduct 
separate visible emission tests on each of the fugitive emission 
sources inside the facility because the results of EPA Method 22 
observations conducted on the exterior of the building provide adequate 
assurance of compliance for the facilities located inside.
Abstract for [0500093]
    Q: Does EPA approve the opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) alternative monitoring proposals, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, for the Number 2 Bark Boiler at 
Riverwood International's kraft pulp mill in Macon, Georgia?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposals 
concerning opacity, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides under NSPS 
subpart D. EPA finds monitoring of the scrubber liquor flow rate and 
scrubber pressure drop to be an acceptable alternative to using 
continuous opacity monitors (COMS). Additionally, monitoring the pH of 
the scrubber liquor when coal is fired is an acceptable alternative to 
an SO2 CEMS. Furthermore, performing annual boiler tune-ups 
and conducting annual NOX performance tests is reasonable 
assurance of compliance with the applicable NOX emission 
limits in subpart D in lieu of a NOX CEMS.
Abstract for [0500094]
    Q: Does EPA approve a request to modify the current opacity 
monitoring alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a boiler 
at Georgia Pacific's plywood plant in Monticello, Georgia, by deleting 
one of the three parameters currently monitored as an indicator of 
scrubber performance?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Db to drop the 
water supply pressure monitoring requirement. Based on facts submitted 
to EPA, monitoring both water flow rate and supply pressure at this 
plant is unnecessary. In addition, several other NSPS subparts, 
including OOO and UUU, require only pressure drop and water flow rate 
monitoring.
Abstract for [0500095]
    Q1: Does EPA approve a proposal to use passive flares on a 
temporary basis (not to exceed 18 months), under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, 
Georgia?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed flares under NSPS subpart WWW, 
provided that they are used only in areas where liners have been 
installed on the sides and bottom of the landfill in accordance with 40 
CFR 258.40. This determination is based upon the design of the proposed 
flares, each of which must include a pilot flame,

[[Page 21021]]

thermocouple, a thermocouple to monitor the temperature at the flare 
tip, and a data logger to record the thermocouple data.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW performance 
testing requirement for the passive flares at Waste Management's Live 
Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia?
    A2: No. EPA does not waive the NSPS subpart WWW performance testing 
requirement for the passive flares because flare design flow rate data 
and information regarding typical landfill gas composition do not 
provide a sufficient basis for a waiver. To obtain such a waiver, the 
facility must test a portion of the flares that it installs and submit 
the results of the test to EPA for review.
Abstract for [0500096]
    Q: Does EPA approve American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) 
Method D 6667-01 as an alternative method, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG, for monitoring the sulfur content of natural gas burned in 
three gas turbines at the Williams Pipeline site in Coden, Alabama?
    A: Yes. EPA has previously approved the proposed alternative method 
under NSPS subpart GG for measuring natural gas sulfur content at more 
than twenty separate turbine installations nationwide in lieu of the 
four ASTM methods for determining the sulfur content of gaseous fuels 
listed in 40 CFR 60.335(d).
Abstract for [0500097]
    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to temporarily abandon gas 
collection wells during vertical expansion in active areas that have 
held waste for five years or more, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, 
at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia?
    A: No. EPA does not approve under NSPS subpart WWW the proposal to 
disconnect the wells for a six to twelve month period while a vertical 
expansion is taking place because it would constitute a relaxation of 
the applicable emission standard.
Abstract for [0500098]
    Q1: Does EPA allow Clayton County, Georgia, which missed the 
deadline for a Tier 2 retest at its SR3 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, 
to have the option of conducting another Tier 2 test prior to the 
deadline for submittal of a gas collection and control (GCCS) system 
design plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc?
    A1: Yes. EPA has determined that additional Tier 2 testing can be 
conducted any time prior to the deadline for installation of a GCCS (30 
months after the landfill's nonmethane organic compound emission rate 
exceeds 50 megagrams per year), provided that a design plan is 
submitted by the applicable deadline (12 months after the landfill's 
nonmethane organic compound emission rate exceeds 50 megagrams per 
year).
    Q2: Could EPA clarify whether the results of initial Tier 2 testing 
in 1998 or of a Tier 2 retest in 2003 should be used for calculating 
the 2003 nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Cc, at the Clayton County, Georgia, Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfill?
    A2: Once the deadline for Tier 2 retesting has passed, NMOC 
emission rates under NSPS subpart WWW must be calculated using the 4000 
part per million default value, unless additional Tier 2 testing is 
done. If additional testing is done, the NMOC concentration results 
from this retest, rather than the default value, would apply for 
calculating the NMOC emission rate for year 2003.
Abstract for [0500099]
    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal for shortening the visible emission 
(VE) observation from three hours to one hour for conveyor drop points, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, at DTE Energy Services' coal 
preparation plant in Belews Creek, North Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request to shorten the VE observation time 
to one hour when no individual opacity readings exceed 15 percent 
during the first hour of readings. Demonstrating that opacity levels do 
not exceed 15 percent of the applicable limit for an entire hour will 
provide adequate assurance of compliance with the opacity limit in NSPS 
subpart Y.
Abstract for [0500100]
    Q: Could EPA verify whether a continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) located on a replacement stack for a boiler at Trigen Biopower 
in Caldwell, North Carolina, should be subject, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Dc, to certification requirements in the latest version of 
Performance Specification 1 (PS-1)?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that under NSPS subpart Dc, the COMS is subject 
to the latest PS-1 certification requirements. Installing the monitor 
on the replacement stack constitutes relocation because a replacement 
stack is likely to differ in some respects from the original stack, and 
there is no way to be absolutely sure two stacks are completely 
identical. Relocating a COMS is one of the conditions requiring monitor 
certification in the August 10, 2000 version of PS-1.
Abstract for [0500101]
    Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct a performance test on 
a flare that controls volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
air oxidation and distillation operations, under 40 CFR part, 60 
subparts III and NNN, at Albemarle Corporation's chemical plant in 
Orangeburg, South Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA waives the performance requirement under NSPS subparts 
III and NNN. Information supplied by the company demonstrates that the 
flare tip velocity will be less than 50 percent of the applicable limit 
even if the total volume of reactants for the hydrogen cyanide 
production unit were vented through the control device. Hence, the 
velocity limit promulgated in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(i)(A) will not be 
exceeded.
Abstract for [0500102]
    Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to install gas collection wells 
in active landfill areas that have held waste for five years or more, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Central Disposal Facility in 
Brevard County, Florida?
    A: No. EPA does not waive this requirement. Such a waiver would 
constitute an unacceptable relaxation of the emission standards of NSPS 
subpart WWW because landfill gas that would be collected and routed to 
control equipment under the rule's provisions would instead be released 
to the atmosphere without controls.
Abstract for [0500103]
    Q1: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct an initial 
performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, on two of the three 
combustion turbines at Forsyth Energy Project's (FEP) plant in Forsyth 
County, North Carolina?
    A1: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request. Under the conditions 
proposed by FEP, EPA finds the test results for one of the three 
identical turbines will provide adequate assurance that the other two 
units also comply with NSPS subpart GG. Additionally, the use of 
nitrogen oxides continuous emissions monitors (NOX CEMS) at 
FEP provides a further source of credible evidence regarding the 
compliance for all three turbines following the initial testing.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to keep records of the annual 
capacity factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for FEP's auxiliary 
boiler?
    A2: Yes. EPA waives this requirement. EPA finds that since the

[[Page 21022]]

company is not seeking an exemption from the nitrogen oxides limit 
under NSPS subpart Db, there is no regulatory need for information 
regarding the auxiliary boiler's annual capacity factor.
Abstract for [0500104]
    Q: Does EPA approve the shortening in duration of the initial 
opacity performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, from three 
hours to one hour if there are no opacity readings greater than ten 
percent during the initial hour of observations on three oil-fired 
boilers at the RJ Reynolds plant in Tobaccoville, North Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Dc based upon 
the expectation that there will be a low variability in opacity levels 
when oil is used to fire these boilers. The test duration can be 
shortened to one hour for any of the boilers that does not have 
individual opacity readings exceeding 10 percent for each of the 15-
second visible emissions readings taken during the first hour of 
observations.
Abstract for [0500105]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) monitoring proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, 
submitted for refinery fuel gas burned in a reformer furnace at the Air 
Products and Chemicals Catlettsburg, Kentucky hydrogen plant?
    A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS subpart J the proposed 
H2S alternative monitoring plan. The hydrogen sulfide 
content of the reformer's fuel gas and fuel gas streams is inherently 
low, and Air Products has an economic incentive to keep these levels 
low in order to prevent poisoning the hydrogen reformer catalyst.
Abstract for [0500106]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative span value of 70 percent, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart D, proposed for two hog fuel boilers at 
Weyerhaeuser's Kraft pulp mill in Plymouth, North Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative span value under NSPS 
subpart J because it will not interfere with the facility's ability to 
identify and report emissions' exceedances for opacity as stated in 40 
CFR 60.45(g)(1). In addition, the proposed alternative span value for 
the hog fuel boilers will improve the overall effectiveness of 
Weyerhaeuser's continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) quality 
assurance program by ensuring that all five units with COMS at the 
Plymouth mill have the same span value.
Abstract for [0500107]
    Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct an initial performance 
test on two existing baghouses used to control particulate emissions 
from materials handling equipment, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, 
at the Monarch Ceramic Tile plant in Florence, Alabama?
    A: No. EPA does not approve this request under NSPS subpart OOO. 
Given the increase in particulate loading at the baghouse inlet and the 
amount of time elapsed since the last performance test, prior test 
results do not provide adequate assurance of compliance for new 
equipment being added to the plant.
Abstract for [0500108]
    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan for opacity as 
proposed for a backup package boiler for additional steam generation, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, at the Jefferson Smurfit linerboard 
mill in Fernadina Beach, Florida?
    A: No. Although EPA has approved proposals for the monitoring of 
opacity using visible emissions data collection instead of using a 
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), the proposed alternative 
monitoring plan includes provisions which are not acceptable to ensure 
continuous compliance. The specific provisions that must be removed 
from this proposal before it can be approved by EPA include requests 
for making opacity readings only on days when the boiler operates for 
more than six hours, and those provisions that eliminate opacity 
readings on weekends and holidays. Also, if the company seeks an 
exemption from monitoring during periods when weather conditions make 
it impractical to collect opacity data, the proposal must be revised to 
identify the very specific conditions under which such an exemption 
could be justified.
Abstract for [0500109]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal, under 40 
CFR part 60, subparts H, T, U and V, using English units of measure, 
rather than metric units of measure, for facilities at the U.S. Agri-
Chemicals plant in Polk County, Florida?
    A: Yes. With regard to NSPS subpart H; EPA approval for the use of 
English units is not required, as the applicable monitoring provisions 
in the rule do not specifically require the use of metric units. 
Although the monitoring provisions in NSPS subparts T, U, and V require 
that feed rate data be expressed in metric units (i.e., megagrams per 
hour), EPA approves using English units (tons per hour) to satisfy 
these requirements because the fluoride emission limits in these rules 
are expressed in both metric and English units, and this does not 
hinder a compliance determination.
Abstract for [0500110]
    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to use an automated system to 
distinguish between gasoline truck tanks and diesel truck tanks, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, in order to bypass the vapor recovery unit 
(VRU) during diesel loading at the Marathon Ashland Petroleum (MAP) 
bulk gasoline terminal in Knoxville, Tennessee?
    A: Based on the information submitted, EPA cannot approve the 
proposed alternative monitoring plan at this time. However, the concept 
behind the proposal has merits. For further consideration of the 
alternative monitoring plan, MAP must submit to EPA additional 
information including: A demonstration that volatile organic compound 
(VOC) concentrations differ enough between different loading scenarios 
for a continuous monitor to tell when diesel trucks are being loaded; 
data regarding VOC monitor response time; and details regarding the 
quality assurance/quality control procedures for the continuous 
monitor.
Abstract for [0500111]
    Q1: Does EPA approve the use of EPA Method 22, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart UU, as an alternative to EPA Method 9 for determining 
compliance with the opacity standard for mineral handling and storage 
facilities at the TAMKO Roofing Products plant in Clay County, Florida?
    A1: No. EPA Method 22 is not an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 9 because it determines the total duration of visible emissions 
during the test period but does not record opacity levels when visible 
emissions are present. Therefore, the use of EPA Method 22 makes it 
impossible to determine the magnitude of any violations under NSPS 
subpart UU.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct opacity performance 
testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, on mineral surge tanks and 
limestone surge tanks located inside a building at the TAMKO Roofing 
Products plant in Clay County, Florida?
    A2: No. EPA denies this waiver request. The applicable opacity 
standard in NSPS subpart UU applies to tanks located inside a building. 
EPA Method 9 can be performed inside buildings. Furthermore, in order 
to obtain approval for an opacity performance test waiver,

[[Page 21023]]

the facility must supply information that could be used to demonstrate 
compliance through other means. No such information was provided in 
this request.
Abstract for [0500112]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart A, for maintaining records of startups, shutdowns, 
and malfunctions periods only when there are occurrences of excess 
emissions at the Eastman Chemical plant in Kingsport, Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative recordkeeping proposal under 
NSPS general provisions, subpart A, because the primary use for these 
records is to determine the applicability of the provisions in 40 CFR 
60.8(c). Thus, limiting recording of emissions data at this type of 
facility during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction only when 
there are occurrences of excess emissions is acceptable and should not 
affect identifying compliance violations.
Abstract for [0500113]
    Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., sight, sound, 
and smell) as an acceptable alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
VV, to using EPA Method 21 for detecting leaks from equipment in acetic 
acid service at the Eastman Chemical plant in Kingsport, Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative under NSPS subpart VV because 
prior monitoring results submitted by the facility show that the number 
of leaks identified using sensory methods for equipment in acetic acid 
service has been significantly higher than the number detected using 
solely EPA Method 21. Also, all of the previous leaks found using EPA 
Method 21 would have been detected if only sensory methods had been 
used.
Abstract for [0500114]
    Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in the duration of visible 
emission testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, for conveyor belt 
transfer points at Eastman Chemical Company's (Eastman) plant in 
Kingsport, Tennessee?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Y to shorten 
the test duration from three hours to one hour if no individual 
readings exceed 20 percent and no more than three individual readings 
equal 20 percent during the first hour of observations.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to enter a building and conduct 
separate visible emission tests, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Y and 
OOO, on several conveyor belt transfer points if 75 minutes of EPA 
Method 22 observations indicate that there are no fugitive emissions 
from the building?
    A2: Yes. EPA waives the requirement under NSPS subparts Y and OOO 
to conduct separate visible emission tests for the conveyor belt 
transfer points because the use of Method 22 to verify that there are 
no fugitive emissions from the building offers adequate assurance of 
compliance for the facilities inside.
Abstract for [0500115]
    Q: Does EPA approve a proposed alternative surface methane 
concentration monitoring frequency, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, 
for a Class III area at the North County Resource Recovery Facility 
operated by the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative under NSPS subpart WWW 
because methane generation rates in the Class III area are expected to 
be low given the types of waste (construction demolition debris, trash, 
paper, and glass) placed there, and because no methane was detected 
during five successive quarterly monitoring periods. However, as this 
landfill is still active, the condition for this approval is that a 
methane concentration of 250 ppm, rather than 500 ppm, will be used as 
a trigger for reverting back to a quarterly methane surface monitoring 
frequency.
Abstract for [0500116]
    Q1: Does EPA approve the option for landfill facilities to conduct 
additional Tier 2 testing, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, if an 
annual report indicates that the nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) 
emission rate calculated with previous Tier 2 results exceeds 50 
megagrams/year?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this request because, as Tier 2 testing is 
conducted every five years and NSPS subpart WWW requires periodic 
retesting, it would be inconsistent and unreasonable to deny facilities 
the option of conducting additional testing that might improve the 
accuracy of test data. With additional testing, NMOC emission rates 
calculated with new Tier 2 data will be more representative of current 
conditions than results calculated using older data.
    Q2: Does the presence of an existing gas collection and control 
system (GCCS) affect NMOC emission rate calculations under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart WWW?
    A2: No. The presence of an existing GCCS does not affect the NMOC 
emission rate calculations under NSPS subpart WWW. The variables 
specified in 40 CFR 60.754(a)(1) for calculating NMOC emission rates 
are not associated with GCCS operation. Depending on the calculated 
NMOC emissions rate, the facility may be required to submit a design 
plan for existing or planned control systems for gas emission within a 
specified timeframe.
Abstract for [0500117]
    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to conduct monthly oxygen 
concentration monitoring at the inlet to the flare, rather than at each 
individual well, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at Onyx Waste 
Services' Pecan Road Landfill in Valdosta, Georgia.
    A: No. EPA does not approve the proposed alternative monitoring 
location under NSPS subpart CC because it is downstream of the point 
where the gas from all the wells in the collection system combines. No 
conclusions regarding the performance of individual wells can be drawn 
from the results at this monitoring location. In addition, maintaining 
an oxygen concentration of 5 percent or less at the flare inlet will 
not provide assurance that all wells comply with subpart CC.
Abstract for [0500118]
    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative opacity monitoring proposed, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, for two glass melting furnaces at the 
Anchor Glass Company plant in Warner Robbins, Georgia?
    A: EPA may approve the proposal if remaining issues can be 
resolved. Although the proposal to monitor furnace bridgewall 
temperature as an alternative to installing a continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS) under NSPS subpart CC appears reasonable, 
there are several issues that need to be resolved before the proposal 
can be approved. These issues include: the appropriate margin of 
compliance with the applicable particulate emission standard if a COMS 
is not used; the possibility that natural gas usage rates will need to 
be monitored in addition to bridgewall temperatures, and what 
constitute excess emissions.
Abstract for [0500119]
    Q: Could EPA clarify whether the addition of in-line blending 
equipment to a loading rack at the Magellan Midstream Partners 
(Magellan) bulk gasoline terminal in Greensboro, North Carolina, would 
trigger the requirement for a retest, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, 
on the vapor recovery unit (VRU) that controls emissions during 
loading?
    A: No. EPA has determined that adding the in-line blending 
equipment

[[Page 21024]]

does not automatically trigger VRU retest. The initial VRU test that 
the company conducted in February 2000 is the only test specifically 
required for sources subject to NSPS subpart XX. Although the 
Administrator can ask for a retest at anytime, EPA does not find it 
necessary to require a new test following the installation of the in-
line blending equipment at Magellan's Greensboro terminal. Adding the 
in-line blending equipment did not increase the number of trucks that 
can be loaded simultaneously at the terminal. Also, there was a 
significant margin of compliance during the initial test.
Abstract for [0500120]
    Q: Does EPA approve EPA Method 25A as an alternative to EPA Method 
25, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT, for carbon absorber efficiency 
testing on a metal coil coating line at the Thermalex plant in 
Montgomery, Alabama?
    A: Yes. EPA approves EPA Method 25A as an acceptable alternative to 
EPA Method 25 for control device efficiency testing where VOC 
concentrations in the control system exhaust are expected to be 50 ppm 
or less. In this case, the VOC concentration is expected to be 
approximately 10 ppm at the carbon absorber outlet which is acceptable.
Abstract for [0500121]
    Q: Does EPA approve as an alternative to EPA Method 21, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VV, sensory means (i.e.>, sight, sound, smell) to 
identify leaks from equipment in acetic acid and/or acetic anhydride 
service at the Eastman Chemical Company facility in Kingsport, 
Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative monitoring under NSPS 
subpart VV because monitoring results provided indicate that leaks from 
equipment are more easily identified through sensory methods than 
through EPA Method 21. The physical properties (i.e., high boiling 
points, high corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of acetic acid and 
acetic anhydride and the process conditions at the facility in question 
make sensory means preferable.
Abstract for [0500122]
    Q: Does EPA approve a boiler derate proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Db, based on changes made to the natural gas burner at North 
Carolina Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem, North Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this proposal under NSPS subpart Db because it 
has determined that the proposed derate method, which includes 
installing new boiler tips limiting the heat input capacity to 100 
mmBtu/hr and eliminating the burning of fuel oil, will reduce the 
capacity of the boiler and will comply with EPA's policy on derates.
Abstract for [0500123]
    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring procedure, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart UUU, for a spray tower scrubber at the Short 
Mountain Silica Company in Mooresburg, Tennessee?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative under NSPS subpart 
UUU to monitor the scrubbing liquid supply pressure and scrubbing 
liquid flow rate rather than measuring the pressure loss of the gas 
stream through the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate. Because 
there is little pressure drop of the gas stream as it passes through 
the spray tower, pressure drop is not a good indicator of spray tower 
efficiency.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
UUU, to conduct a performance test for a rotary dryer which serves as a 
backup for the fluidized bed dryer at the Short Mountain Silica Company 
in Mooresburg, Tennessee?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the performance test waiver under NSPS 
subpart UUU because demonstration of compliance for the fluidized bed 
dryer also shows an acceptable level of compliance assurance for the 
rotary dryer.
Abstract for [0500124]
    Q: Does EPA approve the use of nitrogen oxides continuous emission 
monitors (NOX CEMs), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, as an 
alternative to the four-point load test for gas turbines at Cinergy's 
South Houston Green Power Site facility in Houston, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposal under NSPS 
subpart GG, provided that the CEMs for NOX is capable of 
calculating a one-hour average NOX emissions concentrations 
corrected to 15 percent oxygen, and the facility submits reports of 
excess emissions and summary reports.
Abstract for [0500125]
    Q: Does EPA approve a 90-day extension of the performance testing 
deadline, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and I, in light of weather 
conditions and material shortages that made it impossible for the 
Pavers Supply facility in Conroe, Texas, to run at full rates?
    A: No. EPA denies the request for a 90-day extension under NSPS 
subpart I. Concurring with the Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality (TCEQ), EPA grants a 60-day extension pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.8(d).
Abstract for [0500126]
    Q: Does EPA approve a span setting of 100 ppmv on an outlet 
continuous emission monitor (CEM), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for 
the sulfur dioxide (SO2), CEMs for the fluid catalytic 
cracking unit wet gas scrubber (WGS) at the Shell Oil Products refining 
facility in Deer Park, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS subpart JJ the span setting of 100 
ppmv for the WGS outlet SO2 CEMs, as it will be acceptable 
with respect to the 50 ppmv rolling seven day average.
Abstract for [0500127]
    Q: Does EPA waive continuous emission monitor for the hydrogen 
sulfide (CEM H2S) stream monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, for the steam methane reformer unit pressure swing 
adsorption (PSA) at Valero's Corpus Christi-West Plant, in Corpus 
Christi, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request under NSPS subpart J because 
it has determined that no CEM HS needs to be installed for 
the purpose of monitoring the H2S in the off-gas vent 
streams in the PSA routed to the reformer heater. Instead, the 
alternative parameter will be the total sulfur content of the combined 
feed to the sulfur vapor recovery (SVR) unit.
Abstract for [0500128]
    Q: Does EPA waive continuous emission monitor for the hydrogen 
sulfide (CEM H2S) stream monitoring, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, for the catalytic reformer unit heater fuel gas from fuel 
gas drums numbers 1 and 2 (which is a refinery and generates gas 
stream) at Valero's Corpus Christi-West Plant, in Corpus Christi, 
Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request under NSPS subpart J because 
it has determined that no CEM H2S needs to be installed for 
the purpose of monitoring the H2S in the off-gas vent 
streams from fuel gas mixing drum 1 or 2 routed to 
the reformer heater. Instead, the alternative parameter will be the 
total sulfur content of the combined feed to the CRU unit.
Abstract for [0500129]
    Q: Does EPA approve the use of an alternative monitoring plan, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the soil vapor extraction system 
(SVE) at Western Refining's facility in El Paso, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposal under NSPS 
subpart J to measure H2S content directly at the inlet to 
the internal

[[Page 21025]]

combustion engine (ICE), which are components of the SVE system.
Abstract for [0500130]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart J, for the catalytic reformer 1 unit (CR-1) at Motiva 
Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana? The company proposes waiving 
the continuous monitoring system (CMS) requirement for hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) steam monitoring and instead monitoring the gas stream 
using EPA guidance on alternative monitoring plans for low sulfur 
refinery fuel gas streams.
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring under NSPS subpart 
J. No CMS needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the 
H2S in the make gas stream to the unit's heaters. Instead, 
H2S concentrations will be monitored using detection tubes. 
This determination is subject to the conditions set forth in the 
stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 
and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [0500131]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring for the hydrogen 
generation unit (HGU) torvex catalytic converter, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Convent, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring under NSPS subpart 
J. No CEM needs to be installed for the purpose of monitoring the 
H2S in the H2S Concentration Column overhead vent 
stream. Instead, the H2S concentration will be measured 
daily using detection tubes, with ranges and frequency as set forth in 
the stipulated guidance in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 
1999 and February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 
0100037).
Abstract for [0500132]
    Q: Does EPA approve certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as alternative 
monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for 
DuPont's Sabine River Works facility in Orange County, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the proposed provisions 
in NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance 
under NSPS subpart NNN for the specified distillation unit. As 
conditions of approval, the facility must comply with the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for flow indicators in NSPS subpart RRR, and 
must maintain a schematic diagram for all related affected vent 
streams, collection system(s), fuel systems, control devices, and 
bypass systems as stated in 60.705(s).
Abstract for [0500133]
    Q: Does EPA approve certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as alternative 
monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for 
DuPont's facility in La Porta, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the proposed provisions 
in NSPS subpart RRR as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance 
under NSPS subpart NNN. As conditions of approval, the facility must 
comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for flow 
indicators in NSPS subpart RRR, and must maintain a schematic diagram 
for all related affected vent streams, collection systems, fuel 
systems, control devices, and bypass systems as stated in 40 CFR 
60.705(s).
Abstract for [0500134]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative performance specification 
procedure, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, allowing the use of seven 
consecutive unit operating days instead of seven consecutive calendar 
days for the calibration drift test period at Cottonwood Energy's 
facility in Deweyville, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use under NSPS subpart B of 
seven consecutive operating days for the calibration drift test period, 
based on previous EPA determinations and guidance that a seven 
consecutive operating day test is more stringent than a seven 
consecutive calendar day test. As a condition of this approval, if the 
continuous monitoring system CMS fails the seventh day test, the 
facility will repeat the entire test.
Abstract for [0500135]
    Q1: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a 
cogeneration unit at Shell Chemical Company's facility in Geismar, 
Louisiana commensurate with past determinations?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the alternative monitoring plan under 
NSPS subpart Db because the determination letter (ADI Control Number 
PS15), referenced in Shell's proposal, does not apply to the fuel 
records required by 40 CFR 60.49b.
    Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative reporting of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) emissions requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Db, where the NOX emission limit and excess emissions are 
reported on an average ``steam generating unit operating day'' basis, 
instead of a 30-day average for Shell Chemical Company's facility in 
Geismar, Louisiana?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative reporting plan under NSPS 
subpart Db, provided that the records for the units specified in 40 CFR 
60.49(b) are maintained on-site and are available at the request of any 
state or Federal agency inspector.
Abstract for [M050047]
    Q: Does EPA consider the C-12 process area of INVISTA's Victoria 
Plant and its component chemical manufacturing process units (CMPUs) 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the HON rule?
    A: No. As none of these units qualify for regulation under both 40 
CFR 63.100(b) and 40 CFR 63.100(b)(1)-(2), the only way likely for the 
C-12 process area to qualify for regulation under 40 CFR 63.100 would 
be to conflate all CMPUs into a single CMPD. Since these units are not 
conflated into a single CMPD unit, these units are not subject to the 
HON Rule. This finding is consistent with a previous determination, ADI 
Control Number M960028.
Abstract for [0500136]
    Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, apply to the SP-1 and SP-2 
distillation units at INVISTA's Victoria Plant?
    A1: No. Since the SP-1 and SP-2 units produce no products, by-
products, or co-products, or intermediates listed in 40 CFR 60.667, 
NSPS subpart NNN does not apply to these two units.
    Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, apply to a concentrated water 
wash (CWW) system at INVISTA's Victoria Plant?
    A2: Yes. Since the CWW vents into the atmosphere, it is subject to 
NSPS subpart NNN.
Abstract for [0500137]
    Q1: How does 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, apply to the fuel gas 
combustion devices (FGCDs) and fuel gases involved with operations at 
Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
    A1: NSPS subpart J apply to an affected FGCD if the device combusts 
a ``fuel gas,'' that is, any gas that is generated at a petroleum 
refinery. To control sulfur oxide (SOX) emissions into the 
atmosphere from affected

[[Page 21026]]

FGCDs, NSPS subpart J limits the amount of hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) allowed in the fuel gas burned in these devices. 
Except for fuel gas released to a flare as a result of relief valve 
leakage or other emergency malfunctions, a facility may not burn fuel 
gas containing greater than 230 mg/dscm of H2S in any 
affected FGCD.
    Q2: How does the process upset gas exemption of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J, apply to the flare gas recovery system in operation at Koch 
Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
    A2: The process upset gas exemption under NSPS subpart J applies 
only to extraordinary, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable 
upsets. Any gases released as a result of normal operations are not 
considered upset gases. The routine combustion of refinery gases in a 
FGCD, including flares and other waste gas disposal devices, do not 
qualify for the process upset gas exemption of the rule. Based on the 
background information of the rule, the term upset does not apply to 
normal operations. Therefore, the rule exempts the combustion of 
process upset gases in a FGCD, including the combustion in a flare of 
fuel gas that is released to the flare as a result of relief valve 
leakage or other emergency malfunction. However, the combustion/flaring 
of those exempted gases in an NSPS affected FGCD is still required to 
comply with the good air pollution control practices of 40 CFR 
60.11(d), even when such FGCDs are exempt from the sulfur dioxide 
limit.
    Q3: How does NSPS subpart J apply to the various gas streams Koch 
Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
    A3: EPA has analyzed the 26 gas streams identified at the Koch 
Refining facility and has provided a finding for each of these streams 
based on the Agency's responses in A1 and A2, above.
Abstract for [0500138]
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR, 
part 60, subpart J, for fuel gases and fuel gas combustion devices 
(FGCDs) at Koch Refining's Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
    A: No. Based on the information submitted, EPA does not approve the 
proposed alternative monitoring plan for fuel gases and FGCDs since it 
needs to provide for good air pollution control practices to minimize 
flaring events.

    Dated: April 10, 2006.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 06-3808 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P