[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44726-44743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17489]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8699-2]


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 letters and memoranda 
may be searched on the ADI by date, office of issuance, subpart, 
citation, control number or by string word searches. 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 Code of Federal 
Regulations (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 commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See 
40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) 
of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific regulatory 
provision that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA 
does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 
63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources 
to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that are 
different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 
61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to 
these inquiries are commonly referred to as 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 
commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the 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. 
Today's notice comprises a summary of 84 such documents added to the 
ADI on July 11, 2008. 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: 
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 11, 2008; the 
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as 
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, 
which provides a brief description of the subject matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. 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 11, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Control No.                  Category                    Subparts                      Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
700029                      NSPS                        Db, Dc                     Boiler Derating.
700030                      NSPS                        Db                         Initial Startup for Boiler.
700031                      NSPS                        Dc                         Applicability to Snowmelters.
700032                      NSPS                        CCCC                       Municipal Waste Combustion
                                                                                    Exemption.
700033                      NSPS                        CCCC                       Incineration of Untreated
                                                                                    Toilet Wastes.
700034                      NSPS                        D                          Final Boiler Derating.
700035                      NSPS                        CCCC                       Municipal Waste Combustion
                                                                                    Unit Exemption.
700036                      NSPS                        Db                         Boiler Derating.
700037                      NSPS                        GG                         Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700038                      NSPS                        Dc                         Reporting Reduction.
700039                      NSPS                        Dc                         Reduction in Fuel Use
                                                                                    Recordkeeping.
700040                      NSPS                        Dc                         Boiler Refiring.
700041                      NSPS                        Dc                         Alternative Fuel Monitoring.

[[Page 44727]]

 
700042                      NSPS                        A, D                       Boiler Derating.
700043                      NSPS                        Dc                         Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700044                      NSPS                        O                          Multiple Hearth Sludge
                                                                                    Furnace.
700045                      NSPS                        A                          Waiver of 30-Day Notification
                                                                                    of Performance Evaluation.
700046                      NSPS                        CCCC                       Municipal Waste Combustion
                                                                                    Unit Exemption.
700047                      NSPS                        Dc                         Reduction in Fuel Emissions
                                                                                    Reporting.
700048                      NSPS                        Dc                         Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700049                      NSPS                        GG                         Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700050                      NSPS                        D                          Boiler Derating.
700051                      NSPS                        Ec                         Waste Weight Surrogate.
700052                      NSPS                        DD                         Standards of Performance for
                                                                                    Grain Elevators.
700053                      NSPS                        Ec                         Incineration of
                                                                                    Pharmaceutical Wastes.
700054                      NSPS                        J                          Wet Gas Scrubber Opacity
                                                                                    Alternative Monitoring.
700055                      NSPS                        A, GG                      Alternate Performance Test
                                                                                    Method.
700056                      NSPS                        III, JJJ                   Work Camp Incinerator.
700057                      NSPS                        Y                          Coal Transloader
                                                                                    Applicability.
700058                      NSPS                        FFF                        Rotogravure Coating Line
                                                                                    Applicability.
700059                      NSPS                        A, Dc                      Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                    for Boilers.
700060                      NSPS                        Ce, Ec                     Request for Regulatory
                                                                                    Deviation.
700061                      NSPS                        A, Db                      Alternative Opacity
                                                                                    Monitoring Procedure.
700062                      NSPS                        A, Db                      Amendment to Alternative
                                                                                    Opacity Monitoring
                                                                                    Procedure.
700064                      NSPS                        H                          Monitoring Frequency
                                                                                    Reduction.
700065                      NSPS                        Db                         Boiler Derating.
700066                      NSPS                        PPP                        Alternative Excess Emissions
                                                                                    Criteria.
700067                      NSPS                        QQQ                        Emission Offset Calculations.
700068                      NSPS                        XX                         Test Method for Loading Rail
                                                                                    Cars at Gasoline Load.
700069                      NSPS                        XX                         Classification of Vapor
                                                                                    Combustor.
700070                      NSPS                        J                          Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                    for Gasoline Loading Racks.
700071                      NSPS                        UUU                        Synthetic Alumina from
                                                                                    Calcining Oven.
700073                      NSPS                        WWW                        Definition of Treatment for
                                                                                    Landfill Gas Processing.
700074                      NSPS                        WWW                        Definition of Treatment for
                                                                                    Landfill Gas Processing.
700075                      NSPS                        CCCC                       Request for Applicability
                                                                                    Determination--Thermal
                                                                                    Desorber.
700076                      NSPS                        A, TTT                     Adjustment of Deadline for
                                                                                    Compliance Statements.
700077                      NSPS                        IIII                       Petition to Use Non-Compliant
                                                                                    Fuel.
700078                      NSPS                        Ce                         Request for Regulatory
                                                                                    Deviation/Alternative
                                                                                    Determination for Control of
                                                                                    Dioxins/Furans (CDD/CDF).
700079                      NSPS                        Ce                         Request for Regulatory
                                                                                    Deviation/Alternative
                                                                                    Determination for Control of
                                                                                    Dioxins/Furans (CDD/CDF).
700080                      NSPS                        Db                         Alternate Opacity Monitoring
                                                                                    During Construction.
800001                      NSPS                        Dc                         Alternative Fuel Usage
                                                                                    Recordkeeping Proposal.
800002                      NSPS                        OOO                        Test Waiver Proposal.
800003                      NSPS                        J                          Alternative H2S Monitoring
                                                                                    Frequency.
800004                      NSPS                        J                          Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Proposals.
800005                      NSPS                        WWW                        Definition of Treatment.
800006                      NSPS                        H                          Appendix F (CEM QA)
                                                                                    Applicability.
800007                      NSPS                        UUU                        Method 9 Test Waiver.
800008                      NSPS                        OOO                        Test Waiver Request.
800009                      NSPS                        J                          Alternative H2S Monitoring
                                                                                    Proposal.
800010                      NSPS                        WWW                        Operational and Monitoring
                                                                                    Alternatives.
800011                      NSPS                        Cb                         Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Location.
800012                      NSPS                        WWW                        Applicability of Well
                                                                                    Monitoring Requirements.
800013                      NSPS                        Db                         Proposal to Shorten Test
                                                                                    Duration.
800014                      NSPS                        GG                         Alternative Quality Assurance
                                                                                    Procedures.
800015                      NSPS                        Db                         Predictive Emission
                                                                                    Monitoring System.
800016                      NSPS                        Db                         Applicability to Wood Burner/
                                                                                    Thermal Oil Heater/Rotary
                                                                                    Dryer System.
M070016                     MACT                        EEE                        Hydrogen Chloride Continuous
                                                                                    Emissions Monitor (CEM).
M070017                     MACT                        UUU                        Wet Gas Scrubber Opacity
                                                                                    Alternative Monitoring.
M070018                     MACT                        EEE                        Monitoring of Scrubber System
                                                                                    Solid Content.
M070019                     MACT                        EEE                        Alternative Measure to
                                                                                    Control Combustion Gas
                                                                                    Leaks.
M070020                     MACT                        G                          Alternative Monitoring Plan.
M070021                     MACT                        EEE                        Monitoring Procedure System
                                                                                    and Time Delay for AWFCO.
M070022                     MACT                        R                          Test Method for Loading Rail
                                                                                    Cars at Gasoline Loading
                                                                                    Facility.
M070023                     MACT                        ZZZZ                       Request for Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring and Testing.
M070024                     MACT                        EEE                        Responses to Comprehensive
                                                                                    Performance Test Plan
                                                                                    Addendum and Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring Application.
M070025                     MACT                        EEE                        Response to Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring Application
                                                                                    Requests.
M070026                     MACT                        EEE                        Response to Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring Application
                                                                                    Requests.
M070027                     MACT                        EEE                        Response to Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring Application
                                                                                    Requests.
M070028                     MACT                        EEE                        Response to Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring Application
                                                                                    Requests.
M070029                     MACT                        EEE                        Response to Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring Application
                                                                                    Requests.
M070030                     MACT                        EEE                        Response to Alternative
                                                                                    Monitoring Application
                                                                                    Requests.
M080004                     MACT                        FFFF                       Standards for Hazardous Air
                                                                                    Pollutants for Miscellaneous
                                                                                    Organic Chemical
                                                                                    Manufacturing.

[[Page 44728]]

 
Z070002                     NESHAP                      E                          Incineration of Untreated
                                                                                    Toilet Wastes.
Z080001                     NESHAP                      WWW                        Definition of Treatment for
                                                                                    Landfill Gas Processing.
Z080002                     NESHAP                      WWW                        Definition of Treatment for
                                                                                    Landfill Gas Processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract for [0700029]

    Q: Is Blaine Larsen Farms' (BLF) boiler, located at the Dehydration 
Division potato processing plant in Dubois, Idaho, derated and 
therefore subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, 
rather than 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that BLF's boiler has been derated and is 
now subject to NSPS subpart Dc, because the burner has been replaced 
with one that will limit the boiler capacity to less than 100 mmBtu/hr, 
as verified by testing, and it meets the four derate criteria, as 
specified in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [0700030]

    Q: Has initial startup occurred for a boiler at the Warm Springs 
Forest Products Industries' facility in Warm Springs, Oregon, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Db? The facility has conducted boil-out and 
curing.
    A: No. Because the ``Instruction Manual for Clarification of 
Startup in Source Categories Affected by New Source Performance 
Standards'' (EPA-68-01-4143) states that startup is defined as the 
first time steam is produced by the boiler and used to provide heat or 
hot water to run process equipment or to produce electricity, EPA finds 
that the boil-out and curing of the refractory is therefore a pre-
startup activity.

Abstract for [0700031]

    Q: Is a snowmelter with a rated capacity between 10 and 100 MMBtu/
hr that is operated by the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A: No. EPA determines that NSPS subpart Dc does not apply to 
snowmelters. Although a snowmelter is a device that combusts fuel and 
melts ice resulting in the heating of water, the heated water is not 
being used for transferring heat from one point to another for any 
useful purpose such as heating a building or creating steam to drive a 
process. Therefore, the heated water would not qualify as a heat 
transfer medium.

Abstract for [0700032]

    Q: Is the Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Incorporated (PNRA) 
incineration unit located at its Oooguruk Development Project Offshore 
Drill Site camp on the North Slope, Alaska, exempted from the 
requirements of the NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 
Incineration Units at 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
    A: Yes. Based on the information submitted in the notification 
required to claim the exemption under 40 CFR Sec.  60.2020(c)(2), EPA 
finds that this incinerator would meet the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 
60.2020(c)(2), and is therefore required to meet the applicable 
recordkeeping requirements established by this provision. The 
incinerator would meet the criteria of burning greater than 30 percent 
municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel (as defined in NSPS 
subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, and BBBB) in its fuel feed stream. This 
incinerator will primarily burn waste generated by a housing camp 
associated with the PNRA facility, along with some industrial packing 
and other non-hazardous waste materials from drilling support 
activities on site.

Abstract for [0700033]

    Q1: Is Anadarko's double-chamber cyclonator forced-air solid waste 
incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons per day, constructed after 
November 1999, that has been seasonally located and intermittently 
operated at remote oil and gas exploration sites on the North Slope of 
Alaska since January 2003, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
    A1: Yes, EPA concludes that a waste incinerator with a capacity of 
2.4 tons per day, constructed after November 1999, that has been 
seasonally located and intermittently operated at remote oil and gas 
exploration sites, is subject to NSPS subpart CCCC. EPA considers this 
incinerator to be located at an industrial facility, and even though 
the incinerator may be moved from one location to the next, it will be 
a distinct operating unit of an industrial facility.
    Q2: Is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E, the Mercury NESHAP, applicable to 
an incineration unit that incinerates untreated sanitary waste (solids) 
collected from Pacto toilets at Anadarko's remote oil and gas 
exploration sites on the North Slope of Alaska?
    A2: No. The practice of incinerating sanitary waste composed of 
untreated solids from Pacto toilets does not meet the description of 
incinerating sludge under the Mercury NESHAP. 40 CFR 61.50 states that 
the rule applies to ``those stationary sources which * * * incinerate 
or dry wastewater treatment plant sludge.'' Under 40 CFR 61.51, sludge 
is defined as ``sludge produced by a treatment plant that processes 
municipal or industrial waste waters.'' Thus, the Mercury NESHAP would 
not apply.

Abstract for [0700034]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the proposal of Roseburg Forest Products (RFP) 
of Roseburg, Oregon, to derate two boilers, regulated under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart D, by eliminating the capacity of both boilers to burn oil 
and replacing the burners with burners that are limited to burning less 
than 250 MMBtu/hr of natural gas, provided that the natural gas 
pressure delivered to the boilers is monitored?
    A1: Yes. EPA believes that the changes made by RFP meet the derate 
criteria because installation of a new burner is a permanent change to 
the boiler, which requires a system shutdown, cannot be easily undone, 
and is not just a change to the fuel feed system. Based on the 
performance test data submitted, EPA has concluded that the capacity of 
the boilers does not exceed the 250 MMBtu/hr applicability threshold, 
provided the pressures are maintained below 9.16 psig for Boiler No. 2 
and 7.33 psig for Boiler No. 6 (calculated using a three-hour average). 
Therefore, Boilers No. 2 and No. 6 are no longer subject to NSPS 
subpart D, if the limits on gas pressure are monitored and maintained 
below the threshold values per the Title V permit.

Abstract for [0700035]

    Q: Is FEX L.P.'s incineration unit located at FEX L.P.'s Artic Wolf 
Camp for housing associated with its Northwest National Petroleum 
Reserve Exploration Drilling Project on the North Slope, Alaska, 
exempted from the requirements of the NSPS for Commercial and 
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart CCCC?
    A: Yes. Based on the information submitted in the notification 
required to claim the exemption under 40 CFR

[[Page 44729]]

Sec.  60.2020(c)(2), EPA finds that this incinerator would meet the 
exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), and is therefore required 
to meet the recordkeeping requirements established in this provision. 
The incinerator would meet the exemption criteria of burning greater 
than 30 percent municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel (as 
defined in NSPS subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, and BBBB) in its fuel feed 
stream. This incinerator will burn primarily residential-type waste 
generated by a housing camp and cafeteria facilities that are 
associated with the FEX facility, along with industrial packing and 
other non-hazardous waste materials from drilling support activities on 
site.

Abstract for [0700036]

    Q1: May Blaine Larsen Farms (BLF) derate its 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Db boiler at the Dehydration Division potato processing plant 
in Dubois, Idaho, by restricting the fuel-metering valves? This would 
be accomplished with an adjustment to the valve, and the adjustment 
screws would either be locked into place with a locking device that 
requires a special tool to undo or be sealed with epoxy.
    A1: No. EPA determines that this approach would not be valid to 
derate a boiler under NSPS subpart Db for several reasons. Neither 
proposed method for locking the screws would be considered permanent. A 
derate must reduce the capacity of the boiler without the installation 
of a feed rate governor. Changes that are made only to fuel feed 
systems are not acceptable for a derate.
    Q2: May Blaine Larsen Farms derate its 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db 
boiler by replacing the burner?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that the replacement of the burner is an 
acceptable method to derate a burner under NSPS subpart Db since it 
meets the deration criteria, including: (1) It is a change that cannot 
be easily undone, (2) requires a system shutdown to accomplish or 
reverse, and (3) it is not just a change to the fuel feed system.
    Q3: May the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Performance 
Test, Code 4-1998, be used as the verification test method to 
demonstrate a derate has been accomplished under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Db?
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that this method has been used before to 
successfully demonstrate that a derate has been accomplished under NSPS 
subpart Db.
    Q4: Is Blaine Larsen Farms test protocol verification method 
acceptable to demonstrate that a derate has been accomplished under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A4: Yes. EPA determines that the results of the protocol 
verification method would be acceptable under NSPS subpart Db if BLF 
continuously monitors fuel feed rates and maintains information 
regarding the fuel heat content in order to ensure that the unit does 
not exceed 100 mmBtu/hr of heat input.

Abstract for [0700037]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the use of a certified nitrogen oxide 
continuous emission monitoring system (NOX CEMS) to document 
compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG NOX limit in lieu 
of a performance test for compliance analysis after the new fuel is 
introduced for stationary gas turbines operated by Klamath Energy, LLC 
of Portland, Oregon?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of a certified 
NOX CEMS because it finds that as long as the provisions of 
40 CFR Sec.  60.334(b) are followed, CEMS are enough to satisfy 
compliance with the emission limit for NOX. 40 CFR Sec.  
60.334(g) states that a performance test is required only when 
equipment parameters need to be established.
    Q2: Does EPA waive fuel nitrogen content monitoring of 40 CFR part 
60, subpart GG, if part 75 NOX CEMS are used for the Klamath 
Energy plant?
    A2: EPA finds that whether or not the turbine is also subject to 
part 75, the fuel nitrogen content monitoring is waived only if the 
NOX emission allowance in the equations used to determine 
the NSPS subpart GG NOX emission standards in 40 CFR Sec.  
60.332 is not claimed.
    Q3: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG requirement for 
water-to-fuel injection ratio monitoring because of the use of the part 
75 certified CEMS for the Klamath Energy plant?
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that under 40 CFR Sec.  60.334(b) the owner or 
operator may, as an alternative to water-to-fuel injection monitoring, 
install, certify, maintain, operate, and quality assure a CEMS if the 
provisions of 40 CFR Sec.  60.334(b) are followed.
    Q4: Does EPA approve the use of vendor analyses under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart GG, for monitoring sulfur content of the fuel oil burned 
for the Klamath Energy plant?
    A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of vendor analyses 
since it finds that under 40 CFR 60.334(i)(1), the fuel oil sampling 
for total sulfur content can be done at each delivery. Oil sampling may 
be performed by a fuel supplier, provided that the sampling is 
performed according to either the single tank composite sampling 
procedure or the all-levels sampling procedure in ASTM D4057-88.

Abstract for [0700038]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request from the St. Luke's Meridian 
Medical Center (SLMMC) facility in Meridian, Idaho, for a reduction in 
the submittal frequency of the fuel emission reports from semiannually 
to annually, for two boilers (Boilers No. 1 and No. 2) at the facility 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a reduction in the submittal 
frequency of the fuel emission reports from semiannually to annually on 
the basis that SLMMC receives only one shipment of distillate oil per 
year. SLMMC shall submit all fuel supplier certifications as described 
in 40 CFR 60.48(f)(1), postmarked by the last day of January of each 
year. If any additional shipments of fuel are received during the year, 
the fuel supplier certification will be submitted to the Idaho 
Department of Environmental Quality within 30 days. Each annual report 
shall include a certified statement signed by the owner or operator of 
SLMMC's facility that the fuel supplier certifications attached to the 
report represent all of the distillate oil received by SLMMC for the 
purposes of fueling the above-referenced boilers during the reporting 
period.

Abstract for [0700039]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a request from Gossner Foods (Gossner) for a 
reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c 
from daily to monthly for Gossner's two boilers in Heyburn, Idaho, 
which fire natural gas as the primary fuel and propane as a backup 
fuel?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this request based on a memorandum dated 
February 20, 1992, from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, which states that there is little value in requiring daily 
recordkeeping of the amounts of fuel combusted for an affected unit 
that fires only natural gas under NSPS subpart Dc. This is because 
subpart Dc does not have any emission limitations for units that fire 
only natural gas. Therefore, the purpose of this recordkeeping is to 
verify that only natural gas is fired. Propane is considered to be a 
type of natural gas.
    Q2. Does EPA approve a request from Gossner to use one gas meter to 
record monthly natural gas and/or propane usage for Gossner's two 
boilers?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves this request. EPA finds that the Gossner 
proposal to divide each boiler design heat input capacity by the total 
of the design heat

[[Page 44730]]

input capacities of each boiler, and use this to prorate the natural 
gas and/or propane usage of each boiler on a monthly basis, when more 
than one boiler is firing natural gas and/or propane simultaneously, 
will adequately determine the natural gas and/or propane usage by each 
boiler.

Abstract for [0700040]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative plan for monitoring opacity at 
the Basic American Foods (BAF) facility in Blackfoot, Idaho, in lieu of 
a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Dc, where the COMS will not provide accurate measurements due 
to water vapor from a proposed wet scrubber?
    A: Yes. According to the provisions of 40 CFR 60.13(h)(i)(1), a 
written application for alternative opacity monitoring requirements can 
be submitted when ``installation of a continuous emission monitoring 
system or monitoring device specified by this part would not provide 
accurate measurement due to liquid water or other interferences caused 
by substances with the effluent gasses.'' EPA has previously approved 
similar requests, which are posted on EPA's applicability determination 
index. (See EPA Determination Control Numbers 0000010 and 0300073.) In 
previous requests, EPA has determined that the continuous monitoring of 
the scrubbing liquid flow rate and the pressure drop of the gas stream 
across the scrubber is acceptable as an alternative monitoring to the 
COMS. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan that the Idaho 
Department of Environmental Quality has recommended and BAF has agreed 
to.

Abstract for [0700041]

    Q1: Does EPA approve monthly instead of daily monitoring of 
exclusive use of low-sulfur distillate oil in a 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Dc affected boiler operated by Hampton Lumber Mill at a facility in 
Darrington, Washington?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves monthly instead of daily monitoring of 
exclusive use of low-sulfur distillate oil in an NSPS subpart Dc 
affected boiler.
    Q2: For this same facility, does EPA approve the use of fuel 
receipts from a low-sulfur distillate oil supplier as a monthly 
monitoring method under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel receipts from a low-sulfur 
distillate oil supplier as a monthly monitoring method under NSPS 
subpart Dc.
    Q3: Does EPA find that the amount of low-sulfur distillate oil used 
at that facility can be divided evenly between two similar boilers 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of low-sulfur distillate oil 
used at a facility can be divided evenly between two similar boilers 
under NSPS subpart Dc, as long as they have the same rated capacity and 
operate in a way that emissions from either boiler are substantially 
similar if based on the same amount of fuel.

Abstract for [0700042]

    Q: Do changes proposed by Roseburg Forest Products (RFP) to two 
large boilers in Dillard, Oregon, result in the boilers being derated 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D? RFP has eliminated the capacity of 
both boilers to burn oil and made changes to the boilers that reduce 
the total heat input capacity for both boilers to less than 245.7 
MMBtu/hr for natural gas. RFP proposed to conduct additional monitoring 
and performance testing to verify that the capacity of the boilers has 
been reduced.
    A: Although the changes RFP has made to its boilers appear to meet 
many of the criteria for derating boilers, EPA requires submission of 
source test data verifying that the capacity of the boilers has been 
reduced before EPA will determine that the RFP boilers have been 
derated. Any such verification testing should be conducted while each 
boiler is operating at its maximum capacity for a 24-hour period for 
each fossil fuel that the boiler has the capability of burning. EPA 
expects RFP to monitor the gas pressure during the performance test to 
verify the correlation of gas pressure to heat input. In addition, to 
ensure reliability of the performance test results, RFP should submit a 
performance test plan to EPA for approval prior to the test and follow 
the general provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, for performance 
tests, such as notifying EPA in advance of the test.

Abstract for [0700043]

    Q1: Does EPA approve monthly instead of daily monitoring of natural 
gas usage in a 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc affected boiler at the 
proposed J. R. Simplot Company facility near Mountain Home, Idaho?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves monthly instead of daily monitoring of 
natural gas usage in this NSPS subpart Dc affected boiler.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier 
to serve as a monthly monitoring method under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Dc, for an affected boiler at the proposed J. R. Simplot Company 
facility near Mountain Home, Idaho?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier 
to serve as monthly monitoring method under NSPS subpart Dc.
    Q3: Does EPA find that all of the natural gas used at a facility 
can be attributed to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc affected boilers, 
if there is some gas used by a unit that is a facility not covered by 
any other regulation, as proposed by the J. R. Simplot Company facility 
near Mountain Home, Idaho?
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that all of the natural gas used at a facility 
can be attributed to the NSPS subpart Dc affected boilers, even if 
there is some gas used by another unit, as long as that other unit is a 
facility not covered by any other regulation.
    Q4: Does EPA find that the amount of natural gas used at a facility 
can be divided evenly between two similar boilers under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Dc, as proposed by the J. R. Simplot Company facility near 
Mountain Home, Idaho?
    A4: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of natural gas used at a 
facility can be divided evenly between two similar boilers under NSPS 
subpart Dc, as long as they have the same rated capacity and operate in 
a way that emissions from either boiler are substantially similar if 
based on the same amount of fuel.

Abstract for [0700044]

    Q: Is the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU) subject to 
40 CFR part 60, subpart O, based on changes and upgrades that are 
planned for the emission control system on AWWU's multiple hearth 
sludge furnace (MHF) at the Asplund Wastewater Treatment Facility?
    A: EPA determines that the MHF continues to be subject to NSPS 
subpart O. The MHF was constructed in 1986 and is subject to NSPS 
subpart O, which is applicable to a facility constructed after June 11, 
1973. The upgrades to AWWU's facility do not affect applicability 
status because the facility is already subject to NSPS subpart O based 
on the date of construction.

Abstract for [0700045]

    Q: Does EPA grant a waiver to Flint Hills Resources Alaska of the 
30-day notification of performance evaluation for recently installed 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) Continuous Emission Monitoring System 
according to 40 CFR 60.7(a)(5) and 60.8(d)?
    A: Yes. EPA grants a waiver of the 30-day notification of 
performance evaluation, under 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3), because of the need 
to meet deadlines

[[Page 44731]]

that have been laid out in a Compliance Order by Consent.

Abstract for [0700046]

    Q: Is Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's incineration unit at the 
Jacobs Ladder Exploration Drilling Project on the North Slope, Alaska, 
exempted from the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
    A: Based on the information submitted in the notification required 
to claim the exemption under 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), EPA finds that this 
incinerator would meet the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), 
and is therefore required to meet the recordkeeping requirements 
established in this provision. Under 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), an exemption 
is provided for units that burn greater than 30 percent municipal solid 
waste or refuse-derived fuel (as defined in NSPS subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, 
and BBBB) in their fuel feed stream. This incinerator will burn 
primarily residential-type waste generated by a housing camp and 
cafeteria facilities that is associated with the Anadarko facility, 
along with some industrial packing and other non-hazardous waste 
materials from drilling support activities on site.

Abstract for [0700047]

    Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the submittal frequency of the 
fuel emission reports to annually for two boilers using natural gas, 
except for approximately eight hours per month when diesel fuel is used 
as a backup, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the St. Luke's 
Regional Medical Center in Boise, Idaho?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in the submittal frequency of the 
fuel emission reports to annually. For a boiler that only fires natural 
gas and distillate oil with sulfur content of less than 0.5 percent, 
these reports consist only of fuel oil suppliers' certifications and a 
certified statement of the owner or operator. Because this facility 
receives only one shipment of distillate oil per year, it would be 
redundant to require more than annual submittal of this information. As 
long as the facility receives only one shipment of distillate oil a 
year, it shall submit all fuel supplier certifications as described in 
40 CFR 60.48(f)(1), postmarked by the last day of January of each year.

Abstract for [0700048]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping 
requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, from daily to monthly when 
only pipeline quality natural gas is and will be fired in two boilers 
operated by Boise Paper Solutions of Boise Cascade Corporation?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping 
requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from daily to monthly when only pipeline 
quality natural gas is and will be fired in the boilers.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the use of monthly natural gas bills to 
fulfill the recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc as 
proposed by Boise Paper Solutions of Boise Cascade Corporation?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of monthly natural gas bills to 
fulfill the recordkeeping requirement of 40 CFR 60.48c, provided that 
all natural gas on the fuel receipt is attributed to use in the two 
boilers, regardless of the small amount that may be used for other 
purposes, such as space heating, and that the amount of natural gas 
used in each boiler is apportioned in equal proportions.

Abstract for [0700049]

    Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the monitoring schedule for fuel 
gas sulfur content from quarterly to semiannually under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart GG, at Calpine Hermiston Power Plant in Oregon, based upon 
demonstrated compliance and low variability for six quarters?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative fuel monitoring request. In 
addition, based on amendments to NSPS subpart GG, promulgated on July 
8, 2004, the requirement to monitor the sulfur content of natural gas 
may be waived.

Abstract for [0700050]

    Q: Does EPA approve a source test protocol for determinations of 
the maximum heat input for use in a boiler derate demonstration, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart D, at the Roseburg Forest Products facility in 
Roseburg, Oregon?
    A: Yes. Based upon a review of the source test protocol and the 
Piping and Instrument Diagram for the natural gas systems for both 
boilers, EPA concludes that, under NSPS subpart D, if the source test 
is conducted according to the protocol, it should provide the 
information required to verify the maximum heat input, namely, gas flow 
rate, calorific value, and supply pressure.

Abstract for [0700051]

    Q: May a ``bag counting'' surrogate method for determining the 
weight of incinerated waste be used to determine whether the co-fired 
combustor exemption of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, applies to a BP 
Exploration Alaska Incorporated waste incinerator located at the 
Northstar Development Facility in the Beaufort Sea?
    A: No. EPA finds that the surrogate method described will not 
provide the accuracy required by the recordkeeping requirements of NSPS 
subpart Ec. It is not clear from the request whether a distinction is 
made between the differences in the weight of a typical bag of hospital 
and medical/infectious waste and the weight of a typical bag of other 
waste. Also, if an average weight of a bag of hospital and medical/
infectious waste is used, this may underestimate the actual amount of 
hospital and medical/infectious waste that is being burned. Thus, EPA 
has determined that the proposed surrogate method cannot be used for 
the determination of whether the co-fired combustor exemption in 40 CFR 
60.50c(c) is met. EPA will consider a different weight surrogate method 
that adequately ensures that the exemption is met with a margin for 
error.

Abstract for [0700052]

    Q1: Does the addition of storage capacity, which did not increase 
the hourly grain handling capacity, trigger applicability of 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart DD, for the Busch Agricultural Resources, Incorporated 
(BARI) Malt Plant Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that the increase in storage capacity 
triggers NSPS subpart DD applicability. The grain storage capacity 
exceeded 2.5 million bushels in 2002 when the permanent storage 
capacity was increased to 4 million bushels. Because the permanent 
storage capacity for this facility exceeds 2.5 million bushels, the 
facility meets the definition of a grain terminal elevator, as defined 
in NSPS subpart DD, and is subject to the NSPS. In addition, 
60.304(b)(4) of subpart DD, which states that ``the installation of 
permanent storage capacity without an increase in hourly grain handling 
capacity by itself would not be considered a modification of an 
existing facility'', does not apply to BARI. Section 60.304(b)(4) of 
subpart DD does not apply to those affected facilities that are 
constructed at the time applicability was triggered or subsequent to 
that time.
    Q2: Is 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, applicable to the following 
activities and equipment at the BARI Idaho Falls Malt Plant Facility in 
Idaho Falls, Idaho:
    (1) Malt load out operations;
    (2) Residual/byproduct storage and load out operations;
    (3) Conveyors located inside the malt house that are used to move 
barley and off-kiln malt through the malt house operation; and

[[Page 44732]]

    (4) A baghouse filter that is dedicated solely to controlling dust 
emissions from grain and malt handling within the malt house operation.
    A2: EPA determines the applicability for each of the specific 
activities and equipment at BARI, as follows:
    (1) NSPS subpart DD is not applicable to malt load out operations.
    (2) NSPS subpart DD is not applicable to the storage and load out 
operations of residuals or byproducts provided it is not possible for 
these operations to handle grain. Reject hulls, grain fragments or dirt 
that is handled and stored separately, as well as malted barley and 
malting by-products, are not considered grain.
    (3) Equipment being used is subject to NSPS subpart DD if it 
handles unmalted barley part of the time, and malted and unmalted 
barley at the same time because it is handling some amount of grain, as 
well as conveyors located inside the malt house that are used to move 
unmalted barley. However, conveyors located inside the malt house that 
are used to move off-kiln malt are not subject to NSPS subpart DD.
    (4) Emissions from a baghouse that is controlling dust from grain 
and malt handling within the malt house operation are subject to NSPS 
subpart DD, because the commingled emissions include grain handling 
emissions that are subject to NSPS subpart DD.

Abstract for [0700053]

    Q: Does the incineration of pharmaceutical wastes disposed of by 
Providence Alaska Medical Center, a hospital in Alaska, require an 
incineration facility, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, or 40 CFR part 
62, subpart HHH, to demonstrate compliance with Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) rules?
    A: Yes. EPA finds the HMIWI regulation applies to the incineration 
of hospital, medical, and infectious wastes. EPA defines ``hospital 
waste'' broadly, and it includes any waste or discarded materials 
generated at a hospital, except unused items returned to the 
manufacturer. Thus, pharmaceutical wastes generated at a hospital and 
disposed of by the hospital are considered ``hospital waste'' under the 
rules, and a facility that incinerates such waste is subject to HMIWI.

Abstract for [0700054]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan in lieu of the 
continuous opacity monitoring (COMS) requirements of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(1) and corresponding requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
UUU, where a wet scrubber is to be installed on Puget Sound Refining's 
(PSR's) fluidized catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) in Anacortes, 
Washington?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring of the liquid flow rate and gas 
flow rate for the wet gas scrubber, which is a jet-ejector design. 
Calculation of the liquid-to-gas ratio must be done as outlined in 
Tables 2 and 3 of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) subpart 
UUU, except that for purposes of determining and reporting excess 
emissions for the FCCU, a 3-hour rolling average of the liquid-to-gas 
ration will be used.

Abstract for [0700055]

    Q: Does EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method 
for stationary gas turbines, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at 
ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated's Alpine Development Project in 
North Slope Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of an alternate performance test 
method, under NSPS subpart GG, only if the probe is designed and 
conforms to the tests specified in EPA Guidance Document CG-031.

Abstract for [0700056]

    Q1: Should an incinerator used to dispose of camp wastes at a 
remote, temporary work camp in Nuiqsut, Alaska, and operated by Alaska 
Interstate Construction, LLC (AIC), be subject to 40 CFR part 62, 
subpart III, the Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial Industrial 
Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI)?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that the work camp is an integral part of a 
commercial operation, the AIC facility, and would not be there but for 
generating profit as a commercial operation under 40 CFR part 62, 
subpart III. The term ``commercial facility'' is not defined in the 
CISWI regulation, but the American Heritage Dictionary defines 
commercial as ``having profit, success, or immediate results as [a] 
chief aim.'' Thus, the work camp incinerator would be considered to be 
located at a ``commercial or industrial facility'' and would be subject 
to CISWI.
    Q2: Should AIC's work camp incinerator, which burns primarily 
municipal solid waste, be regulated under 40 CFR part 62, subpart III?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that the incinerator should be regulated under 
CISWI. The fact that the waste incinerated is considered to be 
municipal solid waste does not mean that the incinerator would not be 
considered to be a CISWI unit. This is apparent because of the 
exemption that is provided for CISWI units under 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2) 
for units that burn greater than 30 percent municipal solid waste. 
AIC's work camp incinerator is considered to be a CISWI, but because it 
burns greater than 30 percent municipal solid waste, it has an 
exemption under NSPS subpart III.

Abstract for [0700057]

    Q: Does EPA find that a coal transloader located in Port Wentworth, 
Georgia, next to Georgia Power's Plant Kraft Steam-Electric Generating 
Plant, and a coal preparation plant, which provides coal to the Plant 
Kraft units, are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y?
    A: No. EPA has determined that the transloader is not part of the 
coal preparation plant on the property since it not connected to any of 
its breaking, crushing, screening, wet or dry cleaning, or thermal 
drying equipment, and thus is not subject to NSPS subpart Y. Since the 
coal preparation plant was constructed prior to the applicability date 
of October 24, 1974, it is not subject to NSPS subpart Y.

Abstract for [0700058]

    Q: Is the installation of three solvent-based laminators at the 
Catalyst International's rotogravure urethane coating line and printing 
operations, located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, subject to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart FFF?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that because the two new laminators to 
be installed at Catalyst's Pennsylvania facility will coat a urethane 
web, on a continuous basis, with an adhesive that meets the definition 
of ink given in the NSPS subpart FFF rule using a gravure cylinder, 
these laminators are subject to NSPS subpart FFF.

Abstract for [0700059]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for boilers 1 
and 2 that fire fuels with low sulfur content at the Hercules' 
Franklin, Virginia plant under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A: EPA approves the alternative fuel sampling methodology for 
Hercules' boiler 2. Hercules may use fuel supplier certifications in 
lieu of a continuous opacity monitor (COM) to prove that very low 
sulfur fuels are being combusted, and get relief from particulate 
emission monitoring pursuant to 40 CFR 60.47c(a). EPA disapproved the 
alternative monitoring proposal for Hercules' boiler 1 to use scrubber 
parametric monitoring in lieu of installing a COM. Hercules will need 
to install a particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring 
system

[[Page 44733]]

(CEMS) unless it can show that this is not a viable alternative to a 
COM.

Abstract for [0700060]

    Q1. Does EPA approve a request to deviate from the assumption that 
a violation of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission occurs if the 
Curtis Bay Energy facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, operate their 
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) above the 
maximum charge rate and below the minimum HCl sorbent flow rate 
simultaneously, as stated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at Sec.  
60.56c(e)(3)? The facilities have actual hydrogen chloride (HCl) 
emissions data from an EPA compliant continuous HCl emissions monitor 
on a real-time basis.
    A1. Yes. EPA agrees that the actual data, obtained from an EPA 
compliant continuous HCl monitor on a real-time basis, that shows HCl 
emissions are within the allowable limit of either 100 parts per 
million by volume adjusted to 7 percent oxygen measured on a dry basis 
at standard conditions or 93 percent reduction, is superior to using 
surrogate parameter of HCl sorbent flow rate. An EPA compliant 
continuous HCl monitor must meet Performance Specification 2 in 40 CFR 
part 60, specifically the Specifications and Test Procedures for 
SO2 and NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring 
Systems in Stationary Sources in Appendix B, and the quality assurance 
procedures specified in Appendix F, including the revised Relative 
Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) calculation procedures in Enclosure 1 of the 
response letter. In addition, a CEMS for oxygen must be installed, 
calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with the 
requirements of Appendices B and F of part 60. EPA describes additional 
requirements applicable for CEMS in the EPA response letter and its 
Enclosure 1.
    Q2. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate as specified in Sec.  
60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay 
Energy Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) located 
in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A2. No. EPA finds that the maximum charge rate is an operating 
parameter used to determine compliance with other applicable emission 
limits in addition to HCl emission limits. The definition for maximum 
charge rate given in Sec.  60.51c of 40 CFR for a continuous and 
intermittent HMIWI is ``* * * 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average 
charge rate measured during the most recent performance test 
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits.'' By 
definition, the maximum charge rate is linked to compliance with all 
applicable emission limits which include particulate matter (PM), 
carbon monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), 
mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant approval to eliminate 
monitoring of the maximum charge rate as an operating parameter since 
it is linked to all emission limits and not linked only to HCl 
emissions.
    Q3. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for minimum hydrogen chloride (HCl) sorbent 
flow rate as specified in Sec.  60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy Hospital/Medical/Infectious 
Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) located in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A3. Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to eliminate 
monitoring the minimum HCl sorbent flow rate as an operating parameter 
when the HCl emissions are measured using an EPA compliant continuous 
HCl monitor, as described in the EPA response letter.
    Q4. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping 
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights and hourly 
charge rates as specified in Sec.  60.58c(b)(2)(iii) in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy HMIWIs, located in Baltimore, 
Maryland?
    A4. No. EPA finds that, as previously stated in the answer to 
question 2 of this determination, the maximum charge rate parameters 
are linked to other emission limits besides HCl emission limits.
    Q5. Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping 
requirements for the amount and type of HCl sorbent used during each 
hour of operation as specified in Sec.  60.58c(b)(2)(vii) in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy HMIWIs located in 
Baltimore, Maryland?
    A5. Yes. EPA agrees that actual data from an EPA compliant 
continuous HCl monitor, as described in the EPA response letter, will 
provide HCl emissions information better than using surrogate 
parameters such as amount and type of HCl sorbent.

Abstract for [0700061]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring procedure, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for an auxiliary boiler at the 
Cardinal Power Plant, located in Brilliant, Ohio, that has a design 
heat input capacity of 652.58 million British Thermal Units per hour 
and that combusts only number 2 fuel oil?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this alternative opacity 
monitoring procedure under NSPS subpart Db, and states the conditions 
and requirements of the approval in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [0700062]

    Q: Does EPA find that condition three of the March 15, 2006, 
Approval, related to visible emission readings by a certified observer 
using Method 9 at the auxiliary boiler stack, apply to four hours of 
continuous operation or cumulative operation under CFR part 60, 
Appendix A, at the Cardinal Operating Company's facility in Brilliant, 
Ohio?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that condition three applies to four hours of 
continuous operation under NSPS subpart A.

Abstract for [0700064]

    Q: Is the proposed reduction in the monitoring frequency for the 
321-M machining room at the Savannah River Company's facility in Aiken, 
South Carolina, acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart H?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that replacing continuous monitoring with 
quarterly confirmatory sampling to verify low emissions is acceptable 
under NSPS subpart H, based upon review of data submitted with the 
proposal.

Abstract for [0700065]

    Q: Is the procedure that United Distillers proposed for derating a 
boiler at its plant in Louisville, Kentucky in order to avoid 
applicability under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db acceptable?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the boiler derate since the 
proposal meets the criteria that a derate must be permanent and cannot 
be reversed with shutting down the boiler. For this unit, a derate that 
involves replacing a natural gas control valve with a smaller valve and 
changing the internal components in the fuel oil control valve to 
restrict the oil firing rate are acceptable under NSPS subpart Db 
because they cannot be reversed without shutting the unit down. As a 
condition for approval for this derate, United Distillers must monitor 
fuel usage in order to verify that the actual heat input for the unit 
never exceeds 100 million British thermal units per hour.

Abstract for [0700066]

    Q1: Are the alternative parameter operating limits that Knauf 
Fiberglass has proposed to use for defining excess emissions at its 
Lanett, Alabama, plant

[[Page 44734]]

acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP?
    A1: Yes. Based upon information provided by the manufacturer of the 
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) installed on Knauf's wool fiberglass 
insulation line, EPA finds that the requirement to monitor ESP primary 
current, primary voltage, and secondary current can be waived since 
monitoring secondary voltage, inlet water flow, and inlet water solids 
content will provide adequate information about ESP performance under 
NSPS subpart PPP.
    Q2. Would EPA approve the Knauf Fiberglass request to use an 
alternative definition of excess emissions with respect to the certain 
operating parameters for which monitoring is required under subpart 
PPP. Specifically, Knauf Fiberglass requests that scrubber pressure 
drops, scrubber water flows, ESP secondary voltages, and ESP inlet 
water flows greater than 130 percent of baseline levels during a 
successful performance test and ESP inlet water solids content less 
than 70 percent of the baseline during a successful performance test 
not be considered periods of excess emissions. The term, excess 
emissions, is defined under NSPS subpart PPP as any monitoring data 
that is less than 70 percent of the lowest value or more than 130 
percent of the highest value of each operating parameter recorded 
during the most recent performance test.
    A2. Yes. Knauf Fiberglass request is acceptable. EPA agrees that 
control device efficiency should improve when operating in these 
ranges.

Abstract for [0700067]

    Q: Does EPA allow emissions reductions that occurred at the Ashland 
Oil facility in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, when installing controls in 
order to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, be used as emission 
offsets to avoid applicability under 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ, by 
offsetting emission increases resulting from the installation of new 
drains to an existing aggregate system?
    A: No. EPA finds that emission reductions achieved through 
activities which are for the purpose of attaining compliance with 
another rule cannot be used as emission offsets to avoid applicability 
under this rule. This position has been stated in a previous EPA 
determination issued by Region 10 under NSPS subpart 60. [SEE ADI 
Control Number 9700065.]

Abstract for [0700068]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method and operating limit, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX and 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, for the 
Philtex/Ryton Complex (Philtex) in Borger, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative testing and operating limits 
specified in Sec.  60.502(h) of subpart XX and Sec.  63.425(e) of 
subpart R on the basis of specific stipulations, which address: The 
maximum flow of vapors from loading operations; the heat content of 
vapors routed to the flare during loading operations; the leak 
tightness of rail cars; detecting leaks and repairing the vapor 
manifold system; verifying that excess emissions will not occur from 
storage tanks at the maximum pressures during loading; ensuring 
gasoline is loaded into only rail cars which pass the leak test; and 
monitoring the pressure continuously in the vapor collection manifold 
system.

Abstract for [0700069]

    Q: Should vapor combustors be considered incineration devices or 
process flares under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX?
    A: EPA determines that the vapor combustor is an incinerator and 
thus should be tested as such. Vapor combustors do not meet the design 
criteria of any one of the three flare types listed in Sec.  60.18 of 
the General Provisions. Additionally, vapor combustors can be emission 
tested using EPA reference methods.

Abstract for [0700070]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for gasoline 
loading racks and a hydrogen plant, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, 
located at TPI Petroleum's Ardmore petroleum refinery? TPI wants to 
install a continuous monitoring system for periodic fuel gas sampling, 
instead of a continuous emission monitoring system.
    A: EPA Headquarters is reviewing the applicability of NSPS part 60, 
subpart J to refinery generated gas streams that are combusted in 
refinery combustion devices, such as in product loading rack systems 
and hydrogen production facilities. That review is currently on-going 
at a national level. These nationally significant NSPS part 60, staff 
in EPA Headquarters office in Washington, D.C. EPA Region 6 office does 
not have the authority to process this request until a national 
determination has been made.

Abstract for [0700071]

    Q1: Does EPA find that any materials used as a feedstock on the 
Spherical Catalyst Manufacturing (SCM) Line 1 at UOP's Shreveport, 
Louisiana plant meet the 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU usage of the term 
``mineral'' (such as ``alumina'')?
    A1: No. EPA finds none of the feed materials used on SCM Line 1 
(pure aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and/or aluminum hydroxychloride 
solution) are a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in the definition of 
``mineral processing plant,'' located in NSPS subpart UUU at Sec.  
60.731.
    Q2: Is synthetic alumina produced on the SCM Line 1 at UOP's 
Shreveport, Louisiana plant, using a combination of pure aluminum, 
hydrochloric acid, and/or aluminum hydroxychloride solution, a process 
that meets that applicability criteria in Sec.  60.730 of 40 CFR part 
60, subpart UUU?
    A2: No. EPA finds that the synthetic alumina produced on SCM Line 1 
does not meet the applicability criteria in Sec.  60.730 of 40 CFR part 
60, subpart UUU.
    Q3: Is SCM Line 1, located at UOP's Shreveport, Louisiana plant, 
not processing a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart UUU, and not producing a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in 
the definition of the affected facility (each calciner and dryer at a 
``mineral processing plant'') in subpart UUU, potentially subject to 
NSPS subpart UUU?
    A3: No. EPA determines SCM Line 1 cannot be subject to NSPS subpart 
UUU, because it neither processes a ``mineral,'' nor does it produce a 
``mineral,'' and, therefore, it does not meet the NSPS subpart UUU 
definition of a ``mineral processing plant''.

Abstract for [0700073]

    Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes two 
turbines at the DFW Recycling and Disposal Facility in Lewisville, 
Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, pursuant to 
40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
    A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and 
moisture removal from the landfill gas for use in an energy recovery 
device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the turbines will be exempt from 
monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, 
and Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. 
However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have 
to be included in the SSM Plan.

Abstract for [0700074]

    Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes 
reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines at the Austin Community 
Landfill in Austin, Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart

[[Page 44735]]

WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
    A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and 
moisture removal from the landfill gas for use in an energy recovery 
device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from 
monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, 
and Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. 
However, the treatment system supplying gas to the IC engines will have 
to be included in the SSM Plan.

Abstract for [0700075]

    Q: Does EPA consider the thermal desorber and pollution control 
system which treats diesel-contaminated drilling cuttings, under 
construction by Pollution Management, Incorporated in Beebe, Arkansas, 
to be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
    A: No. EPA does not consider the specified treatment of this 
material, diesel-contaminated drilling cuttings, by low temperature 
thermal desorption followed by a pollution control system, to be 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC.

Abstract for [0700076]

    Q: Morton Custom Plastics Company in Harrisburg, North Carolina is 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT and requests a change in the due 
dates for its semiannual compliance statements. Does EPA allow an 
adjustment in the due dates?
    A: No. The NSPS General Provisions at Sec.  60.19 allow an 
adjustment in the postmark deadline for semiannual compliance 
statements when information is provided which indicates that an 
adjustment is warranted. Since Morton Custom Plastics has provided no 
information to support a change in the deadline, EPA does not approve 
the company's request.

Abstract for [0700077]

    Q: The City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, operates an emergency 
generator which is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII and is 
required by Sec.  60.4207(a) to use diesel fuel meeting the 
requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(a), beginning October 1, 2007. Does EPA 
approve the request that the City use the remaining non-compliant fuel 
in its inventory for six months following October 1, 2007, pursuant to 
Sec.  60.4207(c)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the City of Winston-Salem's request under NSPS 
subpart IIII. Based on EPA's review of the information provided, the 
City's petition is approved pursuant to Sec.  60.4207, and the City may 
use the remaining non-compliant fuel in the emergency generator for a 
period of six months past the deadline of October 1, 2007.

Abstract for [0700078]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a request to deviate from the assumption that 
a violation of the dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) emission occurs if the Curtis 
Bay Energy (CBE) facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, operate their 
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) above the maximum 
fabric filter inlet temperature, above the maximum charge rate, and 
below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate simultaneously as 
stated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at Sec.  60.56c(e)(2)?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under NSPS subpart 
Ec to deviate from the assumption that a violation of the CDD/CDF 
emission limit occurs, if the facility simultaneously operates above 
the maximum fabric filter inlet temperature, above the maximum charge 
rate, and below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate, provided 
five conditions are met pertaining to fabric inlet temperature, 
incinerator carbon monoxide emissions, opacity limits, the feed rate 
for the powdered activated carbon system, and the compliance 
characteristics of the incinerator's operation.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate, as specified in Sec.  
60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE 
facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A2: No. EPA finds the maximum charge rate is an operating parameter 
used to determine compliance with other applicable emission limits in 
addition to dioxin/furan emission limits. EPA's rationale for this 
determination is explained in its August 7, 2006 letter to CBE 
regarding this matter. A brief explanation is that the definition for 
maximum charge rate given in Sec.  60.51c of 40 CFR for a continuous 
and intermittent HMIWI is ``* * * 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour 
average charge rate measured during the most recent performance test 
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits.'' By 
definition, the maximum charge rate is linked to compliance with all 
applicable emission limits which includes particulate matter (PM), 
carbon monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), 
mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant approval under NSPS 
subpart Ec to eliminate monitoring the maximum charge rate as an 
operating parameter since it is linked to all emission limits and not 
linked only to dioxin/furan emissions.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for maximum fabric filter inlet temperature as 
specified in Sec.  60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, 
at the CBE facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under NSPS subpart 
Ec, provided that requirements are met pertaining to inlet fabric 
filter temperature, carbon monoxide emissions, and COMS operation.
    Q4: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate minimum dioxin/furan 
sorbent flow rate as specified in Sec.  60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under NSPS subpart 
Ec, provided that the facilities install, calibrate, and maintain the 
powdered activated carbon (PAC) flow rate at a rate of at least 90 
percent of the highest sorbent feed rate based on a 3-hour rolling 
average (readings taken at least once every hour) measured during the 
most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with mercury 
emission limit.
    Q5: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping 
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weight and hourly 
charge rates, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE facilities 
in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A5: No. EPA does not approve CBE's request to eliminate the 
recordkeeping requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights 
and hourly charge rates under NSPS subpart Ec. This determination is 
consistent with EPA's previous determination letters of July 13 and 
August 7, 2006 to CBE regarding this matter.
    Q6: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping 
requirements for the amount and type of dioxin/furan and sorbent used 
during each hour of operation under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the 
CBE facilities in Baltimore, Maryland?
    A6: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to eliminate the 
sorbent flow rate recordkeeping requirements for the primary control 
system for CDD/CDF emissions provided CBE maintains records of the date 
and time of identified bag failures including the date and time that 
failed bags were replaced. In addition, CBE shall

[[Page 44736]]

maintain hourly records of PAC flow rate as required by Maryland's 
111(d)/129 Plan (COMAR 26.11.08.08-1) provision relating to the main 
operating parameter for controlling mercury emissions. For the CBE 
incinerator units, the PAC system provides incidental or secondary 
control of CDD/CDF. Also, as a final condition, EPA is requiring that 
the approved CBE alternative monitoring and recordkeeping requirements 
(including an approved SOP under Item 1) in this letter and in the 
other two (2) approval letters (to date July 13, 2006 and August 7, 
2006) be included in a revised CBE Title V Operating Permit Application 
and be submitted in a timely manner to the Maryland Department of the 
Environment for incorporation into the Title V Operating Permit. 
Summary tables are in letter.

Abstract for [0700079]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Curtis Bay Energy (CBE) alternative monitoring 
request to deviate from the assumption that a violation of the dioxin/
furan (CDD/CDF) emission occurs if the facility operates their 
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) above the maximum 
fabric filter inlet temperature, above the maximum charge rate, and 
below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate simultaneously as 
stated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec Sec.  60.56c(e)(2), for its two 
existing, large-sized, continuous HMIWI Operations located in 
Baltimore, Maryland?
    A1: Yes, EPA conditionally approves the request to deviate from the 
assumption that a violation of the CDD/CDF emission limit occurs, if 
the facility simultaneously operates above the maximum fabric filter 
inlet temperature, above the maximum charge rate, and below the minimum 
dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate provided CBE meets the five conditions 
described in the EPA response letter. The five conditions were 
established based on EPA's review of the Remedia Catalytic Filter 
System performance guarantee conditions of W. L. Gore and Associates, 
Incorporated; the CBE standard operating procedure for Baghouse 
Operations; and summaries of five consecutive annual CDD/CDF stack 
tests (15 stack test run summaries) conducted during the period from 
February 2002 through February 2006.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for maximum charge rate as specified in 40 CFR 
60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
    A2: No. As indicated in a previous EPA response dated August 7, 
2006 to CBE, the maximum charge rate is an operating parameter used to 
determine compliance with other applicable emission limits in addition 
to dioxin/furan emission limits. The definition for maximum charge rate 
given in 40 CFR 60.51c for a continuous and intermittent HMIWI is ``* * 
* 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average charge rate measured during 
the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all 
applicable emission limits.'' By definition, the maximum charge rate is 
linked to compliance with all applicable emission limits which includes 
particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, 
lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant 
approval to eliminate monitoring the maximum charge rate as an 
operating parameter since it is linked to all emission limits and not 
linked only to dioxin/furan emissions. This determination is consistent 
with a previous EPA response to CBE dated August 7, 2006.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for maximum fabric filter inlet temperature as 
specified in Sec.  60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
    A3: Yes, EPA conditionally approves the request provided that the 
requirements described in the EPA response letter are met. This 
determination is consistent with two previous EPA responses to CBE 
dated July 13, 2006 and August 7, 2006.
    Q4: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate minimum dioxin/furan 
sorbent flow rate as specified in Sec.  60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Ec?
    A4: Yes, EPA conditionally approves the request provided that the 
requirement described in the EPA response letter is met.
    Q5: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping 
requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weight and hourly 
charge rates?
    A5: No. EPA will not approve the request to eliminate the 
recordkeeping requirements for HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights 
and hourly charge rates since these records are needed to demonstrate 
continuous compliance. This determination is consistent with two 
previous EPA responses to CBE dated July 13, 2006 and August 7, 2006.
    Q6: Does EPA approve a request to eliminate the recordkeeping 
requirements for the amount and type of dioxin/furan and sorbent used 
during each hour of operation of the control equipment?
    A6: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to eliminate the 
sorbent flow rate recordkeeping requirements for the primary control 
system for CDD/CDF emissions, as specified in Sec.  60.57c(a) and Table 
3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, provided CBE meets the conditions for 
alternative monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, and submits a 
timely revised Title V Operating Permit Application incorporating such 
conditions, as specified in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [0700080]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring procedure, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a limited time period due to 
construction of new boilers and having to bypass the existing 
continuous opacity monitors at the University of Virginia's main 
heating plant in Charlottesville, Virginia?
    A: Yes. Under the circumstances, EPA approves the use of Method 9 
procedures, under NSPS subpart Db, for the short period that the 
existing continuous opacity monitor must be bypassed to tie in two new 
boilers.

Abstract for [0800001]

    Q: Is a proposal to monitor fuel usage on a monthly basis, rather 
than a daily basis, acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for 
seven natural gas fired boilers at the Department of the Army's base in 
Fort Benning, Georgia?
    A: Yes. Since there are no applicable emission limits under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Dc for boilers that combust natural gas, EPA 
determines compliance for these affected facilities can be adequately 
verified with monthly fuel usage records. NSPS subpart Dc contains 
emissions limits for sulfur dioxide and particulate, but these limits 
are only applicable to units that combust coal, oil, and/or wood.

Abstract for [0800002]

    Q: Is the initial performance particulate testing requirement at a 
baghouse that controls emissions from a crusher, which runs for 
approximately 15 to 20 minutes per day, waived under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart OOO (Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 
Processing Plants) for the Carbo Ceramics Company in McIntyre, Georgia?
    A: EPA conditionally approves waiving the initial performance test 
for particulate matter testing requirement under Sec.  60.11(b). Carbo 
Ceramics Company must conduct the visible emission observation testing, 
required

[[Page 44737]]

under Sec.  60.11(b), for a period of at least one hour (10 six-minute 
averages) at the exit of the baghouse, which is approved by EPA under 
Sec.  60.8(b)(5) due to the intermittent use of the crusher.

Abstract for [0800003]

    Q: Is the reduced hydrogen sulfide monitoring frequency that Shell 
Chemical proposed for a fuel gas stream generated in No. 1 Naphtha 
Splitter at their Mobile, Alabama refinery acceptable for 40 CFR part 
60, subpart J?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that Shell's proposal to reduce the 
monitoring frequency from four times per day to once per quarter is 
acceptable, based on the review of historical monitoring data submitted 
with the request which confirms that hydrogen sulfide is not present in 
the fuel gas stream.

Abstract for [0800004]

    Q1: Are alternative hydrogen sulfide monitoring procedures and 
frequencies proposed for three fuel gas streams subject to 40 CFR part 
60, subpart J, at the Hunt Refining Company facility in Tuscaloosa, 
Alabama acceptable?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds all three of the proposed alternatives are 
acceptable because the hydrogen sulfide content of these streams is 
inherently low.
    Q2: Is the alternative monitoring proposal to monitor the 
continuous presence of a pilot flame at an enclosed flare, subject to 
NESHAP subpart R, in lieu of temperature monitoring at the firebox, 
acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the Hunt Refining 
Company facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?
    A2: No. EPA denies the alternative monitoring proposal since 
monitoring the pilot flame at an enclosed flare alone is not adequate 
to demonstrate continuous compliance. This conclusion is based upon 
several previous EPA determinations and the revisions to NESHAP subpart 
R, promulgated by EPA in 2003.

Abstract for [0800005]

    Q: Do the natural gas processing steps for gas collected for 
combustion in internal combustion engines to produce electricity at 
three landfills located in Florida including Trail Ridge Landfill 
(Baldwin), Brevard County Landfill (Cocoa), and Seminole County 
Landfill (Geneva), constitute ``treatment'' under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that this combination of processing steps 
constitutes treatment, as stated in several previous EPA 
determinations. In addition, the treated gas would not be subject to 
control requirements under subpart WWW since the gas from all three 
landfills is filtered to one micron, dewatered, and compressed.

Abstract for [0800006]

    Q: What is the required frequency for relative accuracy test audits 
(RATAs) on sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring systems 
installed on sulfuric acid plants subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart H 
as referred to in the letter from Koogler and Associates?
    A: EPA finds that the only RATA that part 60 specifically requires 
for sulfur dioxide monitors installed under subpart H is the one 
conducted during the initial performance test on the facility. It would 
also be appropriate to require an additional RATA when existing 
monitors are being recertified. In addition, state and local agencies 
may require more frequent RATAs on a case-by-case basis.

Abstract for [0800007]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use an alternative performance test method, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, to verify compliance with the 
applicable opacity limit for rotary sand dryers located inside of 
buildings at two Triangle Brick Company plants in Moncure, North 
Carolina and Wadesboro, North Carolina, if no visible emissions are 
detected during a 75-minute EPA Method 22 observation period on the 
exterior of the buildings?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed performance testing procedures, 
consisting of Method 22 observations made on the exterior of the 
buildings where they are located, would be acceptable in lieu of EPA 
Method 9 for rotary sand dryers located inside of buildings. The EPA 
Method 22 procedures are similar to a compliance option under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart OOO (Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 
Processing Plants), allow for affected facilities located inside 
buildings. 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) allows for the requirement for an initial 
performance test to be waived when an owner or operator demonstrates 
through other means that an affected facility is in compliance.

Abstract for [0800008]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Duke Energy Corporation request for a 
waiver of the requirement to conduct Method 5 testing on forced air 
mechanical vents on limestone transfer towers and reagent preparation 
buildings at three power plants at the Marshall, Belews Creek, Allen, 
and Cliffside Stations in North Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
OOO?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that, based upon the design and operation of the 
affected facilities within the transfer towers and reagent preparation 
buildings, particulate emissions should be extremely low. Due to the 
low potential for emissions, waiving the Method 5 testing requirement 
for any forced air mechanical vent where no visible emissions are 
detected over the course of a one-hour Method 9 observation period 
would be acceptable to EPA.

Abstract for [0800009]

    Q: Is monitoring the strength of the solution in the caustic 
scrubber for a fuel gas stream at the Chevron Products Company refinery 
in Pascagoula, Mississippi an acceptable alternative to continuously 
monitoring the hydrogen sulfide content of the fuel gas stream?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan with the 
condition that Chevron amends it to specify what steps the company will 
take if monitoring data indicates that the caustic solution is more 
than 80 percent spent, the maximum allowable strength.

Abstract for [0800010]

    Q1: Is a proposal to delay the installation of gas collection wells 
in active areas that have held waste for five years or more at the 
Three Rivers Landfill in Aiken County, South Carolina, acceptable under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A1: No. EPA finds that the proposal is not acceptable under NSPS 
subpart WWW since the collection system would be less effective than 
that required under provisions in 40 CFR 60.753. The use of the 
leachate collection system only to extract gas from active areas that 
have held waste for five years or more will result in a less effective 
system than one that incorporates both the leachate system components 
and properly located extraction wells.
    Q2: Does EPA allow quarterly methane surface concentration 
monitoring to be waived for roads, active areas, truck traffic areas, 
and areas with slopes greater than 3:1, at the Three Rivers Landfill 
located in Aiken County, South Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A2: EPA waives the monitoring for roads, but not for the other 
areas covered by the request under NSPS subpart WWW. Based upon 
previous EPA determinations, surface methane monitoring requirements 
cannot be waived for active areas, truck traffic areas, or areas with 
slopes less than 4:1.
    Q3: Does EPA find that a probe may be placed near the tops of 
vegetation as an alternative to placing the methane

[[Page 44738]]

surface concentration monitoring probe within five to ten centimeters 
of the landfill surface, at the Three Rivers Landfill in Aiken County, 
South Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A3: No. EPA finds this proposal is not acceptable under NSPS 
subpart WWW because dilution of the sample will result in the methane 
concentration being lower at the top of vegetation than it is at the 
landfill surface.
    Q4: Does EPA waive the requirement to monitor the temperature of 
internal combustion engines used as control devices at the Three Rivers 
Landfill be waived under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A4: No. Although EPA finds that the combustion temperature 
monitoring requirement cannot be waived under NSPS subpart WWW, EPA has 
approved temperature monitoring alternatives in the past. Therefore, 
Three Rivers Landfill may want to consider approval of a similar 
alternative for its site.
    Q5: Does EPA approve the use of an orifice plate for measuring the 
flow rate to the flare that serves as backup control device at the 
Three Rivers Landfill under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A5: Yes. The use of orifice plates are commonly used for measuring 
process flow rates, therefore, such practice is appropriate and does 
not require prior EPA approval for use at the Three Rivers Landfill.
    Q6: Does EPA approve the use of a continuous relighter as an 
alternative to a heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam 
sensor or thermocouple at the pilot light or in the flame, for a backup 
flare expected to operate for 120 days or less per year at the Three 
Rivers Landfill under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A6: No. EPA determines that a continuous relighter is not an 
acceptable substitute for a heat sensing device under NSPS subpart WWW, 
as stated in a previous EPA determination.

Abstract for [0800011]

    Q: Are the alternative locations that Montenay Charleston proposed 
for installing the carbon monoxide (CO) continuous emission monitoring 
systems on its municipal waste combustor units in Charleston, South 
Carolina acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb?
    A: Yes. Based upon information supplied with the request, EPA finds 
that the CO concentration at the proposed alternative monitoring sites 
is representative of the concentration at the monitoring site specified 
in NSPS subpart Cb.

Abstract for [0800012]

    Q: Does EPA approve delaying implementation of the pressure, 
temperature, and oxygen monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW until September 2010, for seven wells that are located in 
an active area that first received waste in September 2005, at the 
Chestnut Ridge Landfill in Heiskell, Tennessee?
    A: EPA finds that the proposal to delay monitoring for these wells 
would be consistent with the intent of Sec.  60.753 in NSPS subpart WWW 
provided that the area of the landfill where the wells are located is 
not closed or does not reach final grade prior to September 2010.

Abstract for [0800013]

    Q1: Is the shortened test duration that the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA) proposed for the initial nitrogen oxides performance 
test on two auxiliary boilers at the Cumberland Fossil Plant in 
Cumberland, Tennessee acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that the TVA proposal to shorten the initial 
performance test to three hours is acceptable under NSPS subpart Db 
because of the high cost of conducting a 24-hour test outweighs any 
benefit associated with a test of this duration.
    Q2: Is the TVA proposal to conduct future performance tests every 
400 hours of operation instead of conducting annual performance tests 
at the Cumberland Fossil Plant in Cumberland, Tennessee acceptable 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A2: No. EPA finds that the proposal to base the schedule for future 
performance testing only on hours of operation is not acceptable under 
NSPS subpart Db due to the lack of historical information regarding the 
frequency of operation and the margin of compliance for the units in 
question. Since burning fuel in order to operate the auxiliary boilers 
only for testing purposes would be a waste of resources, the 
requirement to conduct annual tests may be waived during any year when 
the auxiliary units are not used for starting up the power boilers at 
the Cumberland Fossil Plant.

Abstract for [0800014]

    Q: Is the Duke Energy proposal to use quality assurance (QA) 
procedures and schedules from 40 CFR part 75 to satisfy QA requirements 
for the combustion turbines at its electric power peaking plant in 
Brownsville, Tennessee acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request because the turbines in question 
operate intermittently, and the proposed alternative procedures reduce 
the likelihood that Duke will need to operate the turbines only for 
testing purposes during some calendar quarters under NSPS subpart GG. 
EPA has approved similar proposals in the past.

Abstract for [0800015]

    Q: Is the proposal to use a predictive emission monitoring system 
(PEMS) as a substitute for a nitrogen oxides continuous emission 
monitoring system on Boiler No. 6 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
(ORNL) acceptable?
    A: No. EPA does not approve using a PEMS to measure nitrogen oxides 
emissions for Boiler No. 6 at this time. EPA would be willing to 
consider this proposal if ORNL submits additional information for the 
PEMS based on a relative accuracy test and provides a description of 
the quality assurance program for the PEMS.

Abstract for [0800016]

    Q1: Does EPA find that 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db applies to a wood 
burner/thermal oil heater/rotary dryer system at the Norbord Georgia 
Incorporated (Norbord) oriented strand board manufacturing facility in 
Cordele, Georgia?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that the wood burner/thermal oil heater/rotary 
dryer system is a steam generating unit, and is therefore subject to 
NSPS subpart Db.
    Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring procedure 
for the wood burner/thermal oil heater/rotary dryer system for Norbord 
facility located in Cordele, Georgia, since the formation of condensate 
may interfere with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Db? Norbord proposes that the exhaust from the 
system be ducted through a wet electrostatic precipitator and then 
through two regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs).
    A2: No. EPA finds that Norbord has not provided information to 
justify an alternative monitoring procedure under NSPS subpart Db. The 
temperature of the exhaust exiting the RTOs should exceed the dew point 
of the steam, therefore, there is no reason to assume that water 
droplets will interfere with a COMS.

Abstract for [M070016]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEE, for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. of 
Sauget, Illinois, to use an extractive hydrogen chloride (HCl) 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance 
with the hydrogen chloride/

[[Page 44739]]

chlorine gas emission standard and waive the monitoring requirements 
pertaining to spray dryer scrubbers set forth in 40 CFR 
63.1209(o)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii)?
    A: No. EPA finds the request does not include any data or 
information to demonstrate the HCl CEMS initial accuracy, precision, 
and reliability under MACT subpart EEE. Further, the request does not 
document periodic (daily, quarterly, and annually) quality assurance 
and quality control procedures for each HCl CEMS.

Abstract for [M070017]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan in lieu of the 
continuous opacity monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(1) and 
corresponding requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, where a wet 
scrubber is to be installed on Puget Sound Refining's fluidized 
catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) in Anacortes, Washington?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring of the liquid flow rate and gas 
flow rate for the wet gas scrubber, which is a jet-ejector design. 
Calculation of the liquid-to-gas ratio must be done as outlined in 
Tables 2 and 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, except that for purposes 
of determining and reporting excess emissions for the FCCU, a 3-hour 
rolling average of the liquid-to-gas ration will be used.

Abstract for [M070018]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring application (AMA), 
submitted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) 
plan, for the Celanese Clear Lake Plant (Celanese) located in Pasadena, 
Texas, consisting of the use of minimum liquid levels in the condenser/
absorber and entrainment separator in conjunction with minimum blowdown 
rate from the quench receiver to monitor solids content of the scrubber 
liquid under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMA under MACT subpart EEE 
if Celanese incorporates specific conditions into the CPT and 
automatically controls the flow of demineralized water, as specified in 
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [M070019]

    Q1: Does EPA find that Train I and Train II Rotary Kiln 
Incinerators (RKI) at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas, 
with shrouds constructed at both ends, can be used as an alternative 
measure to control combustion gas leaks under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring 
request for RKI at the Clean Harbors facility, under MACT subpart EEE. 
The additional requirements that RKI would need to meet are set out in 
the EPA response letter.
    Q2: Does EPA find that Train I and Train II RKIs at the Clean 
Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas, which monitor stack gas flow 
rate, can be used instead of flue gas flow rate under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE?
    A2: Yes. EPA determines that stack gas flow rate can be used 
instead of flue gas flow rate under MACT subpart EEE.
    Q3: Does EPA approve that a measurement of pressure drop across the 
low energy wet scrubber be waived under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE for 
Train I and Train II RKIs at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, 
Texas?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves waiving a measurement of pressure drop across 
the wet scrubber, under MACT subpart EEE, provided that a minimum 
liquid to gas ratio is established and a scrubber is operated in 
accordance with design specifications set out in the EPA response 
letter.
    Q4: Does EPA find that the liquid flow rate may be monitored in 
lieu of liquid feed pressure for a wet scrubber under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE, at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas?
    A4: EPA determines that liquid flow rate may be monitored in lieu 
of liquid feed pressure under MACT subpart EEE, provided that the 
conditions specified in response A3, above are met, as specified in the 
EPA response letter.
    Q5: Does EPA approve a 10-second delay if the pressure in the 
combustion zone remain positive for 30 continuous seconds to indicate a 
combustion system leak before an Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) 
is engaged under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE for Train I and Train II 
RKIs at the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas?
    A5: No. EPA does not approve the 10-second delay since the 
justification provided is not acceptable. EPA determines that for 
purposes of MACT subpart EEE, an AWFCO must be engaged any time the 
pressure in the combustion system is positive for more than one second.

Abstract for [M070020]

    Q: Does EPA approve a revision to the alternative monitoring plan 
that the Agency previously approved on December 12, 2003 for the 
Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette, Louisiana, to allow the facility the 
options under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G to reduce hazardous air 
pollutant emissions either by greater than 98 weight-percent or to a 
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, whichever is less 
stringent?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the revision to the alternative monitoring 
plan under NSPS subpart G, providing the facility both options offered 
by the regulations. The original conditions in the December 12, 2003 
letter for application to EPA to reduce the frequency of monitoring 
still apply.

Abstract for [M070021]

    Q1: The Dow Freeport Plant (Dow) Rotary Kiln Incinerator (RKI) 
located in Freeport, Texas has an IP.21 (data historian system) to 
calculate the hourly rolling average (HRA) and 12-hour rolling average. 
Is it allowed to continue burning hazardous waste while IP.21 is down, 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that the RKI can continue burning hazardous 
waste while IP.21 is down if the Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) 
is initiated based on an instantaneous data, as indicated in the EPA 
response letter.
    Q2: Can the DOW RKI have positive pressure in the combustion zone 
for 30 seconds to indicate a combustion system leak and before the 
AWFCO is engaged, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A2: No. EPA denies the request for any time delay before triggering 
an AWFCO since pressure in the combustion chamber is higher than 
ambient pressure.
    Q3: Can a freshwater make-up rate to the scrubber system be used as 
an alternative to measure blowdown rate and tank level to control and 
monitor solids content of the scrubber liquid at the Dow RKI, under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that the freshwater make-up rate to the scrubber 
system can be used as an alternative to blowdown rate and tank level 
with requirements to establish and monitor the liquid to gas (L/
G)ratio, as specified in the EPA response letter.
    Q4: For a scrubber, along with minimum liquid and maximum flue gas 
flow, a minimum liquid feed pressure and minimum scrubber pump amperage 
are monitored. Can hazardous waste be allowed to burn if one of the 
three parameters is out of control at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEE?
    A4: Yes. However, EPA finds that the AWFCO will be instituted if 
any two of the parameters exceed the operating parameter limits (OPL) 
established during the Comprehensive Performance Testing (CPT).

[[Page 44740]]

    Q5: Can an AWFCO be instituted when there is a loss in any two 
states of Ionizing Wet Scrubber (IWS) at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEE?
    A5: EPA will evaluate the results of the initial CPT with any three 
of the four IWS units operating shows, and if these are acceptable, 
then Dow will be allowed to set an AWFCO for power loss when more than 
one IWS units is `shut-down', as specified in the EPA response letter.
    Q6: Can a requirement to establish an OPL for the temperature in 
the secondary combustion chamber (SCC) be waived at the Dow RKI, under 
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A6: No. EPA finds that the requirement to establish an OPL for the 
temperature cannot be waived since the AWFCO must be triggered anytime 
the pressure in the SCC is higher than the ambient pressure.
    Q7: Can a manufacturer's specification be used to establish a limit 
on the carbon bed's inlet temperature at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEE?
    A7: EPA finds that the manufacturer's specification can be used if 
the facility operates the carbon bed in accordance with the 
manufacturer's specifications.
    Q8: Can a requirement to monitor pH be waived for the acid absorber 
at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A8: A requirement to monitor pH can be waived if the absorber is 
operated within the HRA limits on L/G ration, minimum freshwater makeup 
flow rate, and total pressure drop across the scrubber.
    Q9: Can pH be monitored on scrubber system comprising of an 
ionizing wet scrubber and a pre-scrubber and set it as AWFCO at the Dow 
RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A9: Yes. EPA finds that the pH can be monitored on scrubber system 
and set it as AWFCO.
    Q10: Can the Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) be based on 
liquid feed pressure for individual scrubbers on the scrubber system at 
the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A10: Yes. EPA finds that the AWFCO can be based on liquid feed 
pressure for individual scrubbers.

Abstract for [M070022]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method and operating limit, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX and 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, for the 
Philtex/Ryton Complex in Borger, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative testing and operating limits 
specified in Sec.  60.502(h) of MACT subpart XX and Sec.  63.425(e) of 
subpart R on the basis of specific stipulations, which address: The 
maximum flow of vapors from loading operations; the heat content of 
vapors routed to the flare during loading operations; the leak 
tightness of rail cars; detecting leaks and repairing the vapor 
manifold system; verifying that excess emissions will not occur from 
storage tanks at the maximum pressures during loading; ensuring 
gasoline is loaded into only rail cars which pass the leak test; and 
monitoring the pressure continuously in the vapor collection manifold 
system.

Abstract for [M070023]

    Q1: Should ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), which owns and operates 
reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) at a pipeline 
compressor station be required, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, to 
start up the RICE for the sole purpose of recording the pressure drop 
across the catalyst as required by 40 CFR 63.6640(a) if it is not 
operating during a particular month? Does EPA approve ANR request to 
not start up the RICE under the condition described above for three 
compressor stations: The Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City 
Compressor Stations in Michigan, and the Saint John Compressor Station 
in Indiana.
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this request. ANR must document 
periods when the RICE is not operating, as required under Sec.  63.6650 
of MACT subpart ZZZZ.
    Q2: ANR requests that EPA clarify the requirements at 40 CFR 
63.6640(a) as they relate to its three compressor stations, the 
Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City Compressor Stations in Michigan, 
and the St. John Compressor Station in Indiana. Specifically, ANR asks 
whether a RICE that is operated during a given month below the target 
window for percent load is required, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
ZZZZ, to increase the load for the sole purpose of measuring the 
pressure drop?
    A2: No. ANR is not required to increase the load for the sole 
purpose of measuring pressure drop across the compressor stations. 
However, the ANR will be required to measure the pressure drop once the 
load is increased to the target window, or when operations exceed 30 
days (regardless of load), and to document the time periods when the 
RICE is operated below the target window in its semi-annual report, as 
required under MACT subpart ZZZZ.
    Q3: Does EPA approve that RICE, which does not have the ability to 
operate at full load due to restrictive operating parameters associated 
with the gas service that they support, be tested at a reduced load to 
establish the target window for measuring pressure drop across the 
catalyst, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, at ANR facilities? ANR 
requests clarification in regards to three compressor stations, the 
Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City Compressor Stations in Michigan, 
and the St. John Compressor Station in Indiana.
    A3: EPA approves the alternative testing procedures for setting the 
target window for measuring pressure drop, under MACT subpart ZZZZ, 
provided that ANR establishes a lower maximum load rate and appropriate 
differential pressure ranges for the reduced load.
    Q4: For a RICE that can never be operated at the target window, 
should ANR monitor the pressure drop when an established lower-load 
baseline is achieved in any given month, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
ZZZZ? ANR requests clarification in regards to three compressor 
stations, the Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City Compressor Stations 
in Michigan, and the St. John Compressor Station in Indiana.
    A4: Yes. EPA recommends that ANR measure monthly pressure drop when 
the units are operating to assure catalyst performance, even if the 
units are operating at a reduced load below the target window.

Abstract for [M070024]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEE to establish operating parameter limits for waste 
viscosity, waste fuel delivery pressure, atomization pressure, etc., 
which ensure good operation of the firing system for a fluidized bed 
incinerator (FBI) with waste feeding through simple lances at the 
Eastman Chemical Company in Longview, Texas?
    A1: EPA conditionally approves this waiver, with the condition that 
Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) be instituted on minimum stack gas 
flow to ensure proper operation of fluidized bed, and amend the 
Comprehensive Performance Test plan, as detailed in the EPA response 
letter.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE, to monitor the liquid feed pressure for a hydrochloric 
acid and chlorine gas scrubber?
    A2: EPA approves this waiver with the conditions that a minimum 
liquid to gas ratio for the scrubber must be established during the CPT 
and the scrubber must be operated in accordance with the manufacturer's 
design specifications.

[[Page 44741]]

    Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver to establish a maximum combustion 
chamber pressure in an FBI?
    A3: EPA approves this waiver with a condition to establish an upper 
limit for the pressure at the inlet end of the heat exchanger as an 
AWFCO operating parameter limit, based on historical data.

Abstract for [M070025]

    Q1: Does EPA approve hourly rolling average (HRA) feed rate 
limitations in lieu of calculating 12-hour rolling average limits for 
ash, mercury, total chlorine, chlorides, and metals at Reynolds Metals 
Company Gum Springs Plant (Reynolds) in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of HRA based upon 
Reynolds establishing maximum feed rates during the Comprehensive 
Performance Test (CPT) for the pot liner mix, mercury, semi-volatile 
metals, low-volatile metals, and chlorine/chlorides, under MACT subpart 
EEE.
    Q2: Can Reynolds use maximum inlet temperature at the baghouse 
inlet based on operating practice and engineering judgment instead of 
actual temperature measurement during CPT, under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves that Reynolds use maximum inlet temperature 
under MACT subpart EEE based on an operating practice and an 
engineering judgment instead of actual temperature during CPT.
    Q3: Does EPA approve that Reynolds use instantaneous pressure 
limitations of minimum baghouse differential pressure (dp) along with 
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) reading of 15 percent to 
trigger an alarm and alert the operators for potential bag leak events 
at its facility, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of minimum dp, but with 
a 10 percent, rather than the requested 15 percent, COMS opacity 
reading on a 6-minute rolling average basis. Reynolds is required to 
maintain a minimum dip across the baghouse of 0.5 inches of water 
column on an instantaneous basis, as specified in the EPA response 
letter.
    Q4: Does Reynolds get a waiver of the requirement to select 
operating parameter limits for the cyclones and instead use an existing 
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for inspecting, maintenance, and 
performing corrective measures under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves the use of the existing O&M plan until proper 
OPLs are identified by EPA or the Arkansas Department of Environmental 
Quality, and limits are established under MACT subpart EEE.
    Q5: Does EPA approve a request to waive the requirements to select 
parameters to ensure good operation of the waste firing system in the 
case where liquid waste is not atomized or injected into a flame zone 
at the Reynolds Metals Company Gum Springs Plant in Arkadelphia, 
Arkansas, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A5: EPA finds that a waiver under MACT subpart EEE is not needed 
because combustible liquid waste is not atomized or injected into a 
flame zone, so the requirement to establish parameter limits to ensure 
good operation of the liquid waste firing system is not applicable.

Abstract for [M070026]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the use of data from Kiln 1, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEE, to show compliance and set operating parameter limits 
for Kiln 2 at the Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman Arkansas Plant (Ash 
Grove)? Note that Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 are identical in design, 
construction, and process operations. Kilns burn the same waste feed 
streams.
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this request under MACT subpart EEE, because 
Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 are identical in every respect, including design, 
construction, and process operations. Both Kilns burn the same waste 
feed streams.
    Q2: Does EPA approve that the Ash Grove use stack test data from 
mode 1 (hazardous waste in combustion chamber) to establish operating 
parameter limits (OPLs) for mode 2 (hazardous waste not in combustion 
chamber), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to use stack test 
data from mode 1 to establish OPLs for mode 2 under MACT subpart EEE. 
The OPLs developed using mode 1 should be based upon a worst case 
scenario, as mentioned in the EPA response letter.
    Q3: Does EPA approve that the Ash Grove show destruction and 
removal efficiency (DRE) compliance for Kiln 3 (larger capacity unit) 
based on DRE test results from Kiln 1 (smaller capacity unit), under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart EEE?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves this request under MACT subpart EEE. Since 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit temperature 
requirements have been found to ensure compliance with the standard, 
stack testing of Kiln 1 will validate that no changes in the systems 
have occurred that will impact this proven relationship. The request to 
base minimum temperature OPLs on prior RCRA permit provisions will be 
determined following submittal and review of the Ash Grove's 
Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) data results.
    Q4: Does EPA approve extrapolation of metal feed rates under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEE, for Kiln 2 based on results from a stack test 
conducted on Kiln 1 at the Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman Arkansas 
Plant?
    A4: EPA is not able to make a determination under MACT subpart EEE 
until it has reviewed and accepted the CPT data results.
    Q5: Does EPA find that the Ash Grove can compute the hourly rolling 
average based on the available clock minutes of data rather than 
lengthening the period of time over which an average is calculated when 
there are missing minutes within the clock period hour, under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEE?
    A5: Yes. EPA approves the alternative calculation method, which is 
specified in the current RCRA permit, under MACT subpart EEE. The 
proposed calculation method will provide equivalent performance to the 
method specified in the hazardous waste combustors (HWC) MACT rule 
since it is the same as the method used to establish OPLs. As required 
by the HWC MACT, the continuous monitoring system (CMS) must have 95 
percent data availability to continue feeding hazardous waste. An 
Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off will take place should less than 95 
percent data availability occur, or should the CMS fail to operate.

Abstract for [M070027]

    Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of combustion air and vent gas flow 
rates in lieu of stack gas flow rate as a measure of residence time, 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the BASF facility located in 
Geismar, Louisiana?
    A1: No. EPA finds that the information provided is insufficient to 
make any determination. The facility must provide mass balance and 
calculation of residence time for the three units as well as provide a 
variety of Piping and Instrument Diagrams.
    Q2: Does EPA waive a requirement to monitor pH of the scrubber 
liquid as an operating parameter limit, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE, at the BASF facility located in Geismar, Louisiana?
    A2: No. EPA finds that the information provided is insufficient to 
make any determination. The facility must provide analysis of all feed 
streams including the process vents, and show the Maximum Theoretical 
Emission Concentration (MTEC)

[[Page 44742]]

approach for chlorine/chloride (MTEC) calculations.

Abstract for [M070028]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a request to waive the requirement under 40 
CFR part 63 subpart 1209(l)(2) and 1209(o)(3)(iii) to monitor liquid 
feed pressure for the low energy wet scrubber on the Toluene 
Diisocyanate (TDI) Unit at the Lyondell Chemical Company in Lake 
Charles, Louisiana?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the waiver request. If the combustor 
is equipped with a low energy wet scrubber, Lyondell must establish a 
limit on minimum liquid feed pressure to the wet scrubber based on 
manufacturer's specifications and comply with the limit on an hourly 
rolling average.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the facility's proposal to use hourly rolling 
average in lieu of 12-hour rolling average for ash, chloride, and 
metals, as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart 1209(c)(4) Analysis of 
Feedstreams?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the request because Lyondell treats only a 
limited number of on-site generated waste streams in the TDI Process 
Incinerator. The waste streams generated from the on-site processes are 
of a relatively consistent composition.
    Q3: Does EPA approve use of fail-safe system with a local pressure 
indicator gauge (non-CMS) to ensure proper atomizing air pressure and 
institute waste feed cutoff when pressure falls below 30 psig, in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 1209(j)(4), destruction and 
removal efficiency (DRE)?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves the request because although this fail-safe 
system is not part of the continuous monitoring system or the Automatic 
Waste Feed Cut-off system, it provides equivalent compliance.
    Q4: Does EPA approve pump speed/pump curves (extrapolation) as a 
backup feed rate measurement methodology to the mass flow rate to meet 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 1209(j)(3) and 1209(k)(4), 
destruction and removal efficiency DRE?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves the request because with either method, the 
TDI residue feed rate data is displayed in the control room and 
recorded by the production unit's data historian.

Abstract for [M070029]

    Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of total freshwater makeup rate in 
lieu of blowdown rate and tank level to control and monitor solids 
content of the scrubber liquid, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, 
concerning the Thermal Treatment Unit (TTU) at the Dow plant located in 
Plaquemine, Louisiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring 
request under MACT subpart EEE, subject to conditions about freshwater 
make-up rate, minimum liquid levels, and scrubber characteristics and 
performance, as specified in the EPA response letter.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the request to waive the requirement to 
monitor the liquid feed pressure for the scrubbers, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEE, concerning the TTU at the Dow plant located in 
Plaquemine, Louisiana?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the waiver request to not 
monitor the liquid feed pressure for the scrubbers at TTU, under MACT 
subpart EEE since the liquid feed pressure limit is not a critical 
parameter for the performance of the `low energy' scrubbers for the 
TTU. However, EPA requires further evaluation of mercury data and 
scrubber performance to make a final determination about the waiver 
request and to determine the need for a freshwater distributor in the 
caustic scrubber.
    Q3: Does EPA grant a waiver to the TTU at the Dow plant located in 
Plaquemine, Louisiana, to measure the flue gas as a measure of 
residence time during Comprehensive Performance Testing, under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEE?
    A3: No. EPA finds that the information provided is insufficient to 
make a determination.
    Q4: Does EPA find that the TTU at the Dow plant located in 
Plaquemine, Louisiana, can continue to burn waste while date historian 
system (IP.21) is down, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? IP.21 is 
used to calculate the Hourly Rolling Average (HRA) and 12-Hour Rolling 
Average.
    A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under MACT subpart 
EEE, which would require that the facility manually calculates HRA, 
submits this information to EPA, and complies with all applicable 
monitoring and reporting requirements, specified in the EPA response 
letter.

Abstract for [M070030]

    Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of total freshwater makeup rate in 
lieu of blowdown rate along with tank level to control and monitor 
solids content of the scrubber liquid, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE, for the Rotary Kiln Incinerator (RKI) at the Dow plant located in 
Plaquemine, Louisiana?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under MACT subpart 
EEE, as described in the EPA response letter. EPA finds that 
measurement of freshwater make-up, maintaining minimum sump level, and 
maintaining liquid to gas ratio in the scrubbers will ensure proper 
operation of the scrubber system. It will also ensure a maximum limit 
for the solids in the scrubber liquid.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement to monitor the liquid pressure 
drop across the scrubber, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, for the 
RKI at the Dow plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
    A2: No. EPA finds that the provided information is insufficient to 
make a determination.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver to monitor the liquid feed pressure 
for the scrubbers, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, for the RKI at 
the Dow plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
    A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request under MACT subpart 
EEE, as specified in the EPA response letter. An effective performance 
of a wet scrubber requires proper distribution, and mixing of both 
liquid and gas in the scrubber. The packed-bed scrubbers in the RKI 
system are cross-current flow. The scrubber liquid is fed via pumps, 
through strainers, and into a header system that uses spray nozzles to 
distribute the liquid across packing. The liquid flow is currently 
measured and monitored using flow meters and transmitters. A loss of 
liquid flow and/or interference with the spray nozzle distribution can 
be detected by a change in flow to the header.
    Q4: Does EPA approve instituting an Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off 
(AWFCO) after pressure remaining positive for 30 seconds as an 
indicative of combustion system leak, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE, for the RKI at the Dow plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
    A4: No. EPA does not approve a time delay of 30 seconds for 
instituting AWFCO. The information provided for justification is 
insufficient.
    Q5: Does EPA approve that the Dow facility located in Plaquemine, 
Louisiana, burns waste while the date historian system (IP.21) is down, 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? IP.21 is used to calculate the 
Hourly Rolling Average (HRA) and 12-Hour rolling average.
    A5: EPA approves this request under MACT subpart EEE, provided that 
the facility manually calculates HRA, submits this information to EPA, 
and complies with all applicable monitoring and reporting requirements 
as mentioned in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [M080004]

    Q: Is Spartech's process in Stamford, Connecticut, which 
manufactures poly

[[Page 44743]]

methyl methacrylate (PMMA) acrylic sheet subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF?
    A: Yes. EPA determines Spartech's operations produce a material 
(PMMA) classified using the United States Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) code 282 or North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code 325, and its operations meet all the other criteria 
for applicability under 40 CFR 63.2435.

Abstract for [Z070002]

    Q1: Is Anadarko's double-chamber cyclonator forced-air solid waste 
incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons per day, constructed after 
November 1999, that has been seasonally located and intermittently 
operated at remote oil and gas exploration sites on the North Slope of 
Alaska since January 2003, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC?
    A1: Yes, EPA concludes that a waste incinerator with a capacity of 
2.4 tons per day, constructed after November 1999, that has been 
seasonally located and intermittently operated at remote oil and gas 
exploration sites on the North Slope of Alaska is subject to NSPS 
subpart CCCC. EPA considers this incinerator to be located at an 
industrial facility, and regardless of the fact that the incinerator 
may be moved from one location to the next, it will be a distinct 
operating unit of an industrial facility.
    Q2: Is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E, applicable to an incineration 
unit that incinerates untreated sanitary waste (solids) collected from 
Pacto toilets?
    A2: No. EPA considers the Mercury NESHAP to apply to ``those 
stationary sources which * * * incinerate or dry wastewater treatment 
plant sludge.'' Under 40 CFR 61.51, sludge is defined as ``sludge 
produced by a treatment plant that processes municipal or industrial 
waste waters.'' The practice of incinerating sanitary waste composed of 
untreated solids from Pacto toilets does not meet the description of 
incinerating sludge under the Mercury NESHAP. Thus, the Mercury NESHAP 
would not apply.

Abstract for [Z080001]

    Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes 
reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines at the Austin Community 
Landfill in Austin, Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
    A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and 
moisture removal from the landfill gas for use in an energy recovery 
device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the engines will be exempt from 
monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, 
and Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. 
However, the treatment system supplying gas to the IC engines will have 
to be included in the SSM Plan.

Abstract for [Z080002]

    Q: Does EPA consider the gas processing system which includes two 
turbines at the DFW Recycling and Disposal Facility in Lewisville, 
Texas, to be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, pursuant to 
40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
    A: Yes. EPA considers the specified compression, filtration, and 
moisture removal from the landfill gas for use in an energy recovery 
device to be treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). Because the turbines will be exempt from 
monitoring, they do not have to be included in the Startup, Shutdown, 
and Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. 
However, the treatment system supplying gas to the turbines will have 
to be included in the SSM Plan.

Lisa C. Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-17489 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P