[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 251 (Wednesday, December 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80392-80407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31117]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8759-4]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The document may be 
located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. 
For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA 
by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by e-mail at: [email protected]. For 
technical questions about the individual applicability determinations 
or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the 
individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to 
the author of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The General Provisions to the 
NSPS in 40 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

[[Page 80393]]

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. The 
letters and memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, 
subpart, citation, control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 107 such documents added to 
the ADI on December 12, 2008 and December 23, 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: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on December 12, 2008 and 
December 23, 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. For example, this notice does not make an applicability 
determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither 
does it purport to make any document that was previously non-binding 
into a binding document.

            ADI Determinations Uploaded on December 12, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Control number         Category       Subpart           Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A080001..............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring Plan for
                                                     Refinery Fuel Gas.
M080005..............  MACT...........  EEEEE.....  Force Majeure Events
                                                     Delaying Initial
                                                     Performance Testing
                                                     for an Iron and
                                                     Steel Foundry.
M080006..............  MACT...........  EEEEE.....  Disapproval of
                                                     Alternative Stack
                                                     Testing Request.
M080007..............  MACT...........  DDDDD.....  Request to
                                                     Substitute Flue Gas
                                                     Temperature
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Pressure Drop
                                                     Monitoring.
M080008..............  MACT...........  YY........  Control Requirement
                                                     for Plant Exhaust
                                                     from Primary Bag
                                                     Filter Vents when
                                                     Routed and not
                                                     Routed to a
                                                     Cogeneration Unit.
M080009..............  MACT...........  IIIII.....  Continuous
                                                     Compliance
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     Mercury Recovery
                                                     Units.
M080010..............  MACT...........  EEEEE.....  Storage and Transfer
                                                     of Toluene Used as
                                                     Fuel.
M080011..............  MACT...........  FFFF......  Multiple Standard
                                                     Batches to Define a
                                                     Process within a
                                                     Single MCPU.
M080012..............  MACT...........  GGG, FFFF.  MON Rule and
                                                     Pharmaceuticals
                                                     NESHAP for
                                                     Glucosamine
                                                     Hydrochloride.
M080013..............  MACT...........  FFFF......  Manufacture of Poly
                                                     Methyl Methacrylate
                                                     (PMMA) Acrylic
                                                     Sheet.
M080014..............  MACT...........  MMM, SS...  Initial Compliance
                                                     Demonstration for
                                                     Thermal Treatment
                                                     Units.
M080016..............  MACT...........  GGG.......  Process Condensers
                                                     and 20 ppmv Limit
                                                     without Calculating
                                                     Uncontrolled
                                                     Emissions.
M080017..............  MACT...........  MMM, SS...  Use of Previously
                                                     Conducted
                                                     Performance Tests
                                                     for Initial
                                                     Compliance
                                                     Demonstration.
M080018..............  MACT...........  N.........  Alternative Testing,
                                                     Monitoring, and
                                                     Work Practice
                                                     Standards.
M080019..............  MACT...........  RRR.......  Request for Waiver
                                                     of Performance
                                                     Tests for Low-speed
                                                     Aluminum Scrap
                                                     Shredders.
M080020..............  MACT...........  UUUU......  Request for
                                                     Alternative
                                                     Monitoring Plan
                                                     Following
                                                     Replacement of GC/
                                                     PID Instrument.
Z080003..............  NESHAP.........  F.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring Plan
                                                     Modification.
800017...............  NSPS...........  Db........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Procedure for
                                                     Opacity.
800018...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Requests.
800019...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Requests.
800020...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Requests.
800021...............  NSPS...........  J, Ja.....  Gap in Continuous
                                                     Program of
                                                     Construction for
                                                     Process Heater.
800022...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Request for Higher
                                                     Operating
                                                     Temperature at
                                                     Landfill Wellhead.
800023...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Request for Higher
                                                     Operating
                                                     Temperature at
                                                     Landfill Wellhead.
800024...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Compliance Timeline
                                                     for Landfill.
800025...............  NSPS...........  CC........  Bridgewall Optical
                                                     Temperature (BWOT)
                                                     Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Proposal.
800026...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Compliance Timeline
                                                     for Landfill Well.
800027...............  NSPS...........  Db, Dc....  Indirect-Fired
                                                     Dryers used in the
                                                     Ethanol Industry.
800028...............  NSPS...........  UUU.......  Synthetic Alumina
                                                     Applicability
                                                     Determination.
800029...............  NSPS...........  D.........  Continuous
                                                     Particulate
                                                     Emission Monitoring
                                                     System.
800030...............  NSPS...........  D.........  Continuous
                                                     Particulate
                                                     Emission Monitoring
                                                     System.
800031...............  NSPS...........  KKKK......  Reconstruction of a
                                                     Stationary
                                                     Combustion Turbine.
800032...............  NSPS...........  VV, VVa...  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Procedure for Leak
                                                     Detection.
800033...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Revised Alternative
                                                     Monitoring Plan
                                                     Conditions for
                                                     Hydrogen Sulfide.

[[Page 80394]]

 
800034...............  NSPS...........  Dc........  Boiler Derate
                                                     Proposal.
800035...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Compliance Timeline
                                                     for Landfill Well.
800036...............  NSPS...........  KKK.......  Applicability to
                                                     Expansion Project
                                                     at Propane
                                                     Refrigeration
                                                     Plant.
800037...............  NSPS...........  UUU.......  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Calciner.
800038...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Compliance Timeline
                                                     for Leachate
                                                     Recirculation Line.
800039...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct Positive
                                                     Pressure at
                                                     Landfill Wells.
800040...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Standards/
                                                     Procedures for
                                                     Oxygen/Pressure.
800041...............  NSPS...........  Kb........  Process Tanks
                                                     Defined.
800042...............  NSPS...........  Kb........  Request for
                                                     Reconsideration of
                                                     Gasoline Storage
                                                     Vessel Decision.
800043...............  NSPS...........  GG, KKKK..  Original owner/
                                                     operator of Gas
                                                     Turbine.
800044...............  NSPS...........  Da........  Modification to
                                                     Increase Feed Rate
                                                     with Bottleneck.
800045...............  NSPS...........  Da........  Modification to
                                                     Increase Feed Rate
                                                     with Bottleneck.
M080021..............  MACT...........  RRR.......  Applicability to
                                                     Aluminum Shredder/
                                                     Baler.
M080022..............  MACT...........  NNNNN.....  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Water Scrubber/Mist
                                                     Eliminator.
M080023..............  MACT...........  RRR.......  Thermal Chip Dryer
                                                     Operation Prior to
                                                     Performance
                                                     Testing.
M080024..............  MACT...........  KKKK......  Applicability
                                                     determination for
                                                     Metal Can Surface
                                                     Coating NESHAP.
M080025..............  MACT...........  G.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Parameters for HON
                                                     Carbon Adsorber
                                                     System.
M080026..............  MACT...........  G.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Parameters for HON
                                                     Carbon Adsorber
                                                     System.
M080027..............  MACT...........  RRR.......  Dioxin/Furan Stack
                                                     Test Waiver
                                                     Request.
M080028..............  MACT...........  RRR.......  Dioxin/Furan State
                                                     Test Waiver
                                                     Request, OM & M
                                                     Plan Deficiencies,
                                                     and Lime Injection.
M080029..............  MACT...........  CC, R.....  Alternate Monitoring
                                                     Parameter for
                                                     Assist Gas in
                                                     Flare.
M080031..............  MACT...........  DDDDD.....  Definition of
                                                     Process Heater.
M080034..............  MACT...........  FFFFF.....  Stack Test Waiver
                                                     Request.
M080035..............  MACT...........  JJJJ......  Compliance
                                                     Demonstration for
                                                     Paper and Other Web
                                                     Coating.
Z080004..............  NESHAP.........  E.........  Applicability for
                                                     Sludge Dryer.
800046...............  NSPS...........  DD........  Applicability and
                                                     Alternative Control
                                                     Conditions for
                                                     Malting Facility.
800047...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Treated Landfill Gas
                                                     Exemption.
800048...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring Plan at
                                                     Petroleum Refinery.
800049...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Petroleum Refinery
                                                     Vapor Combustion
                                                     Unit.
800050...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Petroleum Refinery
                                                     Vapor Combustion
                                                     Unit.
800051...............  NESHAP.........  E.........  Waiver of Mercury
                                                     Emissions Testing
                                                     for Refinery.
800052...............  NSPS...........  UUU.......  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for Wet
                                                     Scrubber.
800053...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800054...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800055...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Vapors from
                                                     Disulfide Separator
                                                     Venting.
800056...............  NSPS...........  OOO.......  Preparatory
                                                     Processes for
                                                     Gypsum Stucco
                                                     Production.
800057...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800058...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800059...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800060...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Wells.
800061...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800062...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Temperature at
                                                     Recycling and
                                                     Disposal Facility.
800063...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Temperature at
                                                     Recycling and
                                                     Disposal Facility.
800064...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedances at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800065...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring
                                                     Procedures at a
                                                     Landfill.
800066...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedance at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800067...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedance at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800068...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring,
                                                     Testing, and Other
                                                     Requirements for a
                                                     Landfill.
800069...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Treated Landfill Gas
                                                     Exemption.
800070...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedance at
                                                     Landfill Well.
800071...............  NSPS...........  GG........  Revision of Custom
                                                     Fuel Monitoring
                                                     Schedule.
800072...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Emissions Rate
                                                     Reporting
                                                     Requirements at
                                                     Landfill.
800073...............  NSPS...........  BB........  Applicability
                                                     Determination for
                                                     Kraft Pulp Mill TRS
                                                     Emissions.
800074...............  NSPS...........  OOO.......  Performance Testing
                                                     Requirement
                                                     Condition D.4.6.
800075...............  NSPS...........  AAa.......  Installation of a
                                                     Capacitor/Reactor
                                                     at an Electric Arc
                                                     Furnace.
800076...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Opacity Due to Wet
                                                     Gas Scrubber.
800077...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedance at a
                                                     Landfill Well.
800078...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedance at a
                                                     Landfill Well.
800079...............  NSPS...........  AAAA, WWW.  Landfill Gas
                                                     Treatment
                                                     Exemption.
800080...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring for
                                                     Thermal Vapor
                                                     Incinerator.
800081...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring Plan for
                                                     Propane Vapor from
                                                     a Vent Gas
                                                     Absorber.
800082...............  NSPS...........  J.........  Alternative
                                                     Monitoring Request
                                                     for FCCU COMS at a
                                                     Refinery.
800083...............  NSPS...........  DD........  Applicability for Co-
                                                     Located Grain
                                                     Elevators.
800084...............  NSPS...........  OOO.......  Alternative Testing
                                                     Method Request for
                                                     Wallboard Shredder.
800085...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Alternative Timeline
                                                     to Correct
                                                     Exceedance at a
                                                     Landfill Well.
800086...............  NSPS...........  WWW.......  Change to Standard
                                                     Operating Procedure
                                                     at a Landfill.
800087...............  NSPS...........  H.........  Applicability for
                                                     Sulfuric Acid
                                                     Plants with
                                                     Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                     Burning Processes.
M080037..............  MACT...........  RRR.......  Compliance with
                                                     ACGIH Ventilation
                                                     Manual.
M080036..............  MACT...........  RRR.......  Clean Charge
                                                     Defined.
0800088..............  NSPS...........  J.........  Applicability to a
                                                     Refinery Flare.

[[Page 80395]]

 
            ADI Determinations Uploaded on December 23, 2008
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
0800089..............  NSPS...........  Db........  Dryers at OSB Bark
                                                     Burner System.
0800090..............  NSPS...........  J, Ja.....  Integrated
                                                     Gasification
                                                     Combined Cycle
                                                     Power Plant.
Z080005..............  NESHAP.........  CC........  Integrated
                                                     Gasification
                                                     Combined Cycle
                                                     Power Plant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [A080001]

    Q: Does EPA allow ConocoPhillips' Wood River Refinery in Roxana, 
Illinois, to monitor the liquid benzene at the finished product tanks 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, in lieu of continuously monitoring the 
sulfur dioxide concentration of the displaced barge vapors from benzene 
loading? These displaced barge vapors are directed to the Marine Vapor 
Control system thermal oxidizer.
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed alternative monitoring proposal 
from ConocoPhillips meets the requirements of EPA's guidance entitled 
``Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas.'' 
The displaced benzene vapors from the benzene loading are inherently 
low in sulfur content.

Abstract for [M080005]

    Q: Does EPA consider, as force majeure, certain furnace 
malfunctions and labor strikes that prevented stack tests from being 
conducted before the compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEEE, at the Indianapolis Casting facility in Indianapolis, Indiana?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the certain events, such as furnace 
malfunctions and labor strikes, as described in EPA's response to 
Indianapolis Casting, can be considered as force majeure under MACT 
subpart A. The furnace malfunctions were safety related and required 
extended furnace shut downs for repair, and labor actions are beyond 
the control of the company.

Abstract for [M080006]

    Q: Does EPA accept stack test results performed before the 
compliance deadline of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, as the required 
initial compliance demonstration at the Indianapolis Casting facility 
in Indianapolis, Indiana?
    A: Yes. EPA accepts stack test results before the compliance 
deadline under MACT subpart EEEEE as the initial compliance 
demonstration only if the production rates achieved during the April 
2005 tests are representative of the highest production rates currently 
achievable, and the gas sample volume collected meets or exceeds 60 dry 
standard cubic feet for each sampling run as specifically required 
under 40 CFR 63.7732(b)(2).

Abstract for [M080007]

    Q: Does EPA allow S.D. Warren to monitor the flue gas temperature 
of the wet scrubber outlet in lieu of monitoring the pressure drop 
across the wet scrubber under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD? The S.D. 
Warren Company/SAPPI Fine Paper of North America's Skowhegan, Maine, 
pulp mill has a large multi-fuel boiler with an associated wet scrubber 
that does not experience a significant pressure drop because it is an 
open vessel.
    A: Yes. EPA finds this acceptable under MACT subpart DDDDD. A 
temperature drop in the range of 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the scrubber 
outlet will indicate that the flue gases are coming into contact with 
the scrubber water in order to control particulate matter emissions. A 
continuous monitoring system that can be used to determine and record 
the flue gas temperature of the boiler wet scrubber outlet at least 
once every successive 15-minute period should be installed, calibrated, 
maintained, and operated.

Abstract for [M080008]

    Q: What are the applicability and control requirements under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart YY, for the plant exhaust from the primary bag filter 
vents for Units 1, 2, and 3 at the Sid Richardson Big Springs facility 
in Howard County, Texas, which are primarily routed to a cogeneration 
unit but also can be routed away from the facility's cogeneration unit 
to a flare?
    A: The facility would be subject to different requirements under 
MACT subpart YY depending upon the use of the exhaust gas. When the 
facility routes the exhaust gas to the cogeneration unit, no control 
requirements would apply. During the times the facility bypasses the 
cogeneration system to the flare, the plant exhaust from the primary 
bag filter vents for Units 1, 2, and 3 must meet the requirements under 
MACT subpart YY for process vents, unless there is a startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction (SSM). When the plant exhaust from the primary bag 
filter vents for Units 1, 2, and 3 bypasses the cogeneration unit 
during SSM, the facility must follow its SSM plan.

Abstract for [M080009]

    Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII require a daily average or an 
hourly average to determine continuous compliance with the emissions 
standard for mercury recovery units under Section 63.8190(a)(3)?
    A: When determining continuous compliance with the emissions 
standard for mercury recovery units under 40 CFR 63.8190(a)(3), a 
facility should calculate a daily average mercury concentration, using 
Equation 2 at 40 CFR 63.8240(a).

Abstract for [M080010]

    Q: Does the exemption from the definition of ``organic liquid'' for 
gasoline (including aviation gasoline), kerosene (No. 1 distillate 
oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate 
oils and fuel oils in 40 CFR 63.2406 of the Organic Liquid Distribution 
National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 
CFR part 63, subpart EEEE (OLD MACT) include the use of toluene as a 
fuel in the inorganic chemical process that manufactures titanium 
dioxide (TiO2) at the DuPont Company (DuPont) of Wilmington, 
Delaware?
    A: No. EPA concludes that the OLD MACT applies to the storage and 
transfer of toluene used as fuel in the production of TiO2. 
The exemption in 40 CFR 63.2406(3)(i) in the definition of ``organic 
liquid'' applies only to those expressly listed liquids. Because 
toluene is an organic liquid and is not gasoline, kerosene, diesel, 
asphalt, or a heavier distillate oil or fuel oil, it is not eligible 
for the exemption under 40 CFR 63.2406(3)(i) merely because it may be 
used as a fuel.

Abstract for [M080011]

    Q: Does EPA allow a facility to use multiple standard batches to 
define a process within a single miscellaneous chemical manufacturing 
process unit (MCPU) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart

[[Page 80396]]

FFFF, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (the MON rule)?
    A: EPA finds that a facility may request that EPA exercise its 
authority under 40 CFR 63.10(f) to modify the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements in the MON rule and allow multiple standard 
batches per process. Facilities can request approvals of alternative 
recordkeeping and reporting in their precompliance reports. [See 40 CFR 
63.2520(c)]. Alternatively, requests submitted after the due date of 
the precompliance report (i.e., after November 13, 2007) may be 
submitted under 40 CFR 63.10(f).

Abstract for [M080012]

    Q1: Which Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code applies to 
the glucosamine hydrochloride production process at Cargill 
Incorporated in Eddyville, Iowa?
    A1: The appropriate SIC code for the glucosamine hydrochloride 
production process is 289, Miscellaneous Chemical Products.
    Q2: Is the process subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) Rule?
    A2: Yes. The glucosamine hydrochloride production process is 
subject to the MON Rule.
    Q3: If this process is not subject to the MON Rule, is it subject 
to the Pharmaceuticals NESHAP or another NESHAP?
    A3: No, the facility is not subject to the Pharmaceuticals NESHAP 
or another NESHAP.

Abstract for [M080013]

    Q. Is the process by which the Spartech Polycast facility in 
Stamford, Connecticut, manufactures poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) 
acrylic sheet subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF?
    A. Yes. Spartech's operations produce a material (PMMA) classified 
using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 282 or The North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) NAICS code 325, and its 
operations meet all the other criteria for MACT subpart FFFF to apply.

Abstract for [M080014]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use at Dow Chemical's Midland, Michigan, 
facility of the results of performance tests conducted on three thermal 
treatment units under 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG and MMM, in lieu of 
conducting an initial compliance demonstration for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF (the MON)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of these previously conducted 
performance tests as the initial compliance demonstration for the MON, 
based in part on Dow Chemical's use of test methods referenced in MACT 
subpart FFFF and its declaration that no significant process changes 
have occurred since these tests.

Abstract for [M080016]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Dow AgroSciences' (DAS) request to monitor the 
liquid temperature of its condensers at its Harbor Beach, Michigan, 
facility as an alternative to measuring the exhaust gas temperature 
when demonstrating initial compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG 
(the Pharma-MACT)?
    A1: No. In regards to the initial compliance demonstration for 
process condensers under MACT subpart GGG, EPA will not approve DAS's 
request to monitor the liquid temperature as an alternative to 
monitoring the exhaust gas temperature because DAS started operating 
its condensers before the compliance date, and it did not present 
sufficient technical justification for the alternative method.
    Q2: Does EPA approve DAS's request to comply with the 20 ppmv 
outlet concentration limit under Sec.  63.1254(a)(1)(ii)(A) without 
calculating uncontrolled hazardous air pollutant emissions from all 
emission episodes using the equations specified in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i), or developing an engineering assessment as allowed in 
Section 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), or developing an emission profile as 
required by Sec.  63.1257(b)(8)(ii)?
    A2: No. In regards to complying with the 20 ppmv outlet 
concentration limit under 40 CFR 63.1254(a)(1)(ii)(A), EPA will not 
approve DAS's request to forgo calculating uncontrolled emissions, 
developing an engineering assessment, or developing an emission profile 
because the alternative standard, at Sec.  63.1254(c), is the only 
process-vent compliance option for the Pharma-MACT that does not 
require calculation of uncontrolled emissions because it requires 
continuous monitoring through a continuous emission monitoring system 
(CEMS). As DAS does not employ a CEMS, the only way it can ensure 
compliance with 40 CFR 63.1254(a)(1)(ii)(A) is if it calculates 
uncontrolled emissions and develops an emission profile under worst-
case conditions.

Abstract for [M080017]

    Q: Does EPA approve at Dow Chemical Company's Midland, Michigan, 
facility, the use of the results of performance tests conducted on 
three thermal treatment units per 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG and MMM, 
in lieu of conducting an initial compliance demonstration for 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFF (the MON)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of these previously conducted 
performance tests as the initial compliance demonstration for the MON, 
based on Dow's use of test methods referenced in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF and statement that no significant process changes have 
occurred since these tests.

Abstract for [M080018]

    Q: Does EPA approve alternative test methods, monitoring, and work 
practice standards under 40 CFR part 63, subpart N, for Finishing 
Innovation's proposed new hard chrome electroplating tank in Warsaw, 
Indiana? The proposed new tank will be equipped with an Emission 
Elimination Device (EED), or formerly known as the Merlin Cover, which 
is a patented system which totally encloses the chrome tank while 
plating takes place.
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative test method, 
monitoring procedures and work practices consistent with previous 
approvals. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 
approved an alternative test method utilizing a smoke generation 
device. This device would be ignited and placed inside the EED and the 
absence of leaking smoke confirmed to demonstrate that the EED 
completely encloses the atmosphere over the chrome electroplating tank. 
EPA Region 5 has also approved alternative monitoring requirements and 
work practices to monitor continuous compliance of the EED and to 
ensure that it maintains compliance.

Abstract for [M080019]

    Q: Does J.L. French Corporation's variance request letter contain 
adequate information for the EPA to approve a request for waiver of 
initial performance tests as well as all subsequent performance tests 
for the existing aluminum scrap shredders located at J.L. French 
Corporation's Gateway and Taylor secondary aluminum production 
facilities in Sheboygan, Wisconsin?
    A: No. EPA finds that based on the information submitted to the 
EPA, we cannot approve J.L. French Corporation's request for waiver of 
initial performance tests, as well as all subsequent performance tests 
for the existing aluminum scrap shredders. For the EPA to make an 
informed decision either approving or denying such a request, J.L. 
French Corporation's

[[Page 80397]]

application for waiver of performance tests must be accompanied by a 
comprehensive compliance status report proving compliance with the 
relevant aluminum scrap shredder standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
RRR. In addition, 40 CFR 63.7(h)(3)(iii) provides that any application 
for a waiver of a performance test shall include information justifying 
the owner or operator's request for a waiver, such as the technical or 
economic infeasibility, or the impracticality, of the affected source 
performing the required test.

Abstract for [M080020]

    Q: Does EPA approve a change to Viscofan's (formerly Teepak) 
alternative monitoring plan under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, 
originally approved in February 2005 at its facility in Danville, 
Illinois? Viscofan would like to replace one of its GC/PID instruments 
with a new Baseline-MOCON, Incorporated Model 8900 GC/PID to measure 
hydrogen sulfide and carbon disulfide.
    A: Conditional. EPA has determined that it is acceptable under MACT 
subpart UUUU for Viscofan to perform a carrier gas (zero) and a single 
upscale gas Quality Control (QC) check on a daily basis for each 
chemical monitored.
    However, Viscofan must still do a full linearity-type calibration 
(zero and at least three upscale gas concentrations) initially and at 
least quarterly thereafter for each chemical monitored.

Abstract for [Z080003]

    Q: Does EPA allow modification in the existing vinyl chloride 
alternative monitoring plan under 40 CFR part 61, subpart F, for 
Lubrizol Advanced Material's polyvinyl chloride plant in Louisville, 
Kentucky?
    A: Yes. Based upon a statistical analysis presented by Lubrizol, 
EPA finds that there are only minor differences between individual and 
composite resin samples that the company analyzes on a monthly basis 
under NESHAP subpart F. Therefore, EPA waives the requirement to 
compare the results of individual and composite samples on a monthly 
basis.

Abstract for [0800017]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring procedure, 
which consists of monitoring the secondary power input to the 
electrostatic precipitator (ESP), for a boiler at the U.S. Sugar 
facility in Clewiston, Florida, which is subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Db?
    A: No. Because NSPS subpart Db was modified to allow the use of a 
particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system (PM CEMS) as 
an alternative to the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS), EPA finds that there is no justification for now allowing the 
use of parametric monitoring of the ESP. Therefore, unless U.S. Sugar 
can demonstrate that a PM CEMS is not a viable alternative to a COMS, 
EPA does not approve the request to use parametric monitoring, which is 
a less accurate and reliable alternative.

Abstract for [0800018]

    Q: Does EPA approve changes to monitoring and operational 
requirements for the landfill operated by Environtech in Morris, 
Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Conditional. EPA finds that it needs to approve alternatives to 
monitoring and operational requirements that are part of the design 
plan, and EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS)needs to approve such alternative test methods. However, the 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has the authority to 
approve non-monitoring, non-operational changes to the design plan. EPA 
refers to several previous determinations on the Applicability 
Determination Index (ADI) with ADI Control Numbers 03000120, 0400033, 
0600062, 0600063, and M040028, and the modifications of September 21, 
2006, to 40 CFR part 60 (71 FR 55127) in addressing many specific 
requests.

Abstract for [0800019]

    Q: Does EPA approve changes to monitoring and operational 
requirements for the landfill operated by LandComp in Ottawa, Illinois, 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Conditional. EPA finds that it needs to approve alternatives to 
monitoring and operational requirements that are part of the design 
plan, and EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 
specifically within EPA needs to approve alternative test methods. 
However, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (``IEPA'') has 
the authority to approve non-monitoring, non-operational changes to the 
design plan. EPA refers to a several previous applicability 
determinations on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) with ADI 
Control Numbers 03000120, 0400033, 0600062, 0600063, and M040028, and 
the modifications of September 21, 2006, to part 60 (71 Federal 
Register 55127) in addressing many specific requests.

Abstract for [0800020]

    Q: Does EPA approve changes to monitoring and operational 
requirements for the landfill operated by Lee County in Dixon, 
Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Conditional. EPA finds that it needs to approve alternatives to 
monitoring and operational requirements that are part of the design 
plan, and EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 
needs to approve alternative test methods. However, IEPA has the 
authority to approve non-monitoring, non-operational changes to the 
design plan. EPA refers to several previous applicability 
determinations on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) with ADI 
Control Numbers 03000120, 0400033, 0600062, 0600063, and M040028, and 
the modifications of September 21, 2006, to part 60 (71 FR 55127) in 
addressing many specific requests.

Abstract for [0800021]

    Q: Does EPA allow the gas-fired process heater (new 77F-1) 
installed at the Marathon Ashland Petroleum refinery (Marathon) in 
Robinson, Illinois, to be exempt from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja, given 
that the heater was purchased in 2001 but never installed?
    A: No. Given the six-year gap since the purchase of the heater and 
its incomplete fabrication, and given further that Marathon has not 
started the bidding process to ship and install the process heater, EPA 
finds that Marathon has not undertaken a continuous program of 
construction and has not ``commenced construction'' of an ``affected 
facility'' on or prior to May 14, 2007. Thus, when the heater is 
constructed at the refinery and upon the effective date of NSPS subpart 
Ja, the heater will be subject to NSPS subpart Ja.

Abstract for [0800022 & 0800023]

    Q: Does EPA allow the Milam Recycling and Disposal facility (Milam) 
in East Street Louis, Illinois, to obtain a higher operating 
temperature for landfill gas extraction wells MW 39 and MW58 under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. The NSPS requires that each interior wellhead in the 
collection system operate with a landfill gas temperature less than 131 
degrees Fahrenheit. The facility may request a higher operating 
temperature under NSPS subpart WWW if supporting data demonstrate that 
the elevated temperature does not cause fires or inhibit anaerobic 
decomposition by killing methanogens. As Milam has

[[Page 80398]]

submitted such data, EPA approves a higher operating temperature of 140 
degrees Fahrenheit for well MW39 and MW58.

Abstract for [0800024]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative timeline, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, to correct oxygen exceedances at leachate cleanout riser 
LCO-02A at the Veolia Orchard Hills Landfill in Davis Junction, 
Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative timeline under NSPS subpart 
WWW. Veolia Orchard Hills Landfill may have until 45 days of the 
initial exceedance to correct the oxygen exceedances.

Abstract for [0800025]

    Q: Does EPA allow the Owens-Brockway Glass Container facility in 
Lapel, Indiana, to measure the bridgewall optical temperature (BWOT), 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, three times per shift instead of 
installing and operating a continuous opacity monitor on its Furnace 
Number 32?
    A: No. NSPS subpart CC requires that continuous parameter 
monitoring systems complete a minimum cycle of operation (sampling, 
analyzing and data recording) every 15 minutes. EPA determines that if 
the BWOT cannot be measured continuously, then it is not an appropriate 
alternative monitoring parameter to opacity, and the facility should 
install a COM.

Abstract for [0800026]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative timeline under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, to correct oxygen exceedances at Veolia's Valley View 
Landfill in Decatur, Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an extension of up to 53 days from the date of 
the initial exceedance to bring wells 19R and 26R into compliance with 
the oxygen concentration standard under NSPS subpart WWW.

Abstract for [0800027]

    Q1: Does EPA consider indirect-fired dryers used in the ethanol 
industry subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db or Dc?
    A1: EPA finds that both NSPS subparts Db and Dc apply to indirect-
fired dryers as they use the process of drying in a closed steam loop 
system with an integrated thermal oxidizer to transfer heat across a 
physical barrier. In the indirect heating method being used, they meet 
the definition of a steam generating unit under 40 CFR 60.41b and 
60.41c.

Abstract for [0800028]

    Q1: Does EPA considered any of the material used as a feedstock on 
the Spherical Catalyst Manufacturing (SCM) Line 1 at UOP's Shreveport, 
Louisiana, plant, a ``mineral'' as term is used in the definition of 
``mineral processing plant,'' under NSPS subpart UUU?
    A1: No. EPA finds that none of the feed materials used on SCM Line 
1 (pure aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and/or aluminum hydroxychloride 
solution) is a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in the definition of 
``mineral processing plant,'' under at 40 CFR 60.731.
    Q2: Does synthetic alumina produced on the Spherical Catalyst 
Manufacturing (SCM) Line 1 at UOP's Shreveport, Louisiana, plant, using 
a combination of pure aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and/or aluminum 
hydroxychloride solution, meet the definition of a ``mineral,'' as the 
term is used in NSPS CFR subpart UUU in the definition of the affected 
facility: each calciner and dryer at a ``mineral processing plant,'' 
located in NSPS subpart UUU at 40 CFR 60.730?
    A2: No. EPA finds that the synthetic alumina produced on SCM Line 1 
does not meet the definition of ``mineral.''
    Q3: Is SCM Line 1, located at UOP's Shreveport, Louisiana, plant, 
processing a ``mineral,'' as the term is used in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart UUU, or 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 part 60, subpart UUU?
    A3: No. EPA finds that SCM Line 1 cannot be subject to 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 [0800029]

    Q: Does EPA allow Louisville Gas and Electric (LG&E) to substitute 
particulate matter continuous emission monitoring systems (PM CEMS) for 
continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart D, on Units 3 and 4 at its Mill Creek Station in Louisville, 
Kentucky?
    A: Yes. Because EPA believes that PM CEMS will be superior to COMS 
for verifying compliance with the applicable particulate emission limit 
for Units 3 and 4, LG&E's alternative monitoring proposal under NSPS 
subpart D is approved, provided that a number of conditions outlined in 
the approval are met.

Abstract for [0800030]

    Q: Does EPA allow the Kentucky Utilities Company (KU) to substitute 
particulate matter continuous emission monitoring systems (PM CEMS) for 
continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart D, on Unit 3 at its Mill Ghent Station in Ghent, Kentucky?
    A: Yes. Because EPA believes that PM CEMS will be superior to COMS 
for verifying compliance with the applicable particulate emission limit 
under NSPS subpart D for Unit 3, EPA approves KU's alternative 
monitoring request, provided that a number of conditions outlined in 
the EPA response are met.

Abstract for [0800031]

    Q: Does the replacement of the gas turbine at the Bristol-Myers 
Squibb facility in New Brunswick, New Jersey, constitute reconstruction 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK?
    A: Conditional. For the purpose of NSPS subpart KKKK, EPA finds 
that the affected facility is not limited to the turbine itself. It is 
not clear from the submittal what the fixed capital cost of the new 
components is as compared to a similar entirely new facility. Costs 
outside of the affected facility, such as the building, air pollution 
control, testing, and monitoring equipment, site preparation, removal 
of the old turbine, and contingency costs should not be included.

Abstract for [0800032]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., visual, 
audible, or olfactory), as an alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts VV and VVa, to using EPA Method 21 for the identification of 
leaks from equipment in acetic acid service at the Eastman Chemical 
Company facility in Columbia, South Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed alternative is acceptable under 
NSPS subparts VV and VVa. Monitoring results provided by Eastman 
indicate that leaks from equipment in acetic acid service are more 
easily identified through sensory methods than by using Method 21 
because of the physical properties (high boiling point, high 
corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of acetic acid and the process 
conditions at the plant.

Abstract for [0800033]

    Q: May Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products) use the 
process monitor as the primary method to measure hydrogen sulfide 
(H2S) for two furnaces located within the ExxonMobil Joliet, 
Illinois, refinery, and eliminate the previously stipulated alternative 
monitoring plan (AMP) conditions that require random H2S 
grab sampling, under the New Source Performance

[[Page 80399]]

Standards for Petroleum Refineries, 40 CFR part 60, subpart J.
    A: No. EPA finds that the conditions of the AMP cannot be revised, 
because monitoring a process parameter is not a substitute for 
H2S grab sampling. Please refer to a previous EPA approved 
AMP available on the Applicability Determination Index (AD)) under ADI 
Control Number 0100037.

Abstract for [0800034]

    Q: Does EPA approve a boiler derate proposal , under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Dc, based on changes made to the natural gas-fired boiler 
at the facility located in Dearborn, Michigan?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this proposal under NSPS subpart Dc, as it 
will reduce the capacity of the boiler and will comply with EPA's 
policy on derates.

Abstract for [0800035]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative compliance timeline under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart WWW, to correct a pressure exceedance at the 
Livingston Landfill, Well GW10, located in Pontiac, Illinois?
    A: No. On November 20, 2007, the GW10 well at Livingston Landfill 
showed a positive pressure reading. On December 3, 2007, Livingston 
requested an extension to bring the well into compliance. However, 
according to a phone conversation between EPA and Cornerstone 
Environmental Group on January 4, 2008, the well had achieved 
compliance within 15 days of the initial exceedance. Therefore, EPA 
determines that an alternative compliance timeline was not required.

Abstract for [0800036]

    Q: Does EPA concur with Michigan Consolidated Gas Company 
(MichCon), a solely owned subsidiary of DTE Energy LLC, that 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart KKK, does not apply to the recent expansion project of 
a propane refrigeration plant at MichCon's Belle River Mills facility?
    A: No. EPA determines that NSPS subpart KKK is applicable to the 
recent expansion project because the propane refrigeration system uses 
a process that extracts ``natural gas liquids.'' Thus, the facility 
meets the definition of a natural gas processing plant set forth in 40 
CFR 60.631.

Abstract for [0800037]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart UUU, to monitor the nozzle pressure of a Venturi 
scrubber instead of the pressure loss of the gas stream through the 
Venturi scrubber at 3M's Cottage Grove, Minnesota, facility?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the 3M Company has demonstrated that the 
nozzle pressure is a reasonable alternative under NSPS subpart UUU to 
the pressure loss of the gas stream through the Venturi scrubber.

Abstract for [0800038]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative timeline under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, to correct oxygen exceedances at Veolia Orchard Hills 
Landfill's Leachate Recirculation Line LRW-12, located in Davis 
Junction, Illinois?
    A. Yes. On February 14, 19, and 26, 2008, Veolia's leachate 
recirculation line, LRW-12, exceeded the 5 percent oxygen concentration 
standard. EPA approved an alternate timeline under NSPS subpart WWW for 
Veolia to correct the oxygen exceedances until May 14, 2008. EPA finds 
that if the oxygen standard cannot be met by May 14, 2008, the landfill 
will need to apply to have the well decommissioned. If Illinois EPA 
does not approve such decommissioning, and Veolia cannot achieve an 
oxygen concentration below 5 percent by May 14, 2008, then Veolia must 
have the gas collection system expanded by 120 days of the initial 
exceedance.

Abstract for [0800039]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative timeline under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, for Roxana Landfill, in Roxana, Illinois, to correct 
positive pressure at the wells number 6, 7, 8, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 38, 
39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46 wells?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Roxana's proposed alternative timeline under 
NSPS subpart WWW. However, if Roxana cannot measure and achieve 
negative pressure without excess air infiltration at the wells number 
6, 7, 8, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46 by 
the alternative compliance date, Roxana must expand the gas collection 
system within 120 days of the initial exceedances.

Abstract for [0800040]

    Q: Does EPA approve alternative operational standards and 
procedures under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, for oxygen/pressure for 
six low gas producing wells at Veolia Environmental Services' Zion 
Landfill in Zion, Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA approves adjusted standards and procedures under NSPS 
subpart WWW for oxygen and pressure for low gas producing extraction 
points where gas flows are so low that applying even minimal vacuum 
results in exceedances of the applicable oxygen concentration limit and 
the persistent oxygen/pressure exceedances are not due to operational 
or maintenance issues. Instead of decommissioning or permanently 
disconnecting such extraction locations, which would result in no gas 
control, it is better to keep operating them and allow the locations to 
remain shut off, under positive pressure, with monthly monitoring and 
periodic adjustment to vacuum to remove accumulated landfill gas.

Abstract for [0800041]

    Q1: Do the process and alcohol day tanks at Archer Daniels 
Midland's (ADM) dry mill ethanol production facility at its existing 
corn wet mill in Columbus, Nebraska, meet the process tank definition 
which exempts them from the control requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that these tanks are used within the process, 
are process tanks, and are not considered storage vessels subject to 
NSPS subpart Kb
    Q2: Is the alcohol QC tank also a process tank and not a storage 
vessel under NSPS subpart Kb?
    A2: No. EPA finds that this tank does not engage in the type of 
unit operations or other functions described for process tanks, and is 
outside of the process. The sampling performed at the tank does not 
qualify this tank as a process tank. It is subject to NSPS subpart Kb 
as a storage vessel.
    Q3: Is the alcohol reclaim tank a process tank and not a storage 
vessel under NSPS subpart Kb?
    A3: No. EPA finds that this tank serves as a feed vessel for 
reintroduction of material back into the process. It is not within the 
process, and is a storage vessel subject to NSPS subpart Kb.

Abstract for [0800042]

    Q: Does EPA rescind two determinations posted to the Applicability 
Determination Index (ADI) with ADI Control Numbers 0400015 and 0500014 
regarding modification of storage tanks due to storage of gasoline 
under 40 CFR part 60, concerning which the American Petroleum Institute 
(API) believes the sources are exempt?
    A: No. EPA finds that the facilities at issue are not facilities 
owned or operated by API, and reconsideration of one of the 
determinations has already been requested by the source owner/operator 
and is being addressed by the Agency.

Abstract for [0800043]

    Q: For Missouri River Energy Services' (MRES) facility in Audubon, 
Iowa, does EPA consider the manufacturer the original owner or operator 
of a stationary gas turbine

[[Page 80400]]

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK?
    A: Conditional. EPA finds that it depends on whether the entire 
affected facility was completely manufactured and fabricated by the 
manufacturer and purchased in completed form. In the analysis of this 
specific case, EPA determined that the turbine manufacturer was the 
original owner or operator. However, it is not true as a general matter 
that manufacturers of gas turbines are always the original owners or 
operators.

Abstract for [0800044]

    Q1: Do physical changes to increase the coal feed rate to maintain 
generating capacity when switching coal type at NRG Energy's Indian 
River Generating Station in Millsboro, Delaware, constitute a 
modification of the boiler under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that physical changes to increase the coal feed 
rate would enable an increase in kg/hr emissions under NSPS subpart Da.
    Q2: If the dedicated steam turbines physically limit the amount of 
steam that may be generated, does this prevent the boiler from being 
modified?
    A2: No. EPA finds that applicability is determined based on the 
affected facility alone. Changes made to a downstream unit which is not 
part of the affected facility do not affect applicability of the 
boiler.

Abstract for [0800045]

    Q: Does EPA consider the pressure limitations on boilers at the NRG 
Energy Indian River Generating Station in Millsboro, Delaware, as a 
limiting factor in the source's ability to increase emissions due to a 
proposed increase in feed rate under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da?
    A: EPA believes the proposed changes could enable an increase in 
kg/hr emissions under NSPS subpart Da.

Abstract for [M080021]

    Q: Does EPA waive the applicability of 40 CFR 63.1511(e) for the 
aluminum shredder/baler at the Alcoa facility in Newburgh, Indiana, 
under MACT subpart RRR?
    A: No. EPA does not waive the applicability of 40 CFR 63.1511(e), 
including all monitoring and testing requirements, to the aluminum 
shredder/baler. EPA does not believe the performance testing proposed 
by Alcoa provides sufficient evidence for the waiver because one test 
is insufficient.

Abstract for [M080022]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request for the 
Cognis facility in Kankakee, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
NNNNN? The facility requests approval to remove scrubber effluent pH as 
one of the monitoring parameters for a water scrubber/mist eliminator.
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan requested by 
Cognis under MACT subpart NNNNN. Cognis's water scrubber is a ``once 
through'' scrubber system, and the scrubber always has enough 
absorptive capacity for the CHI, regardless of the pH.

Abstract for [M080023]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request from Allied Metal Company (Allied), 
located in Chicago, Illinois, to begin operation of a thermal chip 
dryer, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A: Conditional. EPA approves Allied's request under MACT subpart 
RRR, but only if Allied operates the thermal chip dryer and all 
associated emission control equipment for performance test preparation 
beginning in January 2007. All performance testing must be completed by 
March 1, 2007. If Allied cannot follow this schedule, Allied must cease 
operating the thermal chip dryer and notify EPA.

Abstract for [M080024]

    Q: How does EPA find that the delisting of 2-butoxyethanol from the 
list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) affects the Hydrite Chemical 
Company (Hydrite) in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
KKKK? The facility had obtained permits to limit the potential-to-emit 
of HAPs to less than 25 tons of all combined HAPs and less than ten 
tons of any individual HAP.
    A: EPA finds that if the permit limits for Hydrite were federally 
enforceable before the first major compliance date for existing 
sources, which is November 13, 2006, the facility would be considered a 
minor source for purposes of MACT subpart KKKK applicability. If the 
facility is subject to a MACT standard for which the first major 
compliance date has passed, the facility remains subject to that 
standard, regardless of any reduction in potential emissions which may 
result from no longer using the delisted HAP.

Abstract for [M080025]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring procedures at the 
Flint Hills Resource's Joliet Facility (Joliet) in Joliet, Illinois, 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G? The facility has requested to reroute 
the emissions from a vent header system to a vent condenser followed by 
a carbon adsorber system for the maleic anhydride (MAN) process. 
Instead of regenerating the carbon adsorbers on site, FHR planned to 
send the spent canisters off site.
    A: Yes. Joliet's June 20, 2006, request amended the original 
request dated October 3, 2005, stating that the carbon canister system 
would contain 4 parallel trains with two carbon canisters in series, in 
addition to other details sufficient for EPA's approval. (See ADI 
Control Number M080026.) Thus, per the amendments in the June 20, 2006, 
request, EPA approves the revised alternative monitoring plan pursuant 
to 40 CFR 63.151(f).

Abstract for [M080026]

    Q: May Flint Hills Resource, LP, at its Joliet Facility in Joliet, 
Illinois, re-route the emissions from a vent header system to a vent 
condenser followed by a carbon adsorber system for the maleic anhydride 
(MAN) process and send the spent canisters off site, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart G?
    A: No. EPA finds that this monitoring method is insufficient for 
demonstrating continuous compliance. Additionally, there is no proposed 
backup system for the ``channel'' analyzer in between the carbon 
canisters in each canister train. Finally, it is unclear exactly how 
many carbon canisters will be included in the proposed carbon adsorber 
system.

Abstract for [M080027]

    Q: Does EPA waive the dioxin/furan (D/F) performance testing on 
Furnaces 2 and 6 of Jupiter Aluminum Corporation (Jupiter) in Hammond, 
Indiana, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR? Jupiter has provided the 
baghouse inlet and outlet temperatures for both furnaces. The inlet and 
outlet temperatures for the baghouses on Furnaces 2 and 6 are below 130 
degrees F, the D/F formation temperature.
    A: Based on the information submitted, EPA waives Jupiter's 
requirement to test Furnace 2 for D/F. However, EPA believes for 
Furnace 6, a hole may have been in the ductwork during the testing on 
the old baghouse, and Jupiter has not repaired the hole. Therefore, at 
this time, EPA does not waive the requirement to test Furnace 6 for D/
F. (See also ADI Control Number M080028.)

Abstract for [M080028]

    Q1: Does EPA waive the dioxin/furan (D/F) performance testing on 
Furnaces 2 and 6 of Jupiter Aluminum Corporation (Jupiter) in Hammond, 
Indiana, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A1: No. EPA is clarifying that the D/F test waiver provided to 
Jupiter for

[[Page 80401]]

Furnace 2 by letter dated December 19, 2005, is rescinded. (See ADI 
Control Number M080027.) Until Jupiter conducts performance testing 
that demonstrates compliance with 40 CFR 63.1515(i), EPA considers 
Jupiter to be in continuous noncompliance which may result in civil 
penalties under the Clean Air Act. As previously stated in EPA's letter 
to Jupiter dated October 10, 2006, EPA views any previous testing 
Jupiter conducted on Furnaces 2 and 6 as unreliable and unacceptable.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the current method Jupiter uses of weighing 
the final end product instead of weighing the scrap charged in each 
furnace under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve the current method of weighing the 
final end product. Jupiter must propose a weighing plan that records 
the weight of scrap charged in each furnace.
    Q3: Does EPA approve the intermittent lime injection schedule used 
by Jupiter under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A3: No. EPA is clarifying that since Jupiter has not demonstrated 
compliance with the emission limits in NESHAP subpart RRR through the 
required compliance testing, EPA has not approved the intermittent lime 
injection schedule used by Jupiter.

Abstract for [M080029]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of the presence of a pilot flame as an 
alternative monitoring parameter (AMP), even without the use of assist 
gas in the flare, at the Murphy Oil USA, Incorporated refinery located 
in Superior, Wisconsin, which operates a gasoline loading rack subject 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart R and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC?
    A: No. EPA determines that the data presented by Murphy does not 
adequately assure continuous compliance sufficiently to allow for pilot 
presence to be used in lieu of control device temperature. The method 
that Murphy plans to use to demonstrate continuous compliance was not 
used during the performance test, and we are unable to determine if 
such AMP is appropriate. In a previous determination, EPA discussed a 
proposed alternative monitoring program for a thermal oxidizer system, 
including the importance of flame stability. (See ADI Control number 
M000002 dated 10/05/1998.)

Abstract for [M080030] Deleted Abstract

Abstract for [M080031]

    Q: Nucor Sheet Mill Group of Crawfordsville, Indiana, operates 
annealing furnaces, each consisting of thirty (30) individual burners 
and U-tubes. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, does EPA consider 
this as a whole a ``process heater,'' or does it consider each 
individual U-tube burner, each exhausting through an individual stack 
to the atmosphere, itself a ``process heater''?
    A: EPA finds that the entire annealing furnace, with all 30 U-tubes 
and burners, is considered a single ``process heater'' with respect to 
this rule. EPA understands that each U-tube in a furnace cannot operate 
individually, because in order for the steel to be heated evenly, all 
three main zones must be used when operating.

Abstract for [M080034]

    Q: Does EPA approve the waiver request from United States Steel in 
Granite City, Illinois, to test particulate emissions from two argon 
stir stations under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the justification for a waiver provided by 
United States Steel under MACT subpart FFFFF adequately demonstrates 
the impracticability of testing the same baghouse again during 
operation of only the argon stir stations, and EPA determines that it 
is within United States Environmental Protection Agency guidance 
regarding the granting of such waivers.

Abstract for [M080035]

    Q: Does EPA find that a performance test can be used to demonstrate 
compliance with the Paper and Other Web Coating MACT under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart JJJJ, at the Rollprint Packaging Products, Inc. (Rollprint) 
facility in Addison, Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the testing demonstrates compliance with the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.3320(1).

Abstract for [Z080004]

    Q: Does EPA find that the Mercury NESHAP, under 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart E, applies to the sludge dryer within a wastewater pretreatment 
facility at the Chem-Plate Industries facility, located in Elk Grove 
Village, Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the Mercury NESHAP applies to all sludge 
treatment processes, regardless of process location. The provision does 
not provide for any special circumstances, such as the size of the 
waste treatment plant of likelihood of mercury in the effluent.

Abstract for [0800046]

    Q: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated receives barley by ship at its 
Manitowoc, Wisconsin, malting facility and unloads it by a self-
unloading leg that dumps the barley into a hopper controlled by a 
flexible transition boot covering the end of the ship's self-unloading 
conveyor and the malt plant's grain receiving hopper. Does EPA consider 
this adequate control for particulate emissions under 40 CFR part 60 
subpart DD?
    A: No. EPA considers the entire self-unloading leg to be subject to 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart DD. EPA finds that a 
flexible transition boot will adequately control particulate emissions 
from the end of the self-unloading leg and the grain receiving hopper 
at least as well as the requirements listed in 40 CFR 60.302(d)(1) and 
(d)(2). However, the flexible transition boot does not control 
emissions from the portion of the self-unloading leg that the boot does 
not cover.

Abstract for [0800047]

    Q: Does EPA approve a gas treatment exemption for the Beecher 
Energy LLC (Beecher) facility located in Beecher, Illinois, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart WWW? Beecher uses landfill gas as a fuel to power 
internal combustion engines for electricity generators.
    A: EPA finds that pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii), collected 
landfill gas is required to be routed to a control system that complies 
with the requirements in either an open flare or a control system or 
enclosed combustor designed to reduce nonmethane organic compounds 
(NMOC), or a treatment system that processes the collected gas for 
subsequent sale or use. The landfill gas applicable to Beecher has been 
treated for sale or use. Once the landfill gas is treated, such 
facilities that buy or use the gas have no further associated 
obligations in regards to the NSPS subpart WWW.

Abstract for [0800048]

    Q: British Petroleum Whiting Business Unit (BP) requests a review 
of an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to the New Source Performance 
Standards for Petroleum Refineries at 40 CFR part 60, subpart J for its 
Beavon Stretford Tail Gas Treatment unit. May BP mathematically 
calculate the expected sulfur dioxide (SO2) concentration 
using the existing TRS measurements and equation 15-2 in Method 15 
rather than physically converting the total reduced sulfur (TRS) 
compounds and then measuring the SO2 with a continuous 
emissions monitor (CEM) following Method 15A as specified in 40 CFR 
part 60, Appendix A?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this change because this monitoring method is

[[Page 80402]]

consistent with the provisions of NSPS, subpart J. The SO2 
concentration calculated above must comply with the 250 parts per 
million limit established in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(7)(ii).

Abstract for [0800049]

    Q: May British Petroleum Products North America, Incorporated 
(British), Whiting Business Unit in Whiting, Indiana, use fourteen 
hydrogen sulfide grab samples of loading rack emissions in lieu of 
installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEM) as is required 
by 40 CFR part 60, subpart J (NSPS subpart J) for a vapor combustion 
unit (VCU)?
    A: Yes. Based upon the information provided by British, EPA 
approves this alternative monitoring plan for the VCU pursuant to NSPS 
subpart J.
    Abstract for [0800050]
    Q: May British Petroleum Products North America, Incorporated 
(British), Whiting Business Unit in Whiting, Indiana, use seven 
hydrogen sulfide grab samples of loading rack emissions in lieu of 
installing a continuous emission monitoring system as is required by 40 
CFR part 60, subpart J for a vapor combustion unit (VCU)?
    A: No. British has not provided sufficient information to allow EPA 
to make a determination. British needs to provide additional 
information including: (1) An explanation of the conditions that 
ensures low amounts of sulfur in the gas stream at all times; (2) two 
weeks of additional daily H2S monitoring (14 samples); and (3) a 
description of how the two weeks of monitoring results compare to the 
typical range of H2S concentration (fuel quality) expected for the gas 
stream/system going to the affected fuel gas device.

Abstract for [0800051]

    Q: Does EPA waive the mercury testing requirement under the 
National Emissions Standards for Mercury at 40 CFR 61.53 for BP 
Products North America, Inc. (BP) units in Indiana, since BP has 
demonstrated compliance with the mercury limits under the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste 
Combustors (HWC MACT)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves BP's request to use the HWC MACT testing to 
demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standards for Mercury 
since the mercury emissions are well below the standard in the 
regulations.

Abstract for [0800052]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for 40 CFR part 
60, subpart UUU requirements at the Criterion Catalysts & Technologies 
(Criterion) facility in Michigan City, Indiana? Criterion requests 
approval to continuously monitor the gas flow rate entering or exiting 
the wet scrubber in lieu of continuously monitoring the gas phase 
pressure drop across the scrubber.
    A: Yes, conditionally. EPA concurs that the gas phase pressure drop 
is not an appropriate continuous monitoring parameter for a wet 
scrubber that does not use a Venturi design for particulate matter 
emission control. Pursuant to NSPS subpart UUU, EPA approves this 
alternative monitoring plan subject to the conditions specified in 
EPA's response letter to Criterion on September 6, 2007.

Abstract for [0800053]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative timeline for well 49 at Davis 
Junction Landfill in Davis Junction, Illinois, to correct an exceedance 
of the five percent oxygen concentration standard under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Davis Junction's alternative 
timeline under NSPS subpart WWW. If Davis Junction cannot achieve an 
oxygen concentration below 5 percent by July 1, 2006, Davis Junction 
must expand the gas collection system within 120 days of the initial 
measurement of the exceedance, April 5, 2006.

Abstract for [0800054]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative timeline to correct exceedances 
at the BFI Waste Systems of North American Davis Junction Landfill, 
located in Davis Junction, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Davis Junction Landfill's 
alternative timeline under NSPS subpart WWW. However, if Davis Junction 
Landfill cannot achieve an oxygen concentration below five percent by 
September 1, 2007, the gas collection system must be expanded within 
120 days of the initial exceedance.

Abstract for [0800055]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for the 
ExxonMobil (Exxon) facility in Joliet, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J? Exxon requests to continue the continuous monitoring of the 
Refinery Fuel Gas Mix Drum stream, and monitor an alternate parameter 
for the disulfide vent stream.
    A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request under NSPS 
subpart J. Exxon will continue to continuously monitor the refinery 
fuel gas mix drum stream and will monitor at least three times per week 
the weight percent of the spent wash for the Caustic Wash Drums as the 
alternative parameter in accordance with the AMP enclose with EPA's 
response.

Abstract for [0800056]

    Q: Does EPA find the ALLU unit associated with the preparatory 
processes leading to gypsum stucco production, at the GP-Gypsum 
Corporation (GP) facility in Wheatfield, Indiana, is not subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart OOO?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the ALLU unit is not subject to NSPS subpart 
OOO provisions. The ALLU unit is not part of the actual nonmetallic 
mineral production line and it does not function as a crusher, 
screener, or grinder; thus is not an affected facility subject to 
subpart OOO.

Abstract for [0800057]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative compliance timeline to correct 
exeedances under CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Landcomp Corporation 
Landfill (Landcomp), located in Ottawa, Illinois?
    A: No. EPA does not approve of Landcomp's request under NSPS 
subpart WWW. EPA does grant alternative compliance timelines to correct 
exceedances, but such requests need to be made within 15 days of the 
initial exceedance when the landfill determines that the exceedance 
cannot be corrected.

Abstract for [0800058]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline request from American 
Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.'s Livingston Landfill (Livingston 
Landfill), located in Pontiac, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative timeline under 
NSPS subpart WWW from Livingston's Well GW51R until December 6, 2007, 
to correct the August 8, 2007, positive pressure. If Livingston 
Landfill cannot achieve negative pressure at Well GW5IR by December 6, 
2007, then Livingston Landfill must expand the gas collection system 
within 120 days of the initial exceedance, August 8, 2007.

Abstract for [0800059]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline request from American 
Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.'s Livingston Landfill (Livingston 
Landfill), located in Pontiac, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative timeline under 
NSPS subpart WWW from Livingston's Well

[[Page 80403]]

GW90 until October 5, 2007, to correct the July 12, 2007, positive 
pressure. If Livingston Landfill cannot achieve negative pressure at 
Well GW90 by October 5, 2007, then Livingston Landfill must expand the 
gas collection system within 120 days of the initial exceedance, July 
12, 2007.

Abstract for [0800060]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline request from American 
Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.'s Livingston Landfill (Livingston 
Landfill), located in Pontiac, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A: No. EPA does not approve Livingston Landfill's request for an 
alternative compliance timeline as of July 31, 2007, under NSPS subpart 
WWW. Although EPA does grant alternative compliance timelines to 
correct exceedances, these requests need to be made within 15 days of 
the initial exceedance when the landfill determines that the exceedance 
cannot be corrected.

Abstract for [0800061]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline request from American 
Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.'s Livingston Landfill (Livingston 
Landfill), located in Pontiac, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A: No. EPA does not approve of Livingston Landfill's request for an 
alternative compliance timeline of May 30, 2007 under NSPS subpart WWW. 
Although EPA does grant alternative compliance timelines to correct 
exceedances, these requests need to be made within 15 days of the 
initial exceedance when the landfill determines that the exceedance 
cannot be corrected.

Abstract for [0800062]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request for alternative temperatures at Waste 
Management's Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility (Milam) located in 
East St. Louis, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at 
wellheads MW48, MW49, MW50, MW51, MW55, MW56, and MW57?
    A: Yes, on an interim basis. Milam needs to provide EPA with data 
that demonstrate that the increased temperature at the specific wells 
will not cause detrimental results, before it can provide final 
approval. EPA will allow Milam, in the interim, to operate wells MW48, 
MW49, MW50, MW51, MW55, MW56, and MW57 at the alternative temperature 
140 degrees Fahrenheit and require Milam to report at least three (3) 
months worth of data, demonstrating that the increased temperature does 
not cause subsurface fires or affect levels of carbon monoxide, oxygen, 
or other landfill gas constituents, including the methanogenic process.

Abstract for [0800063]

    Q: Waste Management's Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility (Milam) 
located in East St. Louis, Illinois, is subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW (NSPS). Does EPA approve an alternative temperature of 140 
degrees Fahrenheit at wellheads numbers MW10, MW11, MW19, MW23, MW24, 
MW27, MW29, MW31, MW32, MW38, MW43, MW47, MW48, MW49, MW50, MW51, MW55, 
MW56, MW57, and MW53?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that Milam has demonstrated that the higher 
operating temperatures do not cause subsurface oxidation. Therefore, 
EPA approves the higher operating temperature of 140 degrees Fahrenheit 
at the wells. Refer also to Abstract ADI Control No. 0800062.

Abstract for [0800064]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline request to correct 
exceedances of the five percent oxygen concentration at the Onyx-Valley 
View Landfill (Onyx), which is located in Decatur, Illinois, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart WWW? Onyx is specifically requesting an extension 
of 30 days to reduce the oxygen concentration levels below 5 percent.
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Onyx's alternative timeline of 
30 days under NSPS subpart WWW. If Onyx cannot achieve an oxygen 
concentration below 5 percent within 30 days, Onyx must expand the gas 
collection system within 120 days of the initial measurement of the 
exceedance.

Abstract for [0800065]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the proposal from the Veolia Environmental 
Services (VES) Orchard Hills Landfill located in Davis Junction, 
Illinois, to reduce the surface monitoring frequency in capped areas of 
the landfill to an annual basis, once three consecutive quarters 
without a monitored exceedance of the operational standard has been 
demonstrated in these capped areas, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A1: No. EPA finds that the reduced monitoring provision of NSPS 
does not apply under NSPS subpart WWW. VES-Orchard Hills Landfill must 
continue to conduct surface monitoring each quarter on areas with cover 
in place.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the proposal from the Veolia Environmental 
Services (VES) Orchard Hills Landfill located in Davis Junction, 
Illinois, to widen the spacing between intervals from 30 meters to 60 
meters in areas that have had or will have synthetic geomembrane-final 
cover installed after three consecutive quarters of surface emissions 
monitoring compliance has been met, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves VES-Orchard's proposal. VES-
Orchard's can adopt the 60 meters-spacing under NSPS subpart WWW, but 
only after data collected from three quarterly monitoring events 
demonstrate that such widening is appropriate and there is no 
exceedances.
    Q3: Could EPA clarify for the Veolia Environmental Services (VES) 
Orchard Hills Landfill located in Davis Junction, Illinois, whether gas 
collection and control system connections to leachate management 
structures or to interim landfill gas collectors in areas of the 
landfill, which are not yet required to have controls, are subject to 
the monitoring and operating requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW?
    A3: No. EPA finds that if the landfill is not required to install 
the gas collection and control system under NSPS subpart WWW, then it 
is not required to monitor or operate that system.

Abstract for [0800066]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline to correct exceedances 
at the Allied Waste Industries, inc. Quad Cities Landfill (Quad Cities) 
located in Milan, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA approves of Quad Cities' alternative timeline under 
NSPS subpart WWW. However, if Quad Cities cannot achieve an oxygen 
concentration below 5 percent by June 30, 2007, Quad Cities must expand 
the gas collection system within 120 days of the initial exceedance.

Abstract for [0800067]

    Q: Quad Cities Landfill (Quad Cities) located in Milan, Illinois, 
is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Does EPA approve its request 
to extend the deadline until December 1, 2006, to correct an exceedance 
of the five percent oxygen concentration standard at one of its gas 
collection wells (Well 12)?
    A: No. EPA will give Quad Cities until November 2, 2006, which is 
120 days from the original measured exceedance, to bring the well into 
compliance. If Quad Cities cannot achieve an oxygen concentration below 
5 percent by November 2, 2006, Quad Cities must expand the gas 
collection system within

[[Page 80404]]

120 days of the initial measurement of the exceedance, July 5, 2006.

Abstract for [0800068]

    Q1: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60 subpart WWW, may BFI Waste Systems of 
North America, Inc., Quad Cities Landfill, Milan, Illinois, waive 
nitrogen monitoring at interior wellheads and monitor only oxygen?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves this request since the NSPS subpart WWW rule 
allows for a landfill to monitor either nitrogen or oxygen.
    Q2: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60 subpart WWW, may BFI Waste Systems of 
North America, Inc., Quad Cities Landfill, Milan, Illinois, meet all 
operating conditions 180 days after start-up of new wells?
    A2: No. EPA has reviewed this request further and still cannot 
approve this request.
    Q3: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60 subpart WWW, may BFI Waste Systems of 
North America, Inc., Quad Cities Landfill, Milan, Illinois, treat Quad 
Cities Landfill as a separate landfill from Millennium Waste Landfill 
to reduce the frequency of surface scan requirements?
    A3: No. EPA finds that the Quad Cities Landfill and the Millennium 
Waste Landfill are considered one landfill under the NSPS requirements.
    Q4: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60 subpart WWW, may BFI Waste Systems of 
North America, Inc., Quad Cities Landfill, Milan, Illinois, be exempt 
from the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for 
treated landfill gas?
    A4: Yes. EPA approved this request in the BFI Quad Cities treatment 
of landfill gas determination letter dated April 5, 2006. As a 
clarification, EPA approves the flare as part of the treatment system 
when it is combusting treated gas. If the flare is controlling 
emissions that are not treated, then it is subject to the requirements 
of 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii) (A) and (B).
    Q5: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60, subpart WWW, may BFI Waste Systems of 
North America, Inc., Quad Cities Landfill, Milan, Illinois, consider as 
approved the closure report BFI submitted?
    A5: No. EPA rejects the report, because Quad Cities Landfills and 
Millennium Landfill are considered one landfill under NSPS, and EPA 
requires the closure report to be submitted when the landfill, 
including Quad Cities and Millennium Landfills, ceases accepting wastes 
at the landfill, which has not yet occurred.
    Q6: Pursuant to 40 CFR 60, subpart WWW, may BFI Waste Systems of 
North America, Inc., Quad Cities Landfill, Milan, Illinois, be exempt 
from the testing requirement under CFR part 60 subpart WWW since the 
landfill gas is treated?
    A6: Yes. EPA approved this request in the BFI Quad Cities treatment 
of landfill gas determination letter dated April 5, 2006. As a 
clarification, EPA approves the flare as part of the treatment system 
when it is combusting treated gas. If the flare is controlling 
emissions that are not treated, then it is subject to the requirements 
of 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii) (A) and (B).

Abstract for [0800069]

    Q1: Does EPA consider compression, de-watering, and filtering the 
landfill gas down to at least 10 microns a treatment under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart WWW, at the BFI Waste Systems of North America, 
Incorporated's Quad Cities Landfill (BFI) facility located in Milam, 
Illinois?
    A1: Yes. EPA considers compression, de-watering, and filtering the 
landfill gas down to at least ten microns a treatment for the purposes 
of 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). This response is consistent with 
several previous determinations made by the Agency and with the Federal 
Register Proposed Rule Amendments dated May 23, 2002.
    Q2: How does EPA clarify that once the landfill gas at the BFI 
facility is treated pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C), it is no 
longer subject to the testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping 
requirements found at 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B)?
    A2: The Federal Register Proposed Rule Amendments clarify that once 
the landfill gas is treated, the facilities that buy or use the gas 
have no further obligations related to the NSPS. Therefore, EPA finds 
that BFI would not be subject to the testing, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping requirements located at 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B). However, 
emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system, 
including any compressor, are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B). This does not include exhaust from an 
energy recovery device. This determination is consistent with previous 
EPA determinations. The Federal Register Proposed Rule Amendments from 
2002 are meant to be a clarification of the existing NSPS, not changes 
in the rule.

Abstract for [0800070]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request for an alternative timeline to 
correct exceedances at the Allied Waste Industries, Inc. Quad Cities 
Landfill (Quad Cities Landfill) located in Milan, Illinois, under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves an alternate timeline for Quad 
Cities Landfill to correct the oxygen exceedances at Well 12 but only 
until August 29, 2007 (not August 31, 2007 as Quad Cities Landfill 
requested). EPA will only approve an alternate timeline for correction 
of oxygen exceedances up to 120 days of the initial exceedance which in 
this case is August 29, 2007. If Quad Cities Landfill cannot achieve an 
oxygen concentration below 5 percent by August 29, 2007, then Quad 
Cities Landfill must have the gas collection system expanded by August 
29, 2007, which is 120 days of the initial exceedance, May 1, 2007.

Abstract for [0800071]

    Q: Does EPA approve Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America's 
request not to monitor the total sulfur content of the gaseous fuel 
combusted in the nine Solar Model Saturn and one Solar Model Taurus 
natural gas-fired turbines at its Compressor Station 113 in Shorewood, 
Illinois, as allowed by the revised Standards of Performance for 
Stationary Gas Turbines, 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA approves NGPL's request not to monitor the total sulfur 
content because NGPL provided a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) tariff sheet for the gaseous fuel, demonstrating that the 
``maximum total sulfur content of the fuel is less than 20.0 grains/100 
scf or less'' as required by 40 CFR 60.334(h)(3)(1). The State of 
Illinois is the delegated authority and maintains the right to 
implement more stringent requirements than those outlined above.

Abstract for [0800072]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request from Spoon Ridge Landfill in 
Fairview, Illinois, to return to Tier 1 nonmethane organic compound 
(NMOC) emission rate reporting requirements after the current Tier 2 
sampling and NMOC rate demonstration expires on April 23, 2012, under 
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? In lieu of conducting Tier 2 sampling in 
2012, Spoon Ridge would like approval to return to annual NMOC emission 
rate reporting in accordance with 40 CFR 60.752(b)(1)(ii) after 2012.
    A: Yes. EPA finds that Tier 2 sampling would be normally required 
by April 23, 2012, under NSPS subpart WWW. If Spoon Ridge does not 
conduct this Tier 2 sampling, then 2012 emission would be calculated 
using Tier 1 analysis.

[[Page 80405]]

Abstract for [0800073]

    Q: Does EPA consider that 40 CFR 60.283 applies to total reduced 
sulfur (TRS) emissions from digesters' condensate streams that are 
discharged to the waste water treatment system and released through a 
sewer stack for Thilmany, LLC's Kraft Pulp Mills in Kaukauna, 
Wisconsin, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB?
    A: No. EPA finds that the emission limits provided under 40 CFR 
60.283 do not apply to the condensate streams discharged from 
Thilmany's digesters. The background information documents (BID) for 
the Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS indicates that the intent of subpart BB was to 
regulate the TRS emissions in the non-condensable gases emitted from 
the digester systems and not the emissions caused by the dissolved TRS 
in the condensate streams. Furthermore, the NSPS does not show the 
sewer stack as being part of the affected facilities.

Abstract for [0800074]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request from United States Gypsum Company 
(USG), located in East Chicago, Indiana, to waive, under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart OOO, the minimum of 60 dry standard cubic feet (dscf) of 
sampling air collected per run at 40 CFR 60.675(b)(1), in addition to 
waiving the two minutes per point sampling requirement in Method 5?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves USG to carry out performance 
testing as described in the EPA response. This proposal suggested the 
sampling volume be scaled down to 30 dsfc, and that twelve points in 
the stack be sampled for a duration of two and a half minutes each 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO. USG must operate the shredder system 
at its maximum wallboard processing rate and comply with all other 
testing guidelines.

Abstract for [0800075]

    Q: Does EPA find that 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa, applies to Alton 
Steel, Inc.'s (Alton) Furnace No. 7 (furnace) as a result of a 
construction project at the facility?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that it is not necessary to determine whether the 
projects meets one of the modification exemptions set forth at 40 CFR 
60.14(e). NSPS subpart AAa applies to electric arc furnaces that are 
modified after August 17, 1983, and a modification is any physical or 
operational change which results in an increase in the emission rate to 
the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies.

Abstract for [0800076]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan requested by 
CITGO's Lemont Refinery for the continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) on the fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU), under 40 CFR part 
60, subpart J? CITGO entered into a Consent Decree in January 2005, 
which required the Lemont Refinery to install a wet gas scrubber (WGS) 
on the FCCU unit. CITGO maintains that the moisture in the exhaust from 
the WGS will interfere with the ability of the COMBS to take accurate 
readings.
    A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan for CITGO 
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i)(1). The specific points of the alternative 
monitoring plan are specified in EPA's response to CITGO on July 23, 
2007.

Abstract for [0800077]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline to correct exceedances 
at the Davis, Junction Landfill (Davis Junction), located in Davis 
Junction, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Davis Junction's alternative timeline under 
NSPS subpart WWW. If Davis Junction cannot achieve an oxygen 
concentration below five percent by June 1, 2007, the facility must 
expand the gas collection system within 120 days of the initial 
exceedance.

Abstract for [0800078]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline to correct exceedances 
at the Davis, Junction Landfill (Davis Junction), located in Davis 
Junction, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Davis Junction's alternative 
timeline under NSPS subpart WWW. If Davis Junction cannot achieve an 
oxygen concentration below five percent by June 1, 2007, the facility 
must expand the gas collection system within 120 days of the initial 
exceedance.

Abstract for [0800079]

    Q: Does EPA consider the landfill gas at the Devonshire Power 
partners, LLC (Devonshire) Landfill, located in Dolton, Illinois, 
subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements 
once treated per 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(c)?
    A: No. EPA finds that once landfill gas is treated pursuant to 40 
CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(c), that the gas is no longer subject to the 
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements found at 40 CFR 60.756(b) and 
60.758(b) and (c). The determination letter includes further compliance 
information.

Abstract for [0800080]

    Q: Does EPA find it acceptable to inject an excess of hydrogen 
peroxide (H2O2) into the wastewater stream as a 
means to control the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, 
instead of using a continuous monitoring system (CMS) on the 
infrequently operated North Benzene Removal Unit (NBRU), at the 
ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery, in Joliet, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the hydrogen peroxide injection and residual 
hydrogen peroxide meter are a sufficient replacement of the 
H2S CMS. However, EPA is not assured that 5 ppm 
H2O2 is an adequate limit to ensure compliance. 
EPA requires a preliminary value of at least 10 parts per million. Once 
ExxonMobil has submitted sufficient data to show that this limit can be 
lower, EPA will consider reducing the limit. EPA's May 2, 2007 response 
letter contains further details.

Abstract for [0800081]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan for propane 
vapor from a vent gas absorber (VGA), requested by the ExxonMobil 
Joliet Refinery, located in Joliet, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J? ExxonMobil's proposal is to remove the car seal and allow 
vent gas from the VGA to be routed either to the alkylation unit's 
isostripper reboiler heater, or to a flare.
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring plan 
under NSPS subpart J. However, the Joliet facility is required to 
conduct a monitoring schedule per the conditions detailed in EPA's 
April 26, 2008 response letter.

Abstract for [0800082]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring plan (AMP) submitted 
by ExxonMobil's Joliet Refinery, located in Joliet, Illinois, for 
demonstrating compliance with the opacity limit under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart J? The Joliet Refinery currently operates a continuous 
monitoring system (COMS) to demonstrate compliance.
    A: Conditional. EPA approves alternative monitoring pursuant to 40 
CFR part NSPS, subpart J, given five conditions are met, as outlined in 
the Agency's response to ExxonMobil on February 5, 2007.

Abstract for [0800083]

    Q: Does EPA find that 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, applies to a 
grain terminal

[[Page 80406]]

elevator when co-located with other facilities, as described per the 
request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the applicability of NSPS subpart DD to a 
grain terminal elevator would not be impacted by entering into a 
contractual agreement with an ethanol plant. In respect to NSPS subpart 
DD, EPA outlined several issues regarding ownership and facilities with 
multiple products, as described in the EPA response letter of April 12, 
2007.

Abstract for [0800084]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request from the United States Gypsum 
Company (USG), for an alternative method for fulfilling the testing 
requirements at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO? Specifically, USG requests 
that Method 9 visible emission readings be utilized as an alternative 
method of fulfilling the test methods and procedures for determining 
compliance with the particulate matter standards.
    A: No. EPA denies USG's request under NSPS subpart OOO. EPA will 
allow USG to reduce the time of each of the three test runs to thirty 
minutes as an alternative performance testing arrangement to fulfill 
the testing requirements of NSPS subpart OOO. USG must operate the 
shredder system at its maximum wallboard processing rate and comply 
with all other testing guidelines required.

Abstract for [0800085]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative timeline request from the 
Valley View Landfill (Valley View), located in Decatur, Illinois, to 
correct an exceedance under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Valley View's alternative 
timeline under NSPS subpart WWW. If Valley cannot achieve an oxygen 
concentration below five percent by October 7, 2006, Valley View must 
expand the gas collection system within 120 days of the initial 
measurement of the exceedance.

Abstract for [0800086]

    Q: Does EPA approve the change in standard operating procedures for 
Wells GEW-14, GEW-16, and GEW-28 at the Veolia Orchard Hills Landfill 
(VOHL), located in Davis Junction, Illinois, under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW? Specifically, VOHL requests a change involving oxygen 
concentration monitoring.
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves, in part, VOHL's request to 
change standard operating procedures for the specified Wells under NSPS 
subpart 60. VOHL must continue to monitor wells for pressure, oxygen, 
and temperature, as well as surface monitoring for methane. VOHL must 
perform all necessary actions to bring oxygen concentrations below the 
five percent threshold and report any exceedances. Specific changes to 
the standard operating procedures are listed in EPA's response letter 
dated March 28, 2007.

Abstract for [0800087]

    Q: Is a process that will collect hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur 
compounds and further process them to produce sulfuric acid at a 
synthetic natural gas plant at Power Holdings, LLC, in Illinois, 
subject to the New Source Performance Standards for Sulfuric Acid 
Plants at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that NSPS subpart H applies to Power Holdings 
because the plant will collect hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur 
compounds and further process them to produce sulfuric acid. Hydrogen 
sulfide will be burned. Furthermore, the plant would not be exempt from 
the rule because it is not a metallurgical plant, a chamber process 
plant, or an acid concentrator.

Abstract for [M080037]

    Q: Request for guidance on implementation and compliance monitoring 
of the capture, collection and ventilation requirements in the 
Secondary Aluminum MACT, subpart RRR.
    A: The Secondary Aluminum MACT adopts by reference Chapters 3 and 5 
of the Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd 
edition, published by the American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). As required by 40 CFR 63.1506(c) of 
subpart RRR, owners or operators of affected sources or emissions units 
with add-on air pollution control devices must: Design and install a 
system for the capture and collection of emissions to meet the 
engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates as published by the 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in chapters 3 
and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.''

Abstract for [M080036]

    Q: How can an owner or operator of a secondary aluminum production 
facility know that the scrap they are processing is ``entirely free of 
paints, coatings, and lubricants''?
    A: Knowledge of whether the scrap material being processed is 
``entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants'' can be gained 
through two methods. One method would be to maintain direct control of 
the scrap material being processed by processing scrap generated within 
the facility or from other facilities within the same company that the 
owner or operator knows has not been subjected to paints, coatings and 
lubricants or where they know paints, coatings and lubricants have been 
removed consistent with the definition of ``Clean charge.'' Similarly, 
the owner or operator also may process scrap from outside entities 
where they are familiar with the history of the scrap and, therefore, 
know that the scrap meets the definition of ``Clean charge.''

Abstract for [0800088]

    Q1. Is the addition of three vent streams from the Delayed Coker 
Unit (DCU) to the common flare header connecting three flares at the 
Shell's Puget Sound Refinery (PSR) facility (DCU Project) that occurred 
in 1983 considered a modification of the flare under the New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries, subpart J?
    A1. Yes. EPA has determined that the DCU Project resulted in a 
modification of the PSR flares triggering NSPS subpart J applicability. 
The physical change that was made upstream of the flares at a refinery 
process unit occurred after the effective date of the rule and it 
resulted in an operational change to the PSR flares since combusting 
gas streams not previously combusted in the flare is a change in how 
the flare operates. The operational change to the PSR flares resulted 
in an increase in the sulfur dioxide emissions rate to the atmosphere 
such that they were modified under the NSPS.
    Q2. Is the redesign and replacement of the flare tip, a physical 
change to the PSR East Flare facility made in 1990, considered a 
modification of the flare under the NSPS subpart J?
    A2. EPA agrees that if in fact the replacement of the PSR flare tip 
resulted in a decrease of its maximum capacity, the redesigned flare 
was not modified under the NSPS provisions and is not subject to NSPS 
subpart J. The change would decrease the kilograms per hour of hydrogen 
sulfide routed to the flare, resulting in an emissions decrease of 
sulfur dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

Abstract for [0800089]

    Q: Are the dryers at a bark burner system at a Louisiana-Pacific 
OSB facility in Thomasville, Alabama, ``process heaters'' and thereby 
excluded from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A: No. The definition of steam generating unit under NSPS subpart 
Db

[[Page 80407]]

excludes ``process heaters,'' which are defined as devices used 
primarily to heat a material to initiate or promote a chemical 
reaction. The primary purpose of heating wood flakes in the dryers is 
to dry them, rather than to invoke a chemical reaction either within 
the dryers or downstream of the dryers. Therefore, the dryers do not 
qualify for the process heater exclusion.

Abstract for [0800090]

    Q1: Does NSPS subpart J apply to the proposed Hyperion Energy 
Center (HEC) near Elk Point, South Dakota?
    A1: No. Subpart J applies to various affected facilities at 
petroleum refineries based on the date the affected facility commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification. Since the Hyperion 
Energy Center has not yet begun construction it is not subject to 
Subpart J. To be subject to subpart J, HEC's Claus sulfur recovery 
plant and fuel gas combustion devices would have had to begin 
construction on or before May 14, 2007, except for flares, which would 
have had to begin construction on or before June 24, 2008.
    Q2: Do the synthetic gas and pressure swing adsorption (PSA) tail 
gas to be produced at the integrated gasification combined cycle power 
plant gasification block at the proposed Hyperion Energy Center near 
Elk Point, South Dakota, constitute ``fuel gas'' under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Ja?
    A2: Yes. Because the synthetic gas and PSA tail gas will be 
generated at a petroleum refinery and combusted and meet the definition 
of ``fuel gas'' in 40 CFR 60.101a, therefore these are subject to NSPS 
subpart Ja. This definition is not restricted to gas produced by a 
refinery process unit, but even if it were, the gasification block will 
be a refinery process unit, because it is a segment of a refinery in 
which gasification, a specific processing operation, will be conducted.

Abstract for [Z080005]

    Q: Is a proposed integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 
power plant at the Hyperion Energy Center near Elk Point, South Dakota, 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC?
    A: Yes. Subpart CC applies to the IGCC system. The IGCC system is a 
``petroleum refining process unit'' because it will be located at an 
establishment primarily engaged in petroleum refining and because it 
produces hydrogen. Additionally, the IGCC system will be located at a 
plant site where: (1) The plant site is a major source of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs), and (2) the IGCC system emits or has equipment 
containing or contacting one or more of the HAPs listed in Table 1 of 
Subpart CC.

    Dated: December 23, 2008.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-31117 Filed 12-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P