[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 143 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41110-41125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13894]



[[Page 41109]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



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; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 143 / Thursday, July 26, 2007 / 
Notices  

[[Page 41110]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8439-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/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 the part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) of the Clean and Air Act 
regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may 
request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written 
inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) 
programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to 
use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated 
requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 
63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed 
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written 
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory 
requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These 
inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the 
regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written 
responses to these inquiries are broadly termed regulatory 
interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination 
Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-
issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone 
regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic 
index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda 
pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and 
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, 
citation, control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 86 such documents added to 
the ADI on July 6, 2007. 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 July 6, 2007; 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. Please note 
that the table that appeared in the December 4, 2006 notice (71 FR 
70383) contained one document whose title was in error. The title for 
the document assigned control number M060016 was listed in the table as 
``Once In/Always In Rule.'' It should have read ``Once In/Always In 
Policy.''
    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. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act. Neither does it purport to make any document that was 
previously non-binding into a binding document.

               ADI Determinations Uploaded on July 6, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Control  number       Category          Subparts            Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
600030............  NSPS............  X...............  Applicability
                                                         for
                                                         Distribution
                                                         Facilities.
600031............  NSPS............  Y...............  Classification
                                                         of Coal Truck
                                                         Dump
                                                         Operations.
600032............  NSPS............  Y...............  Applicability to
                                                         Existing
                                                         Conveying
                                                         Equipment.
600033............  NSPS............  RRR, VV.........  Biomass Ethanol
                                                         Production.
600034............  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Biomass Ethanol
                                                         Production.
600035............  NSPS............  III.............  Thirty Day
                                                         Notification
                                                         Requirement.
600036............  NSPS............  J...............  Date of
                                                         Construction
                                                         and/or
                                                         Modification.
600037............  NSPS............  Kb..............  Definition of
                                                         Reconstruction
                                                         for Oil Storage
                                                         Tank.
600038............  NSPS............  GG..............  Custom
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Schedule: Gas
                                                         Processing
                                                         Plant.
600039............  NSPS............  GG..............  Custom
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Schedule for
                                                         Turbine.
600040............  NSPS............  KK..............  Reversing
                                                         Modifications
                                                         to Avoid
                                                         Applicability.

[[Page 41111]]

 
600041............  NSPS............  J...............  Waiver of
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Requirements.
600042............  NSPS............  Db..............  Requirements
                                                         when Burning
                                                         Jet Fuel.
600043............  NSPS............  F...............  Use of Clinker
                                                         Cooler and Kiln
                                                         Gas as Process
                                                         Gas.
600045............  NSPS............  Kb..............  Storage Vessels
                                                         for Volatile
                                                         Organic Liquid
                                                         (VOL).
600046............  NSPS............  D, Da...........  Resource
                                                         Recovery
                                                         Plants.
600047............  NSPS............  J...............  Sulfur Recovery
                                                         Unit
600048............  NSPS............  GG..............  Part 75
                                                         Monitoring as
                                                         Alternative to
                                                         Part 60.
600049............  NSPS............  A...............  Part 75
                                                         Monitoring as
                                                         Alternative to
                                                         Part 60.
600050............  NSPS............  A...............  Part 75
                                                         Monitoring as
                                                         Alternative to
                                                         Part 60.
600051............  NSPS............  GG..............  Custom Fuel
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Schedules.
600052............  NSPS............  GG..............  Parametric
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Plan.
600053............  NSPS............  Db..............  Alternative
                                                         Opacity
                                                         Monitoring for
                                                         Boiler.
600054............  NSPS............  Db..............  Part 75
                                                         Monitoring as
                                                         Alternative to
                                                         Part 60.
600055............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Alternative Fuel
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Requirements.
600056............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Alternate Fuel:
                                                         Use Monitoring
                                                         Schedule.
600057............  NSPS............  A...............  Part 75
                                                         Monitoring as
                                                         Alternative to
                                                         Part 60.
600058............  NSPS............  VVV.............  Alternative
                                                         Capture System
                                                         Monitoring.
600059............  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring/
                                                         Performance
                                                         Test Waiver.
600060............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Alternative Fuel
                                                         Usage
                                                         Recordkeeping
                                                         Procedure.
600061............  NSPS............  AA, AAa.........  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring on
                                                         Baghouses.
600062............  NSPS............  WWW.............  Changes to
                                                         Standard
                                                         Operating
                                                         Procedures.
600063............  NSPS............  WWW.............  Leachate
                                                         Collection
                                                         System Risers.
600064............  NSPS............  OOO.............  Performance
                                                         Testing Waiver.
600065............  NSPS............  TT..............  Stack Testing
                                                         Waiver.
600066............  NSPS............  Cc, WWW.........  Definition of
                                                         Gas Treatment.
600067............  NSPS............  Da, GG..........  Testing and
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Alternatives.
600068............  NSPS............  GG..............  Part 75
                                                         Monitoring as
                                                         Alternative to
                                                         Part 60.
600069............  NSPS............  WWW.............  Subject to Part
                                                         62 Federal Plan
                                                         and Part 60.
600070............  NSPS............  A, Db...........  Alternative
                                                         Opacity
                                                         Monitoring--Aux
                                                         iliary Boiler.
600071............  NSPS............  OOO.............  Performance Test
                                                         Time Extension.
600072............  NSPS............  Ec..............  Alternative
                                                         Operating
                                                         Parameters for
                                                         Monitoring.
600074............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Reduced Fuel
                                                         Usage
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Frequency.
600075............  NSPS............  Db..............  Alternative
                                                         Opacity
                                                         Monitoring.
600076............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Reduced Fuel
                                                         Usage
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Frequency.
600077............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Boiler Derate.
600078............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Boiler Derate.
600079............  NSPS............  Db..............  Predictive
                                                         Emission
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         System.
600080............  NSPS............  VV..............  Recordkeeping
                                                         and Reporting
                                                         Waiver.
600081............  NSPS............  WWW.............  Alternative
                                                         Landfill Gas
                                                         Temperature
                                                         Limit.
600083............  NSPS............  J...............  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring Plan
                                                         for LPG Flare.
600084............  NSPS............  O...............  Interpretation
                                                         of Percent
                                                         Oxygen
                                                         Readings.
600085............  NSPS............  J...............  Coke Burn-off
                                                         and Catalyst
                                                         Regenerator
                                                         Flow Rate.
600086............  NSPS............  GG..............  Initial Test
                                                         Waiver for
                                                         Identical Gas
                                                         Turbines.
600087............  NSPS............  J...............  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring--Sem
                                                         i-Regenerative
                                                         Reformer.
600088............  NSPS............  NNN, PPP........  Alternative
                                                         Method for
                                                         Determining
                                                         Glass Pull
                                                         Rate.
600089............  NSPS............  Db..............  Alternative Span
                                                         Value.
600090............  NSPS............  OOO.............  Test Waiver for
                                                         Baghouse.
600091............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Boiler Derate.
600092............  NSPS............  WWW.............  Definition--Cont
                                                         iguous for
                                                         Separate
                                                         Disposal Areas.
600093............  NSPS............  Dc..............  Boiler Derate.
600094............  NSPS............  XX..............  Performance Test
                                                         Waiver.
600095............  NSPS............  Db..............  Alternative
                                                         Opacity
                                                         Monitoring.
600096............  NSPS............  WWW.............  Leachate
                                                         Collection
                                                         Risers.
600097............  NSPS............  A, P............  Monitor
                                                         Pathlength
                                                         Correction
                                                         Factor.
600098............  NSPS............  NNN.............  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring for
                                                         Enclosed Flare.
600099............  NSPS............  A, J............  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring of
                                                         Refinery Fuel
                                                         Gas.
600100............  NSPS............  Ce, Ec..........  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring of
                                                         Carbon
                                                         Monoxide.
M060027...........  MACT............  O...............  Alternative
                                                         Monitoring
                                                         Using Gas
                                                         Detection
                                                         Sensor.
M060028...........  MACT............  JJJJ, S.........  Core
                                                         Manufacturing
                                                         at Pulp and
                                                         Paper Mills.
M060029...........  MACT............  JJJJ............  Web Coating--
                                                         Laminating/Ply-
                                                         bonding
                                                         Operation.
M060030...........  MACT............  JJJJ............  Method 24
                                                         Determination
                                                         of Organic HAP
                                                         Content.
M060031...........  MACT............  MMMM............  Rebuilt Primer
                                                         Booth.
M060032...........  MACT............  JJ, MMMM........  Refinishing of
                                                         Facility
                                                         Equipment.
M060033...........  MACT............  MM..............  Alternative
                                                         Control Device
                                                         Operating
                                                         Parameters.
M060034...........  MACT............  HHHHH, JJJJ.....  Scenarios for
                                                         MCM, MON and
                                                         POWC
                                                         Applicability.
M060036...........  MACT............  M...............  Area vs. Major
                                                         Sources.
M060037...........  MACT............  OOOO............  Shoelace Tipping
                                                         Operations.
M060038...........  MACT............  AAAA............  Alternative
                                                         Deadline for
                                                         SSM Reports.
M060039...........  MACT............  RRR.............  Definition of
                                                         Clean Charge.
M060041...........  MACT............  DDDD............  Typical
                                                         Manufacturing
                                                         Component
                                                         Scenarios.
M060042...........  MACT............  F...............  Benzene
                                                         Emissions from
                                                         Heat Exchanger
                                                         Leaks.

[[Page 41112]]

 
M060044...........  MACT............  NNNNN...........  30 Weight
                                                         Percent Acid.
M060045...........  MACT............  WWWW............  Emission Factors
                                                         vs. Tests to
                                                         Determine
                                                         Compliance.
Z060002...........  NESHAP..........  T...............  Cessation of
                                                         Annual Reports.
Z060004...........  NESHAP..........  F...............  Benzene
                                                         Emissions from
                                                         Exchange Leaks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract for [M060027]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart O, to use a gas detection sensor (i.e., CEA 
Instruments ET-6200R U Series) instead of a gas chromatograph or flame 
ionization analyzer for the International Sterilization Laboratory 
(ISL) facility in Groveland, Florida?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that a gas detection sensor is an acceptable 
alternative to a gas chromatograph or flame ionization detector, 
contingent upon the successful outcome of the required performance 
specification (PS) 8 testing in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for 
ethylene oxide.

Abstract for [M060028]

    Q: Could the EPA clarify to the American Forest & Paper Association 
whether the manufacturing of cores for rolled towels and tissue is 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ? In manufacturing the cores, 
two rolls of core stock are unwound with glue continuously applied, 
then wound together to form a core, and cut to fit the rewinder length.
    A: EPA finds that this core manufacturing activity is subject to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ when it takes place at a major source of 
hazardous air pollutants. The affected source under subpart JJJJ is the 
collection of all web coating lines at a facility, with certain 
exceptions. The core stock is a web because it is a continuous 
substrate flexible enough to be wound or unwound as rolls. Glue 
application occurs within a web coating line because the glue is 
applied to the core stock web substrate between an unwind or feed 
station and a rewind or cutting station. Glue is an adhesive coating 
material within the subpart JJJJ definition.

Abstract for [M060029]

    Q: Could the EPA clarify to the American Forest & Paper Association 
whether the laminating/ply-bonding of embossed, multi-layered paper 
products that occurs at a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ? The process consists of a raised or depressed pattern that is 
embossed on a paper web by passing the web between two steel rolls or 
plates, one of which is engraved. In the laminating/ply-bonding 
operation, adhesive is applied by a roller to bind multiple layers of 
substrate.
    A: EPA finds that the adhesive is applied as a continuous coating 
layer by the laminating/ply-bonding operation. Based on the web coating 
line definition and the description of the laminating/ply-bonding 
operation included with the letter, the laminating/ply-bonding 
operation takes place on a web coating line, and is therefore subject 
to the requirements of part 63, subpart JJJJ, provided that it takes 
place at a major source of HAP emissions.

Abstract for [M060030]

    Q: Could the EPA clarify to the American Forest & Paper Association 
whether facilities may use the results of Method 24, which measures the 
volatile organic compound (VOC) content of coating materials, instead 
of the results of Method 311, which measures the organic hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) content of the materials, in compliance calculations 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ?
    A: EPA has determined that facilities may substitute Method 24 
determinations of VOC content for Method 311 determinations of organic 
HAP content, provided that the substitution is implemented consistently 
within an equation and all given set of compliance calculations. 
Compliance determinations under part 63, subpart JJJJ requires monthly 
calculation of as-applied organic HAP content using measurements of the 
organic HAP content of as-purchased material, and of any added 
material. 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(2) allows substitution of Method 24 
determinations of VOC content for Method 311 determinations of organic 
HAP.

Abstract for [M060031]

    Q: Is a replaced primer booth at the CNH America, LLC facility a 
new source under part 63, subpart MMMM?
    A: No. EPA does not find the replaced primer booth to be a new 
source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. If the replacement had 
involved construction of a completely new miscellaneous metal parts and 
products surface coating facility, where previously no miscellaneous 
metal parts and products surface coating facility had existed, then the 
replaced primer booth would be a new source under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMM. The facility will need to provide documentation to the 
delegated state agency to demonstrate that the replaced booth does not 
meet the definition of ``reconstruction'' in 40 CFR 63.2, and to 
document that the facility remains in compliance with a potential to 
emit limitation.

Abstract for [M060032]

    Q1: Could EPA clarify to Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 
whether the refinishing of metal equipment that is used to manufacture 
wood furniture and coats metal parts and equipment that are not metal 
components of wood furniture is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ?
    A1: EPA finds that the refinishing of metal equipment at the 
facility falls within the affected source of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
MMMM, and would therefore be excluded from 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. 
EPA also finds that this activity falls within facility maintenance 
activities that are exempt from 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM 
requirements.
    Q2: Is the construction and painting of wooden workbenches, 
shelving, and/or shadow boards, as well as the recoating or refinishing 
of wooden workbenches subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, if the 
materials are for use within the facility?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that construction and painting activities are 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. This rule does not distinguish 
activities that produce items for sale from activities that produce 
items for use at the facility. For refinishing and restoration 
activities, the background information document for subpart JJ 
clarifies that those activities are not considered part of wood 
furniture manufacturing and thus are not subject to subpart JJ.
    Q3: Is the ink jet printing of letters or numbers on wood substrate 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ?
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that this activity is subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart JJ because inks are included in the coating

[[Page 41113]]

definition and the printing serves as a functional use.

Abstract for [M060033]

    Q: Does EPA approve the monitoring of alternative operating 
parameters for the lime kiln scrubber, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
MM, at MeadWestvaco's pulp mill in Rumford, Maine?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous flow monitoring system 
and supply pressure monitoring system to measure scrubbing liquid re-
circulation flow rates and pressure from the wet scrubber used to 
control emissions from the lime kiln. This system, in conjunction with 
four conditions specified in the EPA response letter, can be used in 
lieu of monitoring and recording the differential pressure across the 
scrubber, as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM.

Abstract for [M060034]

    Q1: Could EPA clarify to 3M EHS Operations whether shared ``process 
equipment'' under the Process Unit Group (PUG) definition in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFF, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON 
rule), may include the following scenarios at various 3M facilities: 
(i) Piping manifold systems and pumps used to deliver raw materials or 
remove waste or product from process units; (ii) portable equipment, 
such as filtering systems; and/or (iii) ovens used to warm raw 
materials in drums or totes prior to introduction into the process 
vessel?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that while those pieces of equipment may be part 
of a PUG, they cannot be the sole shared equipment in the PUG.
    Q2: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria under the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating 
Manufacturing (MCM rule) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, under the 
following specific scenarios at 3M facilities: Plant 1 contains Process 
Vessel (A), which is used to manufacture two types of coatings, i.e., 
Coating (a) and Coating (b). Process Vessel (A) is not an affected 
source or part thereof under another MACT standard. The production of 
Coating (a) does not involve the process, use or production of any 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP). The production of Coating (b) does 
involve the process, use or production of a HAP. Both Coating (a) and 
Coating (b) are sold to commerce. If, in a year, Process Vessel (A) is 
used more hours to manufacture Coating (a) than Coating (b), is Process 
Vessel (A) then part of the MCM rule affected source of Plant 1? If, in 
a year, Process Vessel (A) manufactures more product on a weight basis 
of Coating (a) than Coating (b), then is Process Vessel (A) part of the 
MCM rule affected source of Plant 1?
    A2: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) is part of the affected 
source under the MCM rule at all times that it is manufacturing Coating 
(b). The MCM rule does not include the concept of ``primary product.'' 
Therefore, neither the time in use for the production of a product, nor 
the mass amount of a product affects the applicability of the standard.
    Q3: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria under the 
following specific scenarios at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is subject to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule). Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is 
not part of a PUG under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (MON rule). It is 
also not an affected source or part thereof under another 40 CFR part 
63 standard. Process Vessel (A) is used to manufacture two products, 
Product (a) and Product (b), neither of which are coatings as defined 
by the MCM rule. Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing Product (a), 
meets all of the criteria of a multiple miscellaneous chemical process 
unit (MCPU) under the MON rule, and does not meet any of the exemptions 
in the MON rule. Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing Product (b), 
either does not meet the criteria for an MCPU under the MON rule, or is 
subject to one of the exemptions in the MON rule. Is Process Vessel (A) 
subject to the MON rule during the manufacture of both Product (a) and 
Product (b)?
    A3: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) is subject to the MON 
standard only during the manufacture of Product (a). This is the only 
time it meets the applicability of that rule because the product of the 
process determines rule applicability.
    Q4: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following 
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is a major source of HAP 
emissions. Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is not part of a PUG under the 
MON rule in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. Process Vessel (A) is used to 
manufacture Product (b) from several Raw Materials (a), and mixing, 
blending, etc., in Process Vessel (A) do not involve any chemical 
reaction or change in basic chemistry of Product (b) from Raw Materials 
(a). Product (b) is not a coating as defined by the MCM rule in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH. Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing Product 
(b), meets all of the criteria for an MCPU and is subject to none of 
the exemptions of the MON rule. Is process vessel (A) subject to the 
MON rule?
    A4: EPA finds that process Vessel (A) would be subject to the MON 
rule because it meets all of the criteria for an MCPU in the rule and 
does not meet any of the exemptions. Whether there is chemical reaction 
during the manufacturing process is not a factor for determining the 
applicability of the MON rule. Although chemical reaction is typically 
associated with the manufacture of organic chemicals, it is not 
exclusively so.
    Q5: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following 
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 has operations subject to both 40 
CFR part 63, subpart FFFF (MON rule) and the 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH (MCM rule). Process Vessel (A) at plant 1 is not an affected 
source or part thereof under another MACT standard. Process Vessel (A) 
is not part of a PUG developed under the MON rule. Process Vessel (A) 
is used to manufacture two products, Product (a) and Product (b). 
Product (a) is a coating as defined in the MCM rule and involves the 
process, use, or production of HAP. Process Vessel (A), while 
manufacturing Product (b), meets all of the criteria for an MCPU under 
the MON rule and meets none of the exemptions in the MON rule. Is 
Process Vessel (A) subject to either the MON rule, the MCM rule, or 
both?
    A5: EPA finds that process Vessel (A) is subject to the MCM rule 
when manufacturing Product (a). Process Vessel (A) is subject to the 
MON rule when manufacturing Product (b). Process Vessel (A) cannot be 
subject to both standards at the same time because both the MON rule 
and MCM rule contain language that states that the particular affected 
facility cannot be part of another 40 CFR part 63 affected facility.
    Q6: Could EPA clarify the following scenario(s) regarding 
applicability criteria at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is subject to the 40 
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule), and is not subject to the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and 
Other Web Coating (POWC rule) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. Plant 2 
consists of a Web Coating Line (B) which is part of an affected source 
under the POWC rule. Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is used only to 
manufacture a coating that is used by the Web Coating Line (B). Plants 
1 and 2 are not contiguous and may in fact be located in different 
states. Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule)

[[Page 41114]]

apply to Plant 1 for the production of the coating in Process Vessel 
(A)?
    A6: Yes, the MCM rule is applicable to Plant 1 for the production 
of the coating in Process Vessel (A) because Process Vessel (A) is not 
located at the POWC affected source and therefore cannot be an 
affiliated operation of a POWC affected source.
    Q7: Plant 1 consists of Process Vessel (A), which is an MCPU under 
the MON rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF). Process Vessel (A) is not 
part of a PUG under the MON rule. Plant 2 consists of both Web Coating 
Line (C), which is part of an affected source under the POWC rule (40 
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ), and Process Vessel (B), which manufactures 
coatings for Web Coating Line (C). Process Vessel (A) produces 
miscellaneous organic chemical Product (b), which is sold to commerce, 
and miscellaneous organic chemical Product (a) which is used as an 
ingredient by Plant 2 to manufacture the coating in Process Vessel (B). 
How do the MON rule and the POWC rule apply to Plant 1 and Plant 2?
    A7: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) in Plant 1 is subject to the 
MON rule when producing either Product (a) or Product (b) because 
production of Product (b) meets the applicability of the MON rule and 
production of Product (a) does not meet the exemption for affiliated 
operations under 40 CFR 63.2435(c)(3) of the MON rule. The production 
of the coating in Process Vessel (B) would be an affiliated operation 
under the POWC rule, because the mixing or dissolving of coatings prior 
to application as an affiliated operation would include the actual 
production of the coating when performed at an affected source listed 
in 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2).
    Q8: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following 
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: The Web Coating Line (C) is part of an 
affected source at Plant 1 under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC 
rule). Equipment (A) at Plant 1, which consists of process vessels with 
associated agitators, pumps, etc., is used to manufacture HAP-
containing coatings for the Web Coating Line (C). A subset of Equipment 
(A), designated as Equipment (B), is also used at other times to 
manufacture different coatings which are sold to general commerce as 
Finished Products (a). Are Equipment (A) and/or Equipment (B) subject 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule)?
    A8: EPA finds that all of the equipment in Equipment (A), including 
Equipment (B), would not be subject to the MCM rule when they are used 
to manufacture a coating for Web Coating Line (C). During this time, 
the process carried out in these equipments would be an affiliated 
operation under the MCM rule at 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2). Equipment (B), 
when making Finished Product (a), would be subject to the MCM rule, as 
it would not qualify as an affiliated operation of a POWC rule affected 
source because Finished Product (a) is not applied at the POWC rule 
affected source.
    Q9: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following 
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Web Coating Line (B) at Plant 1 is part 
of an affected source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC rule). 
Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is used to manufacture HAP-containing 
Coatings (a) for Web Coating Line (B). Some part of the Coatings (a) 
are sent to Off-site Locations (C) for quality assurance/quality 
control, pilot coating lines, and/or research and development. Is 
Process Vessel (A) an affected source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH (MCM rule)?
    A9: EPA finds that when Process Vessel (A) is making HAP-containing 
Coatings (a) for Web Coating Line (B), it is not a MCM rule affected 
source because it is an affiliated operation of the POWC rule affected 
source. However, when Process Vessel (A) is making HAP-containing 
Coatings (a) for use off-site, it no longer meets the definition of 
affiliated operations for the POWC rule affected source. If the Off-
site Locations (C) met the exemptions in the rule, then the production 
of HAP-containing Coatings (a) for these purposes would be exempt from 
MCM rule.
    Q10: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following 
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Web Coating Line (D) is part of an 
affected source at Plant 1 under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC 
rule). Web Coating Line (E) is part of an affected source at Plant 2 
under the POWC rule. Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 manufactures (with 
or without an intended chemical reaction) the HAP-Containing Coating 
(a) for Web Coating Line (D). Process Vessel (B) at Plant 1 
manufactures (with or without a chemical reaction) the HAP-Containing 
Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (D) and for Web Coating Line (E), and 
manufactures another HAP-Containing Coating (d) which is sold to 
commerce. Process Vessel (C) in Plant 2 manufactures a HAP-Containing 
Coating (c) for Web Coating Line (E). Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHHH (MCM rule) apply to Plant 1 and/or Plant 2?
    A10: EPA finds that the MCM rule would apply to Process Vessel (B) 
in Plant 1 when manufacturing HAP-Containing Coating (d) because it 
would not be an affiliated operation as the HAP-Containing Coating (d) 
is not used in a 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC rule) process. The 
MCM rule would not apply to Process Vessel (A) in Plant 1 when 
producing HAP-Containing Coating (a) for use in Web Coating Line (D) 
because it would be exempt under 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2) as an affiliated 
operation located at a POWC rule affected source. Process Vessel (C) in 
Plant 2, which produces HAP-Containing Coating (c) for use with Web 
Coating Line (E), would be an affiliated operation of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart JJJJ (POWC) Web Coating Line (E) and therefore not subject to 
the MCM rule per the same exemption. When manufacturing HAP-Containing 
Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (D), Process Vessel (B) also would be 
exempt from the MCM rule under 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2). However, because 
there is no concept of primary use in either the POWC rule or the MCM 
rule, Process Vessel (B), would be subject to the MCM rule when 
producing HAP-Containing Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (E) because 
it would not be an affiliated operation located at the relevant POWC 
rule affected source.
    Q11: Could EPA clarify the applicability criteria of the following 
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 produces product coatings and 
chemical intermediates in several steps. In Step 1a, Process Vessel (A) 
is used to manufacture Intermediate (a). While manufacturing 
Intermediate (a), Process Vessel (A) meets all of the criteria for an 
MCPU under the MON rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) and meets none 
of the exemptions in the MON rule. Process Vessel (A) is not a PUG 
under the MON rule. It is also not part of an affected source under 
another subpart of 40 CFR part 63. In Step 1b, one-half of the 
Intermediate (a) is drained away from Process Vessel (A) into drums for 
temporary storage. In Step 2a and 2b, other raw materials, some of 
which contain HAP, are added to the remaining one-half of Intermediate 
(a) in Process Vessel (A) to manufacture a coating (with or without a 
chemical reaction). In Step 3, the one-half of Intermediate (a) which 
was drained into drums is removed from storage and pumped back into the 
now empty Process Vessel (A) or another process vessel, along with 
other raw materials (some of which contain HAP) to manufacture a 
coating (with or without chemical reaction). How do 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF (MON) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM) apply to 
Plant 1?
    A11: EPA finds that Steps 1a and 1b would be subject to the MON 
rule

[[Page 41115]]

because it applies to the production of an isolated intermediate at an 
MCPU. Because a portion of Intermediate (a) is removed from the process 
in Step 1b into a drum for storage, Intermediate (a) is an isolated 
intermediate. Steps 2a, 2b, and Step 3 would all be subject to the MCM 
rule because the final product of these processes is a coating, and 
they appear to meet the applicability requirements of the MCM rule 
(e.g., use of HAPs).

Abstract for [M060036]

    Q: Is the Battisons of Avon, Connecticut, (Battisons) facility a 
major source or an area source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
emissions subject to 40 CFR, part 63, subpart M, if it replaces its old 
dry cleaning systems and installs all new dry-to-dry dry cleaning 
systems before the compliance date?
    A: EPA finds that Battisons is an area source of HAP emissions 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart M because it has maintained its 
perchloroethylene consumption below the 2,100 gallons threshold limit 
since before the compliance date. The applicability provision at 40 CFR 
63.320(g) states that, ``In lieu of measuring a facility's potential to 
emit perchloroethylene emissions or determining a facility's potential 
to emit perchloroethylene emissions, a dry cleaning facility is a major 
source if: (1) It includes only dry-to-dry machine(s) and has a total 
yearly perchloroethylene consumption greater than 8,000 liters (2,100 
gallons) as determined according to 63.323(d). * * *'' However, if 
Battisons exceeds the yearly perchloroethylene consumption of 2,100 
gallons when it starts up the new systems, it will become a major 
source of HAP emissions, according to 40 CFR 63.320(i), and all its dry 
cleaning systems will have to comply with the appropriate requirements 
within 180 calendar days from the date it exceeded that threshold 
value.

Abstract for [M060037]

    Q: Is the Rhode Island Textile Company, Inc. (RIT) facility, 
located in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, that manufactures shoelaces and 
submits the shoelaces to tipping operations subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart OOOO?
    A: No. EPA has determined that because the company is not coating, 
printing, slashing, finishing or dyeing the product, it is not subject 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.

Abstract for [M060038]

    Q: Is it acceptable under 40 CFR part 63, subpart V, for the North 
Shelby Landfill facility to submit startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM) reports within 60 days after the end of each semiannual reporting 
period?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the North Shelby Landfill facility request of 
extending the submittal of SSM reports until 60 days after the end of 
each semiannual reporting period, which corresponds with the existing 
deadline for submitting semiannual reports under the Title V permitting 
program. Under 40 CFR 63.9(i), an owner or operator of a facility 
subject to this reporting requirement can request an alternative 
schedule. Under the new deadline, the SSM reports and semiannual Title 
V reports can be submitted at the same time to simplify the owner/
operator reporting requirements.

Abstract for [M060039]

    Q: Could EPA clarify to Briggs & Stratton Corporation whether 
aluminum sows, ingots, and T-bars that have painted markings considered 
``clean charge'' in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum at 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A: EPA finds that as a result of the typographical errors in the 
definition of ``clean charge,'' aluminum T-bars, sows, ingots, billets, 
and pigs which have painted markings are not defined as ``clean 
charge.'' It is the Agency's intent that aluminum T-bar, sow, ingot, 
billet, and pig be considered ``clean charge,'' and that the phrase 
``entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants'' not apply to 
these materials. EPA believes these materials, notwithstanding ink, 
grease or paint markings, should be treated as clean charge. EPA 
intends to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR to clarify this point.

Abstract for [M060040]

    Q: What is EPA's guidance to regulators on how an owner or operator 
of a secondary aluminum production facility can know that the scrap 
processed at its facility is ``entirely free of paints, coatings, and 
lubricants'' under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A: EPA believes that an owner or operator of a secondary aluminum 
production facility may know whether the scrap material being processed 
at the facility is ``entirely free of paints, coatings, and 
lubricants'' in one of two ways. The first way to ensure a ``clean 
charge'' would be to maintain direct control of the scrap material 
being processed by processing scrap generated within the facility or 
from other facilities within the same company that the owner or 
operator knows has not been subjected to paints, coatings and 
lubricants, or where the owner or operator knows that paints, coatings 
and lubricants have been removed consistent with the definition of 
``clean charge.'' Similarly, the owner or operator also may process 
scrap from outside entities where they are familiar with the history of 
the scrap and, therefore, know that the scrap meets the definition of 
``clean charge.''

Abstract for [M060041]

    Q: Could EPA clarify to the American Home Furnishing Alliance's 
(AHFA) the applicability criteria under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, 
for nine general manufacturing scenarios in the home furnishing 
industry involving manufacturing components from plywood and engineered 
lumber?
    A: The Agency has determined that most of the furniture components 
described in the scenarios, except for processes involving cold 
pressing of solid wood pieces, would meet the definition of ``plywood'' 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD and, therefore, be subject to 
applicable requirements in that rule, as described in EPA's response 
letter. EPA interprets the term ``panel product'' in the definition of 
plywood to include flat as well as curved furniture panels. It should 
be noted that most of the manufacturing equipment used by the industry, 
such as hot presses, would not be subject to emission limits but only 
to notification requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD.

Abstract for [M060043]

    Q: What is EPA's guidance to regulators on the implementation and 
compliance monitoring of the capture, collection, and ventilation 
requirements in the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRR?
    A: EPA finds that the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP incorporates by 
reference chapters 3 and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice, 23rd edition, published by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). As required 
by 40 CFR 63.1506(c) of NESHAP subpart RRR, owners or operators of 
affected sources or emissions units with add-on air pollution control 
devices must design and install a system for the capture and collection 
of emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust 
rates as published in the ACGIH manual. In addition, 40 CFR 
63.1515(b)(5) requires facilities to provide design information and 
analysis, with supporting documentation, demonstrating conformance with 
these capture/collection system requirements. The

[[Page 41116]]

memorandum provides further specifics on what steps and documentation 
are required to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

Abstract for [M060044]

    Q1: Could EPA clarify to Kean Miller whether an HCl unit at a 
facility that stops producing 30 weight percent acid for commercial 
sale after the compliance date is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
NNNNN?
    A1: 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN does not only apply to the 
production for commercial sale of 30 weight percent or greater HCl 
acid. Consequently, the production of HCl acid with a concentration of 
30 weight percent or greater for internal use, as well as for 
commercial sale, may be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN.
    Q2: If a facility infrequently produces HCl at a 30 weight percent 
strength, and its monthly or weekly average is below 30 weight percent, 
is the facility subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN?
    A2: No. EPA finds that a facility would not be subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart NNNN if its production of HCl acid with a 
concentration of 30 weight percent or greater is infrequent, irregular, 
or not consistent with the facility's normal operations. In determining 
whether the production of 30 weight percent HCl acid is occasional or 
part of a facility's normal operations, EPA will make a case-by-case 
determination based on the frequency and regularity of HCl acid 
production of 30 weight percent or greater.
    Q3: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN apply to a facility that 
produces liquid HCl at concentrations exceeding 30 weight percent only 
on an occasional basis, when requested by a customer?
    A3: If a facility infrequently produces HCl with a concentration of 
30 weight percent or greater and this production is not a routine part 
of normal operations, the facility would not be subject to 40 CFR part 
63, subpart NNNNN.

Abstract for [M060045]

    Q1: Could EPA clarify to Lasco Bathware Incorporated what measures 
are being taken by the Agency to ensure that any composite operation 
utilizing the ``non-atomized mechanical application'' emission factors 
for gelcoats or filled resins, is in compliance with the requirements 
specified in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart WWWW?
    A1: Since affected sources must comply with monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under the Reinforced 
Composites Production rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) to ensure 
continuous compliance, the regulatory agency is able to know when a 
source first becomes subject to the rule and whether it is complying 
with the rule. A regulatory agency could also elect, as part of its 
compliance and enforcement program, to inspect a source to evaluate its 
compliance with the 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW requirements and take 
any actions, as appropriate.
    Q2: What tests are required to ensure that organic hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions are no greater than the organic HAP emissions 
predicted by the applicable non-atomized application equation(s) in 
Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW?
    A2: No tests are required. 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW allows 
sources to use the equations in Table 1 to calculate HAP emission 
factors that are then used to estimate sources' emissions instead of 
conducting actual testing. Table 1 emission factors were used to 
calculate the emission limits for the MACT floor for this rule. 
Accordingly, the rule allows a source to use Table 1 emission factors 
to calculate its emissions and demonstrate compliance with the emission 
standard.
    Q3: Could EPA clarify how it will address the known discrepancy 
between the emissions estimated using the published Table 1 and/or 
emission factors for unfilled resin, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
WWWW, and the actual emissions from tub/shower facilities, which can be 
verified by means of EPA emissions testing methods 18 and 25A?
    A3: EPA does not yet have the industry data to do an evaluation of 
the current emission factors for 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. After 
the data is received and evaluated, a determination will be made as to 
whether changes should be made to the rule.

Abstract for [Z060002]

    Q: Is the Aerovox Division Parallax Power Components facility 
subject to reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T, if 
all machines at the facility subject to the rule have been removed or 
converted to non-regulated solvents?
    A: No. EPA finds that the facility is no longer subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart T and therefore is no longer required to submit 
reports under the subpart, unless the facility once again uses solvents 
regulated under this rule.

Abstract for [Z060004]

    Q: Should benzene emissions that occur from heat exchanger leaks at 
the BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., Texas facility be included in the calculation 
of the Total Annual Benzene (TAB) quantity from facility waste water 
under the NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
FF?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that neither benzene emissions occurring from 
non-contact heat exchanger leaks into cooling tower water nor benzene 
quantities from ``contact heat exchangers ``qualify for the exemption 
or exclusion from the required TAB calculation under the NESHAP for 
Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. The benzene 
emissions are directly generated by these processes and are not the 
result of either leakage or process offgas. Therefore, waste in the 
form of gases or vapors that is emitted during these processes from the 
process fluids is required to be part of the calculation of the total 
annual benzene quantity in facility waste generation.

Abstract for [0600030]

    Q: Could EPA clarify to the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection whether the Agrico's Big Bend Terminal in Hillsborough 
County, Florida, is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart X, if it 
contends that it is a distribution and not a storage of granular triple 
superphosphate (GTSP) manufacturing facility?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the Big Bend Terminal facility is subject to 
NSPS subpart X since it was constructed, reconstructed, or modified 
after October 25, 1974. In addition, the definition of GTSP storage 
facility in 40 CFR 60.241 does not restrict applicability to storage 
facilities at manufacturing sites.

Abstract for [0600031]

    Q: Are coal truck dump operations at the ARCO Coal Company, 
Colorado facility ``affected facilities'' subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Y?
    A: Coal truck dump operations are not affected facilities for 
purposes of NSPS subpart Y. However, EPA finds that these operations 
are part of the coal preparation plant if they are located at the site 
of the plant, as defined in 40 CFR 60.251(a) of NSPS subpart Y. 
Therefore, quantifiable fugitive particulate emissions from coal dump 
operations must be included in a total source emissions inventory to 
determine whether the stationary source is to be considered a major 
source of hazardous air pollutant emissions.

Abstract for [0600032]

    Q: Are conveyors 1 and 2 at the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative 
(AEPCO) part of the affected facility

[[Page 41117]]

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y? Conveyor numbers 1 and 2 were 
built prior to the AEPCO screening and crushing facility.
    A: Yes. EPA finds that AEPCO conveyor numbers 1 and 2 are part of 
the affected facility subject to NSPS subpart Y because these are used 
to convey coal or coal refuse from the machinery and the exemption in 
40 CFR 60.14(c) would therefore, not apply. 40 CFR 60.14(c) exempts 
existing facilities from becoming affected facilities by the addition 
of a new affected facility. However, this case involves changes to an 
existing affected facility.

Abstract for [0600033]

    Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
NNN, RRR, and VV to the production of ethyl alcohol through biological 
fermentation processes?
    A: These regulations and their background documents state that 
these subparts apply only to specific processes involving synthesis of 
organic chemicals using petroleum-based feedstocks (in this case 
ethylene to ethanol) and not biological fermentation processes where 
emissions characteristics and industry economics differ. EPA clarified 
that these regulations do not apply to chemicals extracted from natural 
sources or totally produced by biological process in the following 
Federal Register notices: the notice proposing the NSPS for volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions from synthetic organic chemical 
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) distillation operations (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart NNN) (48 FR 57541); the notice promulgating the NSPS for 
equipment leaks of VOC in SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) (48 FR 
48335); and the notice promulgating the NSPS for VOC emissions from 
SOCMI reactor processes (40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR) (58 FR 45962).

Abstract for [0600034]

    Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
NNN, RRR, and III to biomass ethanol production?
    A: EPA finds that NSPS subparts NNN, RRR, and III do not contain a 
blanket exemption for biomass ethanol production facilities from 
applicability of these subparts. Inherent difficulties in determining 
emissions characteristics and processes make it necessary to provide 
exemptions on a case-by-case basis, beyond those provided for 
explicitly in the rule. This case-by case applicability exemption 
determination is consistent with the approaches used in implementing 
other rules, such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) rule, and this 
memorandum further clarifies an earlier EPA response dated October 7, 
1996, regarding the applicability of these standards to biomass ethanol 
production.

Abstract for [0600035]

    Q: Could EPA clarify the 30-day reporting requirement for sources 
which were constructed or reconstructed between proposal and 
promulgation, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart III?
    A: Although 40 CFR part 60, subpart III does not specifically 
address the issue of notification deadlines for sources for which the 
30-day deadline has already or nearly passed, EPA believes that it is 
only reasonable under NSPS subpart III to allow owners and operators 
the full 30 days after promulgation to provide the necessary 
notifications.

Abstract for [0600036]

    Q: Could EPA clarify whether heaters F-501 and F-510 at the Chevron 
USA refinery in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, are subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J either because their construction commenced after June 11, 
1973, or because the heaters were modified in 1982?
    A: EPA finds that heaters F-501 and F-510 are subject to NSPS 
subpart J because they commenced construction after the applicability 
date of June 11, 1973. The terms ``commenced'' and ``construction'' are 
defined in 40 CFR 60.2. The terms were also discussed in EPA's earlier 
response to Chevron on May 2, 1976 (see ADI Control Number CO08). Based 
on these definitions, EPA finds that the construction of heaters F-501 
and F-510 commenced on January 31, 1974, the date the contract for the 
construction of heaters F-501 and F-510 was signed and became legally 
binding. Because the construction of these heaters commenced after the 
applicability date of June 11, 1973, these heaters are subject to NSPS 
subpart J.

Abstract for [0600037]

    Q: Is a fuel oil storage tank (Tank 19) at the Chevron Products 
Company, New Jersey facility subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, if 
the tank is converted to an internal floating roof tank with a 
mechanical shoe seal for storing crude oil?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the storage tank is subject to NSPS subpart 
Kb because the conversions constitute ``reconstruction'' as defined in 
40 CFR 60.14 and 40 CFR 60.15. The fixed capital costs of the new 
components exceed 50 percent of the initial fixed capital cost, which 
subjects the storage tank to NSPS subpart Kb requirements. The cost of 
the new foundation for the storage tank, or other costs not directly 
related in containerization cannot be included in calculating the fixed 
capital cost of the new components.

Abstract for [0600038]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule for sulfur 
for a gas turbine, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at Conoco's Acadia 
Gas Processing Plant?
    A1: Yes. Given that the sulfur levels continue to be low and 
consistent as demonstrated, EPA approves a custom schedule for sulfur, 
with a one week composite for each of the first six months and a one 
week composite for each of the following quarters. Conoco must re-
evaluate the fuel composition if there is a change in the feedstock.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule for nitrogen 
for a gas turbine, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at Conoco's Acadia 
Gas Processing Plant?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve a custom schedule for nitrogen for a 
gas turbine at this facility. If Conoco would like to reapply for a 
custom schedule, it should provide sufficient data to demonstrate the 
consistency of the fuel quality on a daily basis, rather than on an 
average basis.

Abstract for [0600039]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring schedule for 
analyzing fuel sulfur content, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, which 
would allow the use of weekly instead of daily composites to determine 
sulfur content, for the combined cycle gas turbines at Dow Chemical USA 
(Dow)? In addition, Dow would like these weekly composites to be 
conducted on a quarterly basis and believes that this alternative 
schedule is consistent with 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2).
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of a weekly composite for analyzing 
fuel sulfur content. However, EPA does not approve the proposed 
quarterly sampling at this time. Weekly composites should be analyzed 
and checked for accuracy and consistency for six months. If after the 
first six months the sulfur levels remain consistent with the data 
provided in this review, quarterly monitoring may be requested.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the microcoulometric titration technique for 
determining the sulfur content of fuel under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
GG?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve Dow's microcoulometric titration 
technique for determining sulfur content. The method is not a 
previously approved equivalent method under NSPS subpart GG, and

[[Page 41118]]

lacks supporting data demonstrating its equivalency to proven testing 
methods.

Abstract for [0600040]

    Q1: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
KK for the Excide Corporation (Excide) lead acid battery manufacturing 
plant in Greer, South Carolina?
    A1: Excide's four facilities located at this plant are subject to 
NSPS subpart KK if they were constructed or modified after January 14, 
1980, and are part of any plant that produces or has the design 
capacity to produce in one day (24 hours) batteries containing an 
amount equal to or greater than 6.5 tons of lead. Excide produces 
batteries containing an amount of lead greater than 6.5 tons. Also, 
since January 14, 1980, Excide has installed additional equipment on 
all four facilities, which constituted modifications to these 
facilities. Therefore, the plant is subject to NSPS subpart KK. Removal 
of all equipment added after January 14, 1980, would not by itself 
terminate the applicability of NSPS subpart KK to the Exide facilities. 
To terminate the applicability of NSPS subpart KK, Exide would have to 
either dismantle the affected facilities or permanently decrease 
(physically restrict) the plant's capacity so that the plant no longer 
had the capacity to produce in 1 day (24 hours) batteries containing 
more than 6.5 tons of lead (down from the present amount of lead).
    Q2: Would Excide have a period of time to remove the additional 
equipment which constituted the modification in order to avoid being 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK regulations?
    A2: No. The applicability determination is made based on whether 
and when modification occurred. Subsequent restoration of the 
facilities to the previous physical and operational configuration would 
not change the finding that the facilities were modified and therefore 
would not relieve the company from having to comply with NSPS subpart 
KK.
    Q3: Could EPA distinguish between a boiler derate and removing 
additional equipment in relation to the applicability of 40 CFR part 
60, subpart KK to this facility?
    A3: A boiler derate involves a permanent restriction of the boiler 
production capacity and could alter the entire regulated entity in such 
a way that it no longer meets the definition of ``affected facility.'' 
In contrast, once an existing facility has been modified by installing 
additional equipment, it is considered an affected facility under NSPS 
subpart KK in the same way as a newly-constructed affected facility 
would be. The subsequent removal of the added equipment leaves behind a 
plant that still contains affected facilities since its production rate 
remains well above the NSPS subpart KK applicability threshold. The 
entire affected facility is subject to the standards of performance, 
not just the portion of the affected facility which is responsible for 
the increase in emissions.

Abstract for [0600041]

    Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring requirements, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart J, for the Hunt Refining Company?
    A: No. EPA does not have the authority to waive NSPS subpart J 
monitoring requirements. However, the facility emits the regulated 
pollutants in low quantities and may qualify for a monitoring frequency 
reduction. The facility remains subject to continuous monitoring 
requirements until an alternative is approved.

Abstract for [0600042]

    Q: Are two boilers, which burn only Jet A fuel, subject to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Db?
    A: No. The boilers are designed to burn natural gas, and are 
therefore subject to NSPS subpart Db. However, these boilers are not 
subject to any emission standards or monitoring requirements when 
solely burning Jet A fuel. EPA has determined that Jet A fuel is 
classified as ``other fuel'' as referenced in NSPS subpart Db, rather 
than as residual or distillate oil. Jet A fuel is covered in ASTM 
D1655-95, which also covers diesel and gas turbine fuels.

Abstract for [0600043]

    Q: Could EPA clarify the particulate matter and opacity limits 
applicable to the kiln, clinker cooler, and raw mill operations, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart F, at the Roanoke Cement Company in Cloverdale, 
Virginia?
    A: All of the gas exiting the clinker cooler goes to the kiln as 
process gas and is therefore not subject to the opacity or particulate 
matter limits for clinker cooler gas in NSPS subpart F. Instead, this 
process gas, as well as all of the other gas exiting the kiln (that is 
not diverted to raw mill operations as a process gas) is subject to the 
kiln gas standards. The raw mill uses some kiln gas as process gas. 
This process gas and all other gas exiting the raw mill operations is 
subject to the 10 percent opacity limit applicable to raw mill gas (no 
particulate matter limit applies).

Abstract for [0600045]

    Q1: Could EPA clarify to Woodward-Clyde Consultants whether a 
change in volatile organic liquid (VOL) or an increase in throughput 
makes an existing storage vessel subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb?
    A1: Based on 40 CFR 60.14(e), switching to a higher vapor pressure 
VOL will not by itself be considered a modification if the existing 
storage vessel was designed to accommodate the higher vapor pressure 
VOL prior to July 23, 1984. Similarly, under 40 CFR 60.14(e), an 
increase in throughput will not be considered a modification if the 
original design of the storage vessel could accommodate the increased 
throughput.
    Q2: Could EPA clarify the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Kb to a storage vessel that is covered by a state permit, which does 
not specify what VOL can be stored, and where the VOL is changed to a 
level that is within the emission limits established by the state 
permit?
    A2: If an existing source undergoes reconstruction or modification 
after July 23, 1984, then the storage vessel will become subject to 
NSPS subpart Kb because state permits do not provide shielding from the 
NSPS. Therefore, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb requirements applies to the 
storage vessel even when the state permit fails to include such 
requirements.
    Q3: Is acetone considered a VOL with respect to 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts A and Kb?
    A3: No. EPA finds that acetone is not a VOL under NSPS subparts A 
and Kb.
    Q4: Are blending tanks with a capacity of at least 40 cubic meters 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb?
    A4: Yes. EPA finds that the blending tank is considered a storage 
tank subject to NSPS subpart Kb because 40 CFR 60.110(b) does not 
differentiate between storage vessels based on usage.
    Q5: Is the presence or absence of a mechanical agitator in the 
blending tank relevant to the applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Kb?
    A5: EPA finds that the presence of a mechanical agitator is only 
relevant when one considers the question of ``modification.'' For 
example, if a product change requires blending, the installation of a 
mechanical agitator in the tank constitutes ``physical change.'' 
Providing that there are emission increases associated with the product 
storage change, the tank will become subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Kb because the tank is not considered capable of accommodating the 
alternative product without the installation of an agitator.

[[Page 41119]]

    Q6: Will 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb apply if the storage tank has a 
usable capacity greater than or equal to 151 m3 without an internal 
floating roof, but the usable capacity drops below 151 m3 after the 
installation of an internal floating roof? Which capacity should be 
considered the design capacity for applicability purposes?
    A6: EPA finds that the capacity of the tank prior to the 
installation of the internal floating roof is the design capacity for 
purposes of determining applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. 
The designed capacity is the nominal figure or nominal rating given to 
the storage vessel by the tank manufacturer. 40 CFR 60.110(a-c) 
identify ``design capacity,'' not ``usable'' capacity of the storage 
vessel to be the key parameter for considering applicability. In 
addition, the volume occupied by the internal floating roof cannot be 
subtracted to bring the tank below the threshold of NSPS subpart Kb.

Abstract for [0600046]

    Q: Are three proposed 316.9 million Btu/hr resource recovery 
boilers, located at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia 
facility, which will burn a combination of coal and refuse derived fuel 
(RDF), subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts D and/or Da? The steam and 
electricity generated by these boilers will be used exclusively to 
furnish the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
    A: The boilers will not be subject to NSPS subpart Da because the 
boilers will not provide electricity for sale. The boilers will, 
however, be subject to NSPS subpart D because the boilers would have 
the capability to fire in excess of 250 million Btu/hr of fossil fuel. 
The boilers will be required to meet all emission limits for the 
portion of the heat input which is attributable to the fossil fuel.

Abstract for [0600047]

    Q: Is the sulfur recovery plant (SRP) at the Navajo Refining 
Company's (Navajo's) Artesia, New Mexico, refinery subject to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart J?
    A: Yes. The 20 long tons per day (LTD) exception criterion in 40 
CFR 60.100(a) for the production or processing capacity for the Navajo 
SRP does not apply. The SRU allows for the processing of more than 20 
long tons per day (LTD) of sulfur based on the design basis of the 
unit. Although applicability of NSPS subpart J should be determined 
before construction begins, Navajo has not provided information 
sufficient to establish that the design capacity of the SRP to process 
input sulfur was 20 LTD or less. In addition, the sulfur production 
from this unit routinely exceeds 20 LTD, and Navajo has failed to 
demonstrate the design capacity was 20 LTD or less.

Abstract for [0600048]

    Q: In lieu of the standard daily fuel nitrogen and sulfur 
monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, may the Algonquin Power 
co-generation facility in Windsor Locks, Connecticut (Algonquin Power) 
facility use the procedures in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, 2.3.1.4 and 
2.3.2.4, to show that the gas used in a turbine meets sulfur-content 
specifications for pipeline-quality natural gas?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2), EPA approves that 
Algonquin Power use the procedures in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, 
2.3.1.4 and 2.3.2.4, to show that the gas meets sulfur-content 
specifications for pipeline-quality natural gas. Under this approach, 
the daily fuel nitrogen and sulfur monitoring requirements of NSPS 
subpart GG would not apply as long as the part 75 monitoring 
demonstrated that the fuel met pipeline-quality specifications.

Abstract for [0600049] and [0600050]

    Q: Does EPA approve changing the frequency of Relative Accuracy 
Test Audits (RATAs) and Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs) under 40 CFR part 
60, Appendix F, at the ANP Bellingham Energy Company facilities in 
Bellingham and Blackstone, Massachusetts, so that the frequency is 
consistent with similar requirements under 40 CFR part 75?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i)(2), EPA approves changing the 
annual RATA due date to once every four operating quarters instead of 
once every four calendar quarters, and approves a NOX, CO 
and O2 CGA every operating quarter. An operating quarter is defined as 
one in which the unit operates 168 hours or more. Regardless of 
operation, the facility must conduct a CGA for NOX, CO and 
O2 at least once every four calendar quarters, and must conduct a RATA 
at least once every eight calendar quarters. This EPA approval allows 
ANP to follow the grace period provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix 
B, Section 2.2.4 (for CGAs) and Section 2.3.3 (for RATAs).

Abstract for [0600051]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver from the nitrogen-monitoring 
requirement in 40 CFR 60.334(b) of NSPS subpart GG, for a natural gas 
fuel combustion turbine at the Bridgewater Correctional Complex in 
Bridgewater, Massachusetts?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves waiving the requirement under 40 CFR 
60.334(b) of NSPS subpart GG to monitor the nitrogen content of 
pipeline quality natural gas given that the natural gas does not 
contain fuel-bound nitrogen, and any free nitrogen in the gas would not 
contribute appreciably to the formation of nitrogen oxide emissions.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a custom monitoring schedule to monitor the 
sulfur content at each renewal of the Title V Operating Permit, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for a natural gas fueled combustion turbine 
at the Bridgewater Correctional Complex in Bridgewater, Massachusetts 
(Bridgewater)?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve this custom monitoring schedule. 
Bridgewater may use the two custom monitoring schedules set forth in 40 
CFR 60.334(i)(3)(i)(A) through (D), without prior approval. Otherwise, 
Bridgewater must continue to follow 40 CFR 60.334(i)(2) for the 
monitoring frequency of the fuel's sulfur content.

Abstract for [0600052]

    Q: Does EPA approve a parametric monitoring plan that includes 
monitoring the fuel input rate, the electric load, and the combustor 
temperature during the initial stack performance test, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, at the Bridgewater Correctional Complex in 
Bridgewater, Massachusetts?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the parametric monitoring plan with certain 
modifications and additional conditions, as specified in the EPA 
response letter. This parametric approach will be correlated with 
emissions to ensure proper operation of the control system and to 
ensure the facility stays within permitted limits.

Abstract for [0600053]

    Q: Does EPA approve a revision to the November 22, 2002 alternative 
opacity monitoring procedure for boiler Number 15, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Db, at the Fraser Papers facility in Berlin, New Hampshire 
(Fraser)? The November 22, 2002 approval allowed Fraser to continuously 
monitor and record the voltage across the electrostatic precipitator 
(ESP) and to continuously monitor and record the scrubber liquid flow 
rate to the spray tower (wet scrubber) in lieu of installing, 
calibrating, maintaining and operating a continuous opacity monitoring 
system (COMS).
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the revision to the 2002 
alternative opacity monitoring procedure to meet NSPS subpart Db. 
Fraser will use

[[Page 41120]]

secondary voltage-to-fuel oil firing rate or average performance test 
secondary voltage as an alternative to opacity monitoring under all 
load conditions. The facility must set the appropriate parameter values 
based on performance tests at low and high load rates.

Abstract for [0600054]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of the extended testing timelines 
outlined in 40 CFR part 75 instead of the timelines outlined in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Db (by referenced 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) for 
conducting a Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) for a continuous 
emission monitoring system at the General Electric facility in Lynn, 
Massachusetts?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the part 75 timeline instead of 
NSPS subpart Db timeline. This alternative will ensure that the 
facility does not need to start up the boiler for the sole purpose of 
conducting the RATA test within the annual (four calendar quarter) 
deadline established in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Section 5, given 
that the boiler is used only between 10 to 50 percent of the year.

Abstract for [0600055]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative schedule to monitor fuels 
combusted on a monthly basis, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for the 
Goodrich Fuel and Utility System facility in Vergennes, Vermont 
(Goodrich)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring schedule request 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, provided that Goodrich meets specific 
recordkeeping requirements. This alternative fuel consumption 
monitoring option is not an exemption from compliance with any of the 
fuel certification requirements in NSPS subpart Dc.

Abstract for [0600056]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring schedule, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for gas-fired boilers at the MassMutual Center 
facility in Springfield, Massachusetts? Under the proposed alternative, 
fuel records would be maintained on a monthly instead of daily basis.
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring schedule as long 
as the boilers continue to burn exclusively natural gas. If the boilers 
burn any fuel other than natural gas, all provisions of NSPS subpart Dc 
will apply as written, including daily tracking of all fuel use from 
that day forward.

Abstract for [0600057]

    Q: Does EPA approve changing the frequency of Relative Accuracy 
Test Audits (RATAs) and Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs) under 40 CFR part 
60, Appendix F, for auditing continuous emission monitors (CEMs) at the 
Stony Brook Energy Center facility in Ludlow, Massachusetts, so that 
the frequency is consistent with similar requirements under 40 CFR part 
75? The Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC) 
operates three combustion turbines at this facility, units 1A, 1B and 
1C with CEMs for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide as 
required by 40 CFR part 60, NSPS subpart Db, and 40 CFR part 75.
    A: Yes. EPA approves changing the annual RATA due date to once 
every four operating quarters, and approves omitting a CGA for the 
required monitoring systems except during an operating quarter. An 
operating quarter is defined as one in which the unit operates 168 
hours or more. Regardless of operation, the facility must conduct a CGA 
for each monitoring system at least once every four calendar quarters 
and must conduct a RATA at least once every eight calendar quarters.

Abstract for [0600058]

    Q: Does EPA approve VRI's request to demonstrate that its enclosure 
meets the permanent total enclosure (PTE) definition in 40 CFR part 51, 
Appendix M, Method 204, as an alternative to the monitoring 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV, for a capture system 
serving one or more coating lines at the Von Roll Isola USA facility 
(VRI) in New Haven, Connecticut? The capture system is unlikely to 
comply with the requirement to stay within five percent of the monitor 
readings during the performance test established in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VVV due to various factors.
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves VRI's alternative monitoring 
request to demonstrate that its enclosure meets the PTE definition in 
Method 204, provided that VRI adheres to conditions specified in EPA's 
response letter involving monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.

Abstract for [0600059]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the use of certain monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting provisions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as 
alternative monitoring requirements to those under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart NNN, for the Flint Hills Resources West Refinery in Corpus 
Christi, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of the 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 40 CFR 
60.705(s).
    Q2: Will EPA approve a waiver of initial performance tests for 
certain boilers and heaters at the same facility?
    A2: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), EPA conditionally approves 
the performance test waiver for the boilers and process heaters which 
are fired with fuel gas containing a vent stream from the Number 2 
Isomerization Units and the Number 2 Parex Units. This waiver is 
applicable for boilers and process heaters which meet the definitions 
of a boiler or process heater in 40 CFR 60.701 under NSPS subpart RRR. 
Both the alternative monitoring and the waiver of performance testing 
are contingent upon the vent streams being vented to a fuel gas system 
and introduced into the flame zone with the primary fuel.

Abstract for [0600060]

    Q: For three natural gas-fired boilers at the Edgefield 
Correctional Complex (ECC) in Edgefield, South Carolina, subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Dc, will EPA allow the facility to maintain 
records of the total amount of gas used in the powerhouse instead of 
keeping records on the amount of fuel burned in each of the boilers 
separately?
    A: No. EPA cannot waive the requirement under NSPS subpart Dc to 
keep separate fuel usage records for each boiler. However, the South 
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control can approve an 
alternative approach under which the total gas usage in the powerhouse 
would be measured and apportioned between the three boilers in 
question, as established in a March 7, 2002, EPA Region 4 guidance 
letter.

Abstract for [0600061]

    Q: Does EPA approve conducting visible emission (VEs) observations 
on a daily basis as an alternative to installing a continuous opacity 
monitoring (COM) system, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, if 
it uses negative pressure baghouses, each with a single stack, to 
control emissions from the two electric arc furnaces (EAFs) and an 
argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel at the Alloys Resources plant 
in Albertville, Alabama?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the company's alternative monitoring 
proposal for the

[[Page 41121]]

three affected facilities would be acceptable provided that it follows 
the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 60.273(c) and 40 CFR 60.273a(c). The 
EAFs and AOD are much smaller than those typically used in the 
secondary steel production industry, therefore, the cost of COMS would 
be relatively high compared to the size and the potential particulate 
emission rate from the furnaces at Alloys Resources which is a 
reasonable justification for allowing the use of daily VEs as an 
alternative to COMS, as described in the preamble to the Federal 
Register notice for the promulgation of NSPS subpart AAa.

Abstract for [0600062]

    Q: May the Orange County Solid Waste Management facility change its 
standard operating procedures for landfill gas extraction wells, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, and shut down, as an alternative to 
decommissioning, the wells where gas flows are so low that applying 
even minimal vacuum results in air infiltration that causes exceedances 
of the applicable oxygen concentration limit?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative operating procedure provided 
that that the facility diagrams are updated to indicate which wells 
have been shutdown because landfill gas production rates are too low to 
permit continuous extraction. EPA finds that shutting down 
nonproductive wells, rather than decommissioning them, has the 
potential to lower overall non-methane organic compounds emissions by 
making it easier to resume gas collection in nonproductive areas of the 
landfill that subsequently experience an improvement in gas quality.

Abstract for [0600063]

    Q: Does EPA find that leachate risers connected to the landfill gas 
collection system at the Pecan Grove Sanitary Landfill (PGSL) in 
Harrison County, Mississippi are subject to the operational and 
monitoring requirements for gas collection wells under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA finds for purposes of NSPS subpart WWW that the risers, 
which function as interior wells, must be connected to the gas 
collection and control system if PGSL is extracting gas from active 
areas where waste has been in place for five years or more, or from 
closed areas or areas at final grade where waste has been in place for 
two years or more.

Abstract for [0600064]

    Q: Does EPA waive a performance test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
OOO, for particulate emission testing at the outlet of a baghouse that 
controls emissions from conveying equipment and two storage silos at 
the Henry Brick Company (HBC) plant in Selma, Alabama?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a waiver for the performance test requirement 
under NSPS subpart OOO because the silos and sand conveying equipment 
at the plant operate for only short periods of time on an intermittent 
basis. Alternatively, the HBC facility will demonstrate compliance by 
conducting visible emission observations during one complete loading 
cycle to demonstrate compliance.

Abstract for [0600065]

    Q: Does EPA waive the stack testing requirements, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart TT, for a new coil coating line at the Termalex plant in 
Montgomery, Alabama?
    A: EPA finds that the requested test waiver is unnecessary. 
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the line in question are 
controlled with a carbon adsorption system, and under NSPS subpart TT, 
compliance for facilities using this control approach is determined by 
comparing the amount of solvent recovered to the amount consumed. This 
allows compliance to be assessed without a stack test; thus, the 
requested testing waiver is unnecessary.

Abstract for [0600066]

    Q: Does the gas processing conducted at the Central Sanitary 
Landfill in Pompano Beach, Florida constitutes treatment under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Cc?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the landfill gas processing operation 
includes the three activities (filtrating to 10 microns or less, 
compression, and de-watering) that EPA has previously identified as 
necessary steps in landfill gas processing to constitute treatment 
under NSPS subpart WWW. The same definition would apply under NSPS 
subpart Cc.

Abstract for [0600067]

    Q1: Does EPA accept the nitrogen monitoring waiver and the sulfur 
custom fuel monitoring plan proposed by Reliant Energy Choctaw County 
LLC (Reliant Energy), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for three 
natural gas-fired combined cycle electric utility generating units 
located in Choctaw County, Mississippi?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that these proposals are acceptable because they 
are consistent with previous EPA guidance regarding fuel quality 
monitoring options under NSPS subpart GG.
    Q2: Do the procedures from 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D satisfy the 
fuel sulfur content monitoring provisions under NSPS subpart GG for 
determining the sulfur content of natural gas burned in these same 
units?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that, provided the units are fired with pipeline 
quality gas, the procedures from 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D may satisfy 
the fuel sulfur content monitoring provisions under NSPS, subpart GG 
for determining the sulfur content of natural gas burned in these 
units.
    Q3: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
GG, to correct NOX emission rates to International Standard 
Organization (ISO) standard day conditions for these three units?
    A3: EPA finds that the requirement can be waived for the initial 
testing if the units are in compliance with the NOX limits 
in their Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. 
Following the initial test, Reliant Energy will not need to correct 
results to an ISO standard basis continuously. However, the company 
must maintain records of the information used in making the correction 
so that results could be calculated in terms of the applicable NSPS 
subpart GG limit when there are exceedances of the PSD permit limit.
    Q4: For these same three units, may Reliant Energy, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG conduct a single load test instead of a four-load 
test, use reference method results from NOX continuous 
emission monitoring system (CEMS) relative accuracy test audit (RATA) 
for the initial compliance demonstration, and conduct the test 
downstream of the duct burners and selective catalytic reduction (SCR)?
    A4: EPA finds that the Mississippi Office of Pollution Control can 
approve the proposals to conduct a single load test instead of a four-
load test and to use reference method results from NOX 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) for the initial compliance demonstration. EPA also finds 
that it is acceptable to conduct the test downstream of the duct 
burners and SCR system because the proposed sampling location is 
downstream of the combined cycle unit's control system.
    Q5: May data from CEMS installed on the exhaust stack of each of 
these Reliant Energy units be used for reporting gas turbine excess 
emissions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A5: Yes. EPA finds that although Reliant Energy proposed reporting 
excess emissions under NSPS subpart

[[Page 41122]]

GG only while operating in the combined cycle mode, the company must 
also monitor and report excess emissions when the turbines are 
operating in the simple cycle mode.
    Q6: Does EPA waive the requirement to test and monitor 
NOX emissions separately for the natural gas-fired turbines 
and duct burners in the combined cycle systems, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG?
    A6: EPA finds that the requested waiver is unnecessary because NSPS 
subpart Da includes an option that allows owners and operators of 
combined cycle systems to determine/monitor duct burner NOX 
compliance using results from a CEMS located downstream of the duct 
burner.
    Q7: Does demonstrating compliance with the particulate emission 
limit in the PSD permit for these units constitute an adequate 
demonstration of compliance for the duct burner's particulate limit 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da?
    A7: Yes. EPA finds that particulate testing conducted after the 
duct burners while the combined cycle units are operating at no less 
than 95 percent of capacity is acceptable. Since the applicable PSD 
limit for particulate emissions from the Reliant Energy's combined 
cycle systems is one-third of the corresponding subpart Da for the 
Reliant Energy's duct burners, demonstrating compliance with the PSD 
limit would provide adequate assurance of compliance with NSPS subpart 
Da and would justify a waiver of the requirement to conduct particulate 
testing at both the inlet and outlet of the duct burners.
    Q8: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct testing for 
determining compliance with the sulfur dioxide limit under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Da at these units? May Reliant Energy use the sulfur 
dioxide reporting and recordkeeping provisions from 40 CFR part 75, 
Appendix D in lieu of those in subpart Da?
    A8: EPA finds that if Reliant Energy verifies that the fuel used in 
the duct burners is pipeline quality natural gas, then no testing will 
be required because the emissions from pipeline natural gas will be 
orders of magnitude below the NSPS subpart Da limit. For reporting, the 
same results can be used to quantify emissions under both part 75 and 
NSPS subpart Da. Because reporting sulfur dioxide excess emissions 
under NSPS subpart Da will provide EPA with useful information and is 
not overly burdensome, the request to waive the NSPS subpart Da 
reporting requirements is not approved.
    Q9: Does EPA waive the applicable NOX emission limit, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, of 1.6 pounds per megawatt--hour for 
the duct burners in these units?
    A9: No. Since Reliant Energy compliance proposal for NOX 
blends aspects of the two compliance options for duct burners subject 
to the 1.6 lb/Mwh limit in 40 CFR 60.44a(d), the EPA cannot waive the 
performance testing requirements under either of these options at this 
time.
    Q10: Does EPA find that there are acceptable alternative procedures 
proposed for demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, 
NOX limits for duct burners at these units?
    A10: No. EPA finds that there are two NOX compliance 
demonstration options for duct burners under NSPS subpart Da, and EPA 
cannot approve an alternative approach until Reliant Energy clarifies 
which of the two compliance options is covered by the company's 
request.

Abstract for [0600068]

    Q: Does EPA allow Berkshire Power's facility in Agawam, 
Massachusetts to conduct nitrogen oxides (NOX) and oxygen 
(O\2\) daily continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) calibrations 
using 40 CFR part 75 procedures, instead of the procedures specified in 
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(2), it has the 
authority to approve alternate methods and procedures. Accordingly, EPA 
approves the request to show compliance with NSPS subpart GG daily 
calibration requirements by conducting NOX and O\2\ daily 
calibrations according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B, 
Section 2.1, subject to specific conditions. Note that this alternative 
calibration option is not an exemption from compliance with NSPS 
subpart GG.

Abstract for [0600069]

    Q1: Could EPA clarify the ``Day 0'' compliance dates for 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GGG, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at Brown Ferris 
Industries of North America's (BFI) Little Dixie Sanitary Landfill in 
Ridgeland, Mississippi?
    A1: EPA finds that based upon the effective date of NSPS subpart 
GGG, the ``Day 0'' compliance date would be April 6, 2000. ``Day 0'' 
for NSPS subpart WWW compliance would be the day that BFI commenced the 
vertical expansion approved in a permit issued to the Mississippi 
Office of Pollution Control on October 14, 2003.
    Q2: Could EPA clarify how earlier compliance activities performed 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG affect compliance schedules and 
requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW at this landfill?
    A2: EPA finds that the impact under these overlapping rules would 
depend upon whether the non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission 
rate from the landfill exceeded 50 megagrams prior to the applicability 
of NSPS subpart WWW. Triggering this threshold prior to the 
applicability of NSPS subpart WWW would not change the applicable 
compliance deadlines under NSPS subpart GGG. If the 50 megagram 
threshold is not exceeded prior to the applicability of NSPS subpart 
WWW, prior Tier 2 or Tier 3 test results can be used for calculating 
NMOC emission rates, provided that the five-year deadline for retesting 
is based upon the original test date instead of the NSPS subpart WWW 
applicability date.

Abstract for [0600070]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative opacity 
monitoring method for an oil-fired auxiliary steam generating unit that 
has a design heat input capacity of 652.58 mmBtu/hr, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Db, at the Cardinal Power Plant (Cardinal) in Brilliant, 
Ohio, owned by the American Electric Power (``AEP'') and Buckeye Power 
Inc.?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative opacity monitoring requests, 
under NSPS subpart Db, provided that the annual capacity factor is 
limited to 10 percent, and that the company collect opacity data and 
report exceedances of the opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.43b(f), as 
discussed in the EPA response.

Abstract for [0600071]

    Q: Does EPA approve a performance test time extension under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart OOO, to combine the testing into a single test program 
upon completion of the proposed modifications at the P.J. Keating 
Company facility in Acushnet, Massachusetts (Keating)?
    A: No. The request involves Keating's primary crusher, and the test 
is required to demonstrate compliance pursuant to NSPS subpart OOO. 
Based on the information provided, there are no grounds for an 
extension under NSPS subpart OOO or 40 CFR 60.8.

Abstract for [0600072]

    Q: Does EPA approve alternative operating parameter monitoring and 
recording requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, for a medical

[[Page 41123]]

infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) located at the Wilkes-Barre 
General Hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA approves monitoring and recording the tertiary chamber 
temperature instead of the secondary chamber temperature and recording 
the minimum flow rate of 50 percent NaOH to the Evaporative Cooler/
Scrubber as a site-specific operating parameter under NSPS subpart Ec. 
EPA also relieves the hospital from monitoring the minimum pressure 
drop across the wet scrubber or the minimum horsepower or amperage to 
the wet scrubber. EPA agrees that, given site-specific considerations, 
neither of these monitoring parameters is appropriate as the removal 
efficiency of the acid gases in the spray tower is not dependent upon 
pressure drop, minimum horsepower, or amperage. Instead, EPA agrees 
that establishing and monitoring the flow rate of both the 50 percent 
NaOH (liquid) and the flow rate of the lime injected into the system 
are appropriate operating parameters for this system.

Abstract for [0600074]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring and recordkeeping 
frequency for boiler fuel usage from daily to monthly monitoring and 
recordkeeping, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at ISG's Steelton, 
Pennsylvania steelmaking facility?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the change to monthly recordkeeping and 
monitoring of the boiler fuel usage under NSPS subpart Dc, as this is a 
very small boiler that combusts only natural gas fuel.

Abstract for [0600075]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring method for opacity, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for the Koppers Monessen, 
Pennsylvania coke plant boiler?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that this boiler only combusts cleaned coke oven 
gas as fuel. Therefore, EPA approves the use of Method 22 on a daily 
basis followed by Method 9 opacity readings by a certified opacity 
evaluator, if any emissions are witnessed via Method 22.

Abstract for [0600076]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping 
frequency, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for Nylstar's two Kewanee 
boilers at its Ridgeway, Virginia plant?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the change from daily recordkeeping to monthly 
recordkeeping of fuel usage under NSPS subpart Dc because only very 
clean fuels are permitted to be combusted in these boilers.

Abstract for [0600077]

    Q: Does EPA approve a boiler capacity deration due to a burner 
change, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Sunsweet Growers 
facility in Fleetwood, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA approves of the boiler deration due to the burner 
change under NSPS subpart Dc. This project will meet the requirements 
of EPA's deration policy and will be a permanent physical change to the 
boiler operation that will limit the heat input capacity on a permanent 
basis.

Abstract for [0600078]

    Q: Does EPA approve a heat input capacity derate procedure, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for a boiler, located at Temple University 
in Pennsylvania, that involves mechanical and electronic changes to 
limit the heat input to less than 30 million BTUs per hour?
    A: No. EPA does not approve of the derate procedure under NSPS 
subpart Dc because it does not represent a permanent physical change to 
limit the heat input capacity of the boiler in accordance with 
established EPA policy.

Abstract for [0600079]

    Q: Can a nitrogen oxides predictive emission monitoring system 
(PEMS) installed and tested on a 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db boiler at 
the BP Chemical Company plant in Decatur, Alabama, be used for both the 
initial performance test and the ongoing compliance monitoring required 
for the unit?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that based on the results of relative accuracy 
test audits conducted on the PEMS and the large margin of compliance 
with respect to the applicable emission standard, the PEMS is an 
acceptable alternative to a continuous emission monitoring system for 
conducting both the initial performance test and the ongoing compliance 
monitoring for the boiler under NSPS subpart Db.

Abstract for [0600080]

    Q: Will EPA waive the requirement in 40 CFR 60.486(e)(1) to record 
a list of identification numbers for certain equipment subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VV, for the Solutia facility in Pensacola, 
Florida?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i), EPA finds that a waiver for 
equipment following the first reaction step in the company's adipic 
acid process unit is appropriate because NSPS subpart VV, indicates no 
subsequent requirements which would make use of a detailed record of 
the equipment which follows the first reaction step. All equipment 
after the first reaction step will comply with 40 CFR 60.482-8(a)(2) 
and will be in heavy liquid service. EPA's response also includes a 
clarification of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the 
equipment in heavy liquid service complying with 40 CFR 60.482-8(a)(2).

Abstract for [0600081]

    Q: Does EPA approve of alternative temperature limits proposed for 
seven gas collection wells, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the 
Broadhurst Environmental Landfill located in Screven, Georgia?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed alternative temperature limits 
are acceptable under NSPS subpart WWW because the criteria for approval 
of a higher wellhead temperature limit under the provisions in 40 CFR 
60.753(c) is met. Specifically, the data indicates that the elevated 
temperatures in these wells have not caused landfill fires or 
significantly inhibited anaerobic decomposition at the site.

Abstract for [0600083]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for the purge 
gas stream to a flare, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at the Valero's 
Wilmington Refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that an alternative monitoring plan is 
appropriate under NSPS subpart J, provided the purge gas stream is 
stable and low in H2S concentration.

Abstract for [0600084]

    Q: Could EPA clarify the interpretation of the term ``3 percent,'' 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart O, when recording the average oxygen 
content measured in the exhaust gas of a sewage sludge incinerator? 
Specifically, could EPA clarify whether ``3 percent'' means an oxygen 
percentage reading plus 3 percent, or 3 percent of the oxygen 
percentage?
    A: 40 CFR 60.155(a)(2) requires that excess oxygen levels be 
reported. Reportable readings are those readings, when interpreted as a 
percentage of oxygen in the exhaust gases, that are more than 3 percent 
oxygen in excess of the percentage measured during the most recent 
performance test.

Abstract for [0600085]

    Q1: Is a proposal to use an alternative equation for calculating 
the coke burn-off rate for a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit at the 
Chevron Products refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, acceptable under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart J?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that there are typographical errors in the coke 
burn-off

[[Page 41124]]

calculation in the current version of NSPS subpart J, and the proposed 
alternative calculation taken from 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU is 
acceptable because it does not contain any typographical errors since 
it includes a term to account for enriched air introduced into the FCC 
regenerator.
    Q2: Is an alternative method that the Chevron Products proposed to 
use for determining the catalyst regenerator exhaust gas flow rate 
acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that because the equation that Chevron proposes 
to use for calculating the exhaust gas flow rate comes from 40 CFR part 
63, subpart UUU, using the same equation for flow rate calculations 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J is acceptable.

Abstract for [0600086]

    Q1: Is the proposal to use information regarding the fuel 
consumption rate, flue gas oxygen concentration, and F-factors to 
calculate the exhaust gas flow rate for two stationary gas turbines at 
Mississippi State University in Starkville, Mississippi acceptable 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed approach for determining the 
turbines' exhaust gas flow rate is acceptable, provided that the 
accuracy of the meters used to determine fuel usage rates is comparable 
to that of EPA Method 2.
    Q2: Does EPA find that emission test results from one of the two 
identical stationary gas turbines can be used to verify compliance for 
both units under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that the requested waiver under NSPS subpart GG 
will be acceptable, provided that the emission rate for the unit that 
is tested does not exceed 50 percent of the applicable emission 
standard.

Abstract for [0600087]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan for the semi-
regenerative reformer regeneration gas streams routed to a reformer 
heater subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at ExxonMobil's Torrance, 
California refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that an alternative monitoring plan is allowed 
under NSPS subpart J, provided these gas streams are stable and low in 
H2S concentration.

Abstract for [0600088]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring approach for 
determining glass pull rates at the Knauf Insulation GmbH plant in 
Alabama to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP? Knauf Insulation 
proposes to use flow cameras, that the company has installed in order 
to comply with a monitoring requirement contained in 40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart NNN, as an alternative to calculating the glass pull rate using 
the equation in 40 CFR 60.685(b)(3).
    A: Yes. EPA finds that determining pull rates using the monitoring 
system required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, is acceptable 
because the results obtained using properly calibrated flow cameras 
should be more accurate than those determined using the equations in 
NSPS subpart PPP.

Abstract for [0600089]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
continuous emission monitor system (CEMS) span value for a 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Db boiler located at the Indiantown, Florida power plant?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the alternative span value proposed by the 
company (300 ppm) will improve the resolution of the CEMS, and 
therefore, it is acceptable.

Abstract for [0600090]

    Q: Can the requirement to conduct an initial performance test on 
the baghouse used to control particulate emissions from the Product 
Rework Bin facility at the Harborlite Corporation in Youngsville, North 
Carolina, be waived under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO?
    A: The performance test waiver requested by the company is 
unnecessary because the baghouse in question is not subject to a 
particulate concentration limit under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO. The 
baghouse controls emissions from the Product Rework Bin facility, and 
not from other parts of the plant. Because of this configuration, the 
Product Rework Bin facility is subject to an emission standard in 40 
CFR 60.672(f) that includes an opacity limit of seven percent but not 
to the particulate concentration limit that applies to other types of 
facilities with stack emissions.

Abstract for [0600091]

    Q: Biogen Idec in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Biogen), 
proposes to derate two boilers by replacing the forced draft fans with 
smaller fans and motors, and reducing the fuel flow capacity. Is this 
derate proposal acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the derate proposal under NSPS subpart Dc 
since it will permanently reduce the capacity of the boilers, provided 
Biogen follows the procedures established in EPA's response. If the 
facility wants to increase the capacity of the boiler after it has been 
derated, a notification of the proposed modifications must be submitted 
to the EPA.

Abstract for [0600092]

    Q: Are two separate disposal areas located in Statesville, North 
Carolina and operated by Iredell County contiguous under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that although a golf course is located between 
the closed and active disposal areas, these areas are contiguous 
because Iredell County owned both of them and two other adjoining 
properties on the date NSPS subpart WWW was promulgated.

Abstract for [0600093]

    Q: Premium Standard Farms in Clinton, North Carolina, proposes to 
derate two boilers by replacing the forced draft fans with smaller fans 
and motors and reducing the fuel flow capacity. Is this derate proposal 
acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the derate proposal under NSPS subpart Dc, 
since it will permanently reduce the capacity of the boilers, provided 
Premium Standard Farms follows the procedures established in EPA's 
response. If the facility wants to increase the capacity of the boiler 
after it has been derated, a notification of the proposed modifications 
must be submitted to the EPA.

Abstract for [0600094]

    Q: The Apex Oil Company bulk gasoline terminal in Greensboro, North 
Carolina, has been modified, and the company requests a waiver from the 
requirement under 40 CFR 60.8(a) to conduct an initial performance test 
to demonstrate compliance under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX. Will EPA 
grant a waiver from the requirement for an initial performance test 
based on the results of a test conducted ten years ago?
    A: No. An initial performance test will be needed to document 
compliance under NSPS subpart XX following the modification of the 
facility.

Abstract for [0600095]

    Q: Is the opacity monitoring alternative that the ABC Coke Company 
proposes for a natural gas and coke oven gas-fired boiler at its 
Birmingham, Alabama, coke plant acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Db?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that conducting visible emission observations 
would be an acceptable alternative to a continuous opacity monitoring 
system for ABC Coke, provided specific conditions listed in the EPA 
response letter are met.

[[Page 41125]]

Abstract for [0600096]

    Q: Are the monitoring requirements for landfill gas wells 
applicable to leachate collection risers connected to the active gas 
collection system, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Carter 
Valley Landfill in Church Hill, Tennessee?
    A: EPA finds that the applicability of the monitoring requirements 
in question depends upon the age of the waste where the risers are 
located. Any risers collecting gas from active areas where waste has 
been in place for five years or more or where waste has been in place 
for two years or more in either closed areas or areas that are at final 
grade would be subject to the monitoring requirements in NSPS subpart 
WWW.

Abstract for [0600097]

    Q: Could EPA clarify what is the correct monitor path length value 
to use for the outer section of a stack at the Asarco copper smelter in 
Hayden, Arizona (Asarco), under 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and P? The 
copper smelter discharges emissions to the atmosphere from a 1000 feet 
tall stack that incorporates physically separate inner and outer 
sections.
    A: EPA finds that for purposes of NSPS subparts A and P, Asarco may 
use the outer diameter minus the inner diameter of the tall stack for 
the monitor pathlength of the continuous opacity monitoring system 
operated in the outer, or annular, section of the tall stack.

Abstract for [0600098]

    Q: Does EPA approve Eastman Chemical Company's, Kingsport, 
Tennessee plant (Eastman) proposal to monitor for the presence of a 
pilot flame, in order to verify the performance under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart NNN of an enclosed flare at its Kingsport, Tennessee plant?
    A: No. Verifying the presence of a pilot flame alone is not 
sufficient. To provide adequate assurance of compliance under NSPS 
subpart NNN, Eastman must conduct testing to identify the flare 
temperature needed to achieve the required level of volatile organic 
compound destruction.

Abstract for [0600099]

    Q: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring plans for 22 separate 
refinery fuel gas streams at the Chevron's Richmond, California 
(Chevron) refinery under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J?
    A: Yes. Chevron's submittal meets the requirements of EPA's 
refinery fuel gas guidance titled Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS 
Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas, and is approved in accordance with the 
specific technical elements specified in attachments to EPA's approval 
letter.

Abstract for [0600100]

    Q1: Will EPA approve a request to deviate from the assumption that 
a violation of the carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit occurs if the 
facility operates their hospital medical infectious waste incinerator 
(HMIWI) above the maximum charge rate and below the minimum secondary 
combustion chamber temperature simultaneously as stated in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Ec, 40 CFR 60.56c(e)(1), if the facility has actual CO 
emissions data on a real-time basis from a CO continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS)?
    A1: Yes. EPA agrees that direct measurement of CO emissions using 
an EPA compliant continuous CO emissions monitor, which shows that CO 
emissions are within the allowable limit of 40 parts per million by 
volume adjusted to 7 percent oxygen measured on a dry basis at standard 
conditions, is superior to using surrogate parameters. As a matter of 
policy, the first and foremost option considered by the EPA is to 
require the use of CEMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with 
specific emission limits. Other options are considered only when CEMS 
are not available or when the impacts of including such requirements 
are considered unreasonable. In addition, a CEMS for oxygen must be 
installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated to monitor the oxygen 
concentration at each location where you monitor CO. EPA describes 
requirements applicable to CEMS in the response.
    Q2: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate as specified in 40 CFR 
60.57c(a) and in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
    A2: No. EPA will not grant approval to eliminate monitoring the 
maximum charge rate as an operating parameter as it is linked to all 
emission limits, and not only to CO emissions. According to the 
definition for maximum charge rate for a continuous and intermittent 
hospital medical infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) given in 40 CFR 
60.51c, the maximum charge rate is linked to compliance with all 
applicable emission limits, which includes particulate matter (PM), CO, 
dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride (HCl), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), 
mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and opacity.
    Q3: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for minimum secondary chamber temperature as 
specified in 40 CFR 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Ec?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves eliminating monitoring of the minimum 
secondary chamber temperature as an operating parameter when the CO 
emissions are measured using an EPA compliant continuous CO monitor, as 
described in the response letter, and the emissions are within the CO 
emission limits. EPA views CO emissions level as a function of 
combustion efficiency and agrees that the use of an EPA compliant 
continuous CO monitor will provide the information on combustion 
efficiency that the surrogate parameter of secondary chamber 
temperature was intended to provide.
    Q4: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the record keeping 
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights and hourly 
charge rates as specified in 40 CFR 60.58c(b)(2)(iii) in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Ec?
    A4: No. As previously stated in A2, above, the maximum charge rate 
parameters are linked to other emission limits besides CO emission 
limits.
    Q5: Will EPA approve a request to eliminate the record keeping 
requirements for the HMIWI secondary chamber temperatures for each 
minute of operation as specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
    A5: Yes. EPA agrees that actual data from an EPA compliant 
continuous CO monitor will provide the information on combustion 
efficiency that the surrogate parameter of secondary chamber 
temperature was intended to provide.

    Dated: July 12, 2007.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7-13894 Filed 7-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P