[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36121-36129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15416]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9321-1]


Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) 
Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative 
Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to 
Standards Under the Clean Air Act

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 General Provisions to 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 [which includes Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) standards] and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
regulations contain no specific regulatory provision that sources may 
request applicability determinations, EPA responds to written inquiries 
regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs as 
well. 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, NESHAP, and 
stratospheric ozone regulations. 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 47 such documents added to 
the ADI on May 25, 2011. The subject 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 May 25, 2011; 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 April x, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Control number                    Categories                 Subparts                   Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M090044.............................  MACT....................  A, RRR..................  Alternate Operating
                                                                                           Scenarios for
                                                                                           Production Furnace
1000001.............................  NSPS....................  VVV.....................  Installation of a
                                                                                           Pigment Mixing and
                                                                                           Milling Process
1000002.............................  MACT, NSPS..............  AAAA, WWW...............  Gas Treatment System
                                                                                           Used for Energy
                                                                                           Recovery Purposes
1000003.............................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Monitoring Lids of Gas
                                                                                           Well Sumps as
                                                                                           `Surface' of the
                                                                                           Landfill
M100001.............................  MACT....................  EEEE....................  Once In Always In
                                                                                           Policy
M100002.............................  MACT....................  MMMM....................  Use of Non-
                                                                                           Regenerative Carbon
                                                                                           Adsorption System

[[Page 36122]]

 
M100004.............................  MACT....................  NNNNN...................  Alternative Control
                                                                                           Device Operating
                                                                                           Parameters
M100005.............................  MACT....................  FFFF, JJJ...............  Solid State
                                                                                           Polymerization PET
                                                                                           Process
M100006.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Excess Emissions
                                                                                           Reporting for a Waste
                                                                                           Liquid Fuel-Fired
                                                                                           Boiler
1000004.............................  NSPS....................  A, Db...................  Boiler Modification
1000007.............................  NSPS....................  Y.......................  Alternative Monitoring
1000008.............................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Landfill Gas Treatment
                                                                                           System
M100009.............................  MACT....................  M.......................  Secondary Carbon
                                                                                           Adsorption
                                                                                           Requirements for
                                                                                           Resold Equipment
1000009.............................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Landfill Gas Operating
                                                                                           Temperatures
M100010.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Minimum Secondary
                                                                                           Combustion Chamber
                                                                                           Temperature Operating
                                                                                           Parameter Limit
1000011.............................  NSPS....................  CCCC....................  Thermal Destruction
                                                                                           Unit Determination
M100012.............................  MACT....................  JJ......................  Relocation of Facility
                                                                                           and Reduction of
                                                                                           Emissions after
                                                                                           NESHAP Compliance
                                                                                           Date
1000012.............................  NSPS....................  Dc, IIII................  Alternative Method for
                                                                                           Fuel Supplier
                                                                                           Certification
1000013.............................  NSPS....................  G, H....................  Use of Method 7E at
                                                                                           Nitric Acid Plants
                                                                                           and Method 6C at
                                                                                           Sulfuric Acid Plants
1000015.............................  NSPS....................  KKKK....................  Commence Construction
                                                                                           for Gas Turbine
1000016.............................  NSPS....................  GG, KKKK................  Commence Construction
                                                                                           for Gas Turbine
1000017.............................  NSPS....................  A, AAa..................  Installation of a
                                                                                           Capacitor Bank and
                                                                                           Tuned Reactor
1000019.............................  NSPS....................  AAAA....................  Conversion of Post-
                                                                                           Sorted Municipal
                                                                                           Solid Waste Feedstock
M100014.............................  MACT....................  R.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan
M100015.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan
M100016.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Modification of
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan
M100017.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Modification of
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan
M100018.............................  MACT....................  GGG.....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           of Hydrochloric Acid
                                                                                           (HCl) Bubbler Control
                                                                                           Device
1000021.............................  NSPS....................  Kb......................  External Floating Roof
                                                                                           Tank Enclosed with
                                                                                           Fixed Roof
1000022.............................  NSPS....................  WWW.....................  Amended Design
                                                                                           Capacity Reports
A100001.............................  Asbestos................  M.......................  Removal of Asbestos
                                                                                           Containing Coating
                                                                                           Materials from Stator
                                                                                           Bars
M100019.............................  MACT....................  EEEEE...................  Cold Core Machines
                                                                                           Used for Capture and
                                                                                           Wet Acid Scrubbers
1000023.............................  NSPS....................  KKKK....................  Installation of
                                                                                           Combustion Turbines
                                                                                           and Direct-Fired
                                                                                           Heaters
1000024.............................  NSPS....................  Ja......................  Mining of Naturally
                                                                                           Occurring Oil Sands
                                                                                           and Extraction of
                                                                                           Bitumen
M100020.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan
M100021.............................  MACT....................  RRR.....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan
M100022.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Comprehensive
                                                                                           Performance Test Plan
1000025.............................  NSPS....................  A, NNN, RRR.............  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan
M100023.............................  MACT....................  PPPPP...................  Appropriate Method for
                                                                                           Calculating
                                                                                           Reconstruction
M100024.............................  MACT....................  RRR.....................  Startup, Shutdown,
                                                                                           Malfunction Reporting
                                                                                           Requirements
1000026.............................  NSPS....................  Kb......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan
Z100001.............................  NESHAP..................  FF......................  Sour Water Streams
                                                                                           Regulation
M100025.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Alternative Operating
                                                                                           Parameters
M100026.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Modification of
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan
M100027.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                           Plan
M100028.............................  MACT....................  EEE.....................  Modification of
                                                                                           Alternative
                                                                                           Monitoring Plan
A110001.............................  NESHAP..................  M.......................  Asbestos NESHAP:
                                                                                           Municipalities
                                                                                           demolishing and
                                                                                           renovating multiple
                                                                                           residential
                                                                                           structures as part of
                                                                                           an ``urban renewal''
                                                                                           project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [M090044]

    Q1: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, allow Kaiser Aluminum 
Fabricated Products, Inc., the owner/operator of a secondary aluminum 
production furnace, to switch back and forth between group 1 and group 
2 furnace operation at a regular or even infrequent basis, depending on 
what its being fed to the furnace at any given time, and turn the 
control device on and off depending on the operating scenario?
    A1: No. MACT subpart RRR does not allow for the furnace to be 
designated group 1 and 2 at the same time, depending on what it's being 
feed to the furnace. However, the owner/operator may choose to re-
designate a furnace on a very infrequent basis along with a permit 
modification.
    Q2: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, allow an owner/operator to 
operate the furnace as a group 1 furnace, accepting an undefined mix of 
clean and purchased scrap and a fluxing agent, with the baghouse not 
operating?
    A2: No. A group 1 furnace cannot be authorized to operate under 
more than one set of operating parameters depending on what is being 
fed to the furnace at any given time and the use of a control device or 
not. MACT subpart RRR addresses a single worst-case scenario when 
conducting a performance test to establish operating parameters, and 
does not address alternate operating scenarios.

Abstract for [1000001]

    Q1: Are two mixing vessels and two milling machines being installed 
at the Majilite facility in Dracut, Massachusetts, considered coating 
mix preparation equipment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV?
    A1: Because Majilite's mixing vessels will be blending solvent with 
other materials to prepare pigments that are used to prepare polymeric 
coatings, the pigment mixing vessels are coating mix preparation 
equipment subject to NSPS subpart VVV. The milling machines, however, 
do not fit within the rule definition of coating mix preparation 
equipment.
    Q2: Majilite operates one coating line subject to NSPS, subpart 
VVV, and that this coating line and coating mix

[[Page 36123]]

operation use more than 130 Mg of VOC per year. What are the 
requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV, for the coating mix 
preparation equipment if the pigment mixing vessels are being installed 
without concurrent construction of a control device?
    A2: EPA has determined that because Majilite's subpart VVV coating 
operation and associated coating mix preparation equipment use at least 
130 Mg of VOC per 12-month period and the pigment mixing vessels are 
being installed without concurrent construction of a control device, 
Majilite must meet the requirements of 60.742(c)(2) for its pigment 
mixing vessels, among other requirements.

Abstract for [1000002]

    Q: Do the processes which occur in the preliminary treatment system 
at Waste Management of New Hampshire's (WMNH) Turnkey Recycling and 
Environmental Enterprise (TREE) facility in Rochester, New Hampshire, 
meet the requirements for a ``treatment system'' under 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that the preliminary treatment system 
located at WMNH in which the gas has been compressed, dewatered, and 
filtered down to 10 microns meets the criteria of a treatment system 
under 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C), and is not subject to the monitoring 
and recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 60.756(b) and 40 CFR 60.758(b) 
and (c).

Abstract for [1000003]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of Allied Imperial Landfill in 
Imperial, Pennsylvania to monitor some landfill gas well sump structure 
lids as though they were the ``surface'' of the landfill, in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that monitoring the sump lids is adequate to 
fulfill the requirements of NSPS subpart WWWW based on the intent of 
NSPS subpart WWW and the sump structure construction. Monitoring inside 
the sump structure could create an artificially elevated value for the 
landfill gas well(s). If a landfill gas extraction well (LGFW) 
monitoring event indicates readings above 500 ppm around the 
circumference of the fiberglass structure, and/or lid of the structure, 
then corrective actions must be completed, as required by NSPS subpart 
WWW.

Abstract for [M100001]

    Q: The Pactiv facility located in Winchester, Virginia, must comply 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, the organic liquid distribution 
(OLD) MACT, due to a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) in a foaming agent 
used at the facility. Were the facility to switch the foaming agent to 
one that uses less than 5 percent HAPS would the OLD MACT apply?
    A: Yes. The new foaming agent still contains HAPs, and according to 
the ``Once in Always In'' Policy, the OLD MACT still applies.

Abstract for [M100002]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of a non-regenerative carbon adsorption 
system as the control technology under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, 
for the metal parts coating operations of East Penn Manufacturing in 
Lyon Station, Pennsylvania?
    A: Yes. EPA approves this request based on the conditions set forth 
in this letter, and provided that the request does not relieve East 
Penn of any other requirements of MACT subpart MMMM.

Abstract for [M100004]

    Q: Does EPA approve alternative operating parameters under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart NNNNN, for the Irgafos V-47 caustic scrubber at the 
Ciba Corporation facility in McIntosh, Alabama?
    A: No. EPA cannot approve the requested alternatives without 
evaluating the performance test data that is collected using these 
proposed alternative parameters which needs to be submitted by Ciba 
Corporation to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission 
limit set out in Table 1 of MACT subpart NNNNN.

Abstract for [M100005]

    Q: Is the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) solid state 
polymerization (SSP) process at the DAK Americas facility in Cooper 
River, South Carolina, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF?
    A: Yes. The SSP process is a miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing process unit (MCPU) which manufactures a product, PET, 
which is described by the North American Industry Classification System 
325. In doing so, it, generates a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), 
acetaldehyde. The MCPU is located at a major source of HAP. Thus, the 
SSP process satisfies all of the conditions for applicability under 
MACT subpart FFFF, specifically 40 CFR 63.2435 (a) and (b)(1) through 
(3).

Abstract for [M100006]

    Q: Does EPA waive excess emissions reporting requirements under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart EEE, for a waste liquid fuel-fired boiler system 
(WFBS) at the Diversified Scientific Services facility in Kingston, 
Tennessee, if the unit is equipped with an automatic fuel cutoff?
    A: No. EPA does not waive the excess emissions reporting 
requirements of MACT subpart EEE even when the WFBS has safe guards 
that minimizes emissions because there remain numerous reportable 
situations involving continuous monitoring system devices, such as 
opacity monitors, thermocouples, pressure transducers, and flow meters, 
that could malfunction and that should be included in the required 
report.

Abstract for [1000004]

    Q1: Is the exemption in section 60.14(e)(4) of the General 
Provisions applicable to Power Boiler No. 6, at Rayonier Performance 
Fibers, in Fernandina Beach, Florida, even though the emission rate of 
nitrogen oxide (NOX) will increase, such that it will cause 
the boiler to not become subject to NSPS subpart Db, Standards of 
Performance for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating?
    A1: Yes. Even though there will be an increase in the 
NOX emission rate, the operational or physical changes made 
at the facility are not considered modifications under 40 CFR 60.14(e) 
of the General Provisions. Thus, the changes did not subject the Power 
Boiler No. 6 to NSPS subpart Db.
    Q2: An interpretation of the reference in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) to the 
``facility's construction specifications'' is requested for Power 
Boiler No. 6. The boiler was purchased by Rayonier as a traveling grate 
boiler and was later converted to a bubbling fluidized bed boiler.
    A2: The exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) relates to the construction 
specifications prior to the date a standard becomes applicable to a 
source category. Because the applicability date for 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Db, is June 18, 1984, 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) relates to the 
construction specifications for Power Boiler No. 6 prior to that date.

Abstract for [1000007]

    Q: Does EPA grant the request of Detroit Edison's River Rouge Power 
Plant in River Rouge, Michigan, to eliminate the requirement for 
temperature monitors on the gas stream exits of the thermal dryers?
    A. No. Continuous temperature monitoring, as required in 40 CFR 
60.256(a) (1), indicates compliance status with respect to the carbon 
monoxide (CO) limits. The temperature record ensures the source 
temperature correlates with the results of performance tests or other 
emissions

[[Page 36124]]

tests. Monitoring temperature is essential because improperly tuned 
operations at off-design levels decrease combustion efficiency 
resulting in increased CO emissions. Additionally, Detroit Edison has 
not requested an alternative form of monitoring (see 60 CFR 60.13(i)), 
but rather the elimination of the monitoring requirements. EPA is 
unable to grant this request because the Region does not have authority 
to amend NSPS subpart Y.

Abstract for [1000008]

    Q: Does the landfill gas treatment system proposed by the City of 
Midland, Michigan, meet the requirements that allow the landfill gas to 
be exempt from control requirements per 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) 
when burned in internal combustion engines? A: Yes. Because the 
proposed landfill gas treatment system will use 10-micron filtration 
and sufficient dewatering, it meets the current requirements used by 
EPA for gas ``treatment'' and is therefore exempt from the requirements 
of 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C).

Abstract for [M100009]

    Q: Is dry cleaning equipment that was initially installed prior to 
December 21, 2005, but was removed from its original location, sold to 
a new owner, and relocated subsequent to December 21, 2005, subject to 
the area source, non-residential carbon adsorption requirements at 40 
CFR 63.322(o)(2)?
    A: Yes. Reselling and relocating dry cleaning equipment constitutes 
installation of a dry cleaning system. Therefore dry cleaning equipment 
that is resold and relocated would be subject to the secondary carbon 
adsorption requirements of 40 CFR 63.322(o)(2).

Abstract for [1000009]

    Q: Does EPA approve higher landfill gas temperatures under 40 CFR 
60.753(c) for specific extraction and leachate wells at Veolia's 
Glacier Ridge Landfill near Horicon, Wisconsin?
    A: Yes. Because the proposed operating limit of 148 degrees 
Fahrenheit is properly supported by data that shows there would be a 
minimal risk of a landfill fire or significantly inhibited anaerobic 
decomposition, EPA approves the higher landfill gas temperatures under 
40 CFR 60.753(c).

Abstract for [M100010]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request to waive the minimum secondary 
combustion chamber temperature operating parameter limit under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEE, for the Heritage-WTI (WTI) facility in East 
Liverpool, Ohio?
    A: No. EPA concludes that the rotary kiln and the secondary 
combustion chamber (SCC) are separate combustion chambers and thus does 
not approve the request under MACT subpart EEE. WTI cannot legitimately 
argue that the SCC at its facility does not contain a steady-state, or 
near steady-state, process wherein fuel, hazardous waste, and oxidizer 
(i.e., pure oxygen or ambient air) feed rates are controlled, since the 
SCC is engineered to allow WTI to feed pure oxygen or ambient air into 
the SCC to improve combustion. EPA concludes that the SCC is an area in 
which controlled flame combustion of hazardous waste occurs. Therefore, 
EPA disapproves WTI's request in its original and revised comprehensive 
performance test plans to determine that the Rotary Kiln and the SCC 
are one combustion chamber and to eliminate the need for a minimum 
combustion chamber temperature operating parameter limit.

Abstract for [1000011]

    Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, apply to the thermal 
destruction unit operated by PIKA International in Calhoun County, 
Arkansas?
    A: Yes. NSPS subpart CCCC applies because the waste that is burned 
(1) Is a RCRA solid waste, but not a RCRA hazardous waste; (2) meets 
the definition of a commercial solid waste; and (3) is not eligible for 
any exemptions under NSPS subpart CCCC. In addition, NSPS subpart CCCC 
applies as a result of the date construction began on the incinerator.

Abstract for [M100012]

    Q: If Riceland Cabinet's (Riceland) facility in Orville, Ohio, 
which is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, relocates its facility 
and reduces its emission to area source status thresholds after the 
NESHAP compliance date, does it remain subject to the MACT subpart JJ 
and Title V Permitting requirements?
    A: Yes. The relocated facility would be considered an existing 
source under MACT subpart JJ. The relocated facility would also be 
required to obtain a Title V Permit. The ``Once In Always In'' Policy 
(OIAI Policy) allows new sources the option to comply with federally 
enforceable limits after the compliance date in order to not be subject 
to the NESHAP. However, a relocated facility cannot be defined as a new 
source for the purposes of the NESHAP. To be considered a new source, a 
source would have to be constructed after the compliance date; however, 
relocating a facility is not construction according to NESHAP 
definition of construction. Construction is defined as the on-site 
fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected source. 
Construction does not include the removal of all equipment comprising 
an affected source from an existing location and reinstallation of such 
equipment at a new location. Any source that is not a new source is 
defined as an existing source.

Abstract for [1000012]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of alternative method ASTM D975-07b for 
fuel certification under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, in lieu of ASTM 
D396 for Quest Diagnostics in Chantilly, Virginia?
    A: Yes. ASTM D975-07b is more stringent than ASTM D396 in all cases 
except viscosity, which will not affect sulfur dioxide emissions, and 
thus is acceptable under NSPS subpart Dc.

Abstract for [1000013]

    Q1: Is Method 7E an allowable alternative test method for measuring 
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions at nitric acid plants for the purposes 
of determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart G?
    A1: No. Method 7E is not approved for use to demonstrate compliance 
with NSPS subpart G.
    Q2: Is Method 6C an allowable alternative test method for measuring 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at sulfuric acid plants for the purposes 
of determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart H?
    A2: No. Method 6C is not approved for use to demonstrate compliance 
with NSPS subpart H.

Abstract for [1000015]

    Q: Will EPA reconsider its February 8, 2006 determination that 40 
CFR part 60, subpart KKKK, applies to a turbine at Great River Energy 
in Cambridge, Minnesota?
    A: No. The request does not provide any new information that would 
cause the Agency to reconsider the February 8, 2006 determination that 
NSPS subpart KKKK applies.

Abstract for [1000016]

    Q: Did construction commence on the proposed installation of a gas 
turbine at Great River Energy (GRE) in Cambridge, Minnesota, before the 
applicability date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK?
    A: No. GRE did not begin installation of the turbine nor enter into 
a contractual obligation to undertake and complete within a reasonable 
time a continuous program of construction for the installation of the 
turbine prior to

[[Page 36125]]

the applicability date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK.

Abstract for [1000017]

    Q1: Is the installation of a capacitor bank and tuned reactor at 
the electrical substation servicing an electric arc furnace (EAF) at 
the Alton Steel, Inc. facility, a physical or operational change to an 
existing EAF under 40 CFR 60.14 of the General Provisions?
    A1: Yes. The capacitor/reactor project increased the capacity 
(i.e., the production rate) of the existing EAF and is therefore an 
operational change to the EAF under 40 CFR 60.14, which resulted in a 
kilogram per hour increase in the emission rate of particulate matter.
    Q2: Is the capacitor/reactor project exempt from the definition of 
``modification'' because it is ``routine maintenance, repair, or 
replacement'' under 40 CFR 60.14(e)(1)?
    A2: No. The capacitor/reactor project was not routine maintenance, 
repair, or replacement under 40 CFR 60.14(e)(1).
    Q3: Is the capacitor/reactor project not subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAa because it is not considered ``modification'' based on the 
capital expenditure exemption at 40 CFR 60.14(e)(2)?
    A3: Yes. The capacitor/reactor project allowed the EAF to increase 
the rate of production but involved no capital expenditure on the 
``existing facility'' (i.e., the EAF as it is defined at 40 CFR 
60.271(a)). All of the monetary expenditure associated with the project 
involved replacing components and adding new components to the 
electrical substation that supplies power to the EAF. Because the 
capital expenditure exemption at 40 CFR 60.14(e)(2) applies, the 
capacitor/reactor project has not triggered the applicability of NSPS 
subpart AAa.

Abstract for [1000019]

    Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA, apply to the syngas 
gasification process at Fulcrum BioEnergy's (Fulcrum) proposed facility 
in McCarran, Nevada?
    A1: No. Because Fulcrum's proposed syngas gasification process is 
neither combustion nor pyrolysis, the syngas generation unit is not 
considered a ``pyrolysis/combustion unit'' or ``municipal waste 
combustion unit'' as defined in NSPS subpart AAAA.
    Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA, apply to the combined cycle 
combustion turbine if the facility meets the requirements for the small 
power production facility exemption or the cogeneration facility 
exemption?
    A2: No. 40 CFR 60.1020(b) and (c) list the requirements that a 
facility must meet to be exempt from NSPS subpart AAAA as a small power 
production facility or cogeneration facility. Those requirements 
include meeting criteria established by the Federal Power Act, 
combusting homogeneous waste, and providing notification and 
documentation to EPA. EPA concurs with Fulcrum's assessment that the 
gasified waste would be considered homogeneous. However, to qualify for 
either of the facility exemptions Fulcrum would also need to provide 
appropriate notification and documentation that it meets the criteria 
established by the Federal Power Act.
    Q3: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA, apply to the air pollution 
control flare?
    A3: No. As long as the flare is operated solely as an air pollution 
control device, it is excluded from the definition of ``municipal waste 
combustion unit'' under NSPS subpart AAAA.

Abstract for [M100014]

    Q: Does EPA approve NuStar Logistics (``NuStar'') request for 
alternative monitoring of emissions under 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, of 
continuous presence of a pilot flame for the vapor combustion unit 
(VCU) in lieu of temperature monitoring at the firebox at its bulk 
gasoline terminal in Colorado Springs, Colorado?
    A: EPA does not approved NuStar alternative monitoring request 
because it does not demonstrate meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
63.8(f)(4), 63.427(a)(5), and 63.428(c)(3)). Additional information 
needs to be provided within 30 calendars days after receipt of this 
letter. [Additional information was not provided.]

Abstract for [M100015]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of the Tooele Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility (TOCDF) in Stockton, Utah, to waive the requirement 
to establish, and subsequently monitor, at the Deactivation Furnace 
System (DFS), a 12-hour rolling average (HRA) feed rate for mercury, 
ash, semi- and low-volatile metals, and chlorine required by 40 CFR 
63.1290(l), (m), (n), and (o), respectively?
    A: EPA conditionally approves TOCDF's request to waive the 
requirement to establish, and subsequently monitor, at the DFS, a 12-
HRA feed rate for mercury, ash, semi- and low-volatile metals, and 
chlorine required by 40 CFR 63.1290(l), (m), (n), and (o), 
respectively. EPA's approval is limited to when burster and fuze pairs 
from 4.2'' HD mortars, HT mortars, and minimal amounts of process 
generated waste such as agent contaminated rags and small metal parts 
are fed to the DFS. Additionally, EPA's approval is based on a feed 
rate to the DFS of combined 4.2'' mortar burster/fuze pairs of 274/
hour, as well as the RCRA Permit limits for process generated waste, 
and TOCDF's commitment to monitor and comply with those limits.

Abstract for [M100016]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of the Tooele Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility (TOCDF) located in Stockton, Utah, under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEE, to modify the first condition of the approved 
alternative monitoring request (AMR) of April 27, 2006, to also include 
munitions processing? The first condition states that ``this approval 
shall apply only to the Baseline Processing phase of the TOCDF Mustard 
campaign which restricts processing to only those ton containers (TCs) 
in which the level of Hg in the liquid phase is less than 1 ppm''?
    A: Yes. EPA approves modifying the scope of the AMP request to 
include the processing of the above TCs, munitions, and secondary 
waste. Based on the information provided, EPA believes that TOCDF can 
process the additional TCs, munitions, and secondary waste and maintain 
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE standards.

Abstract for [M100017]

    Q: Does EPA approve under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, the request 
of the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (TOCDF) in Stockton, 
Utah, to modify Condition 2 of the alternative monitoring 
request approved by EPA on June 29, 2009? The condition states among 
other things, that during the Non-Baseline Processing Phase, the 
sampling period for the Appendix K System sorbent tube trap sets shall 
be no greater than 12 hours, and Tooele requests to change ``no greater 
than 12 hours'' to ``no greater than 12 hours (plus or minus 30 minutes 
to allow for unforeseen events)''?
    A: EPA approves the revision to Condition 2 because TOCDF 
has confirmed that even though the start or stop time may vary by up to 
30 minutes, TOCDF will sample continuously. For those periods where the 
start or stop time varies by 15 minutes or more, TOCDF will provide a 
reason code in its reporting to explain why sampling was plus or minus 
15 minutes or more. In addition, EPA believes the change in Condition 
2 is approvable for the reasons expressed in its June 29, 2009 
letter.

[[Page 36126]]

Abstract for [M100018]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Albemarle Corporation's (Albemarle) 
alternative monitoring request for its facility in Orangeburg, South 
Carolina, to measure the liquid temperature in the receiver of its 
process condensers as described in 40 CFR 63.2460(c)(2)(v) when 
conducting the process condenser demonstration required by 40 CFR 
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B)?
    A1: Yes. EPA agrees that measuring the liquid temperature of the 
condensed liquid in the receiver would be an acceptable alternative to 
measuring the exhaust gas temperature as required by 40 CFR 
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) because the temperature of the condensed liquid 
and the exhaust gas are in equilibrium.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Albemarle's alternative recordkeeping request 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, to maintain records of standard and 
non-standard batch production to allow the calculation of rolling 
annual emissions on a daily basis to comply with the daily rolling 365-
day HAP emissions once per month as required by 40 CFR 63.1259(b)(4)?
    A2: Yes. For purposes of compliance with the annual mass limits of 
40 CFR 63.1254(a)(2) and (b)(2), Albemarle must calculate and record 
the daily rolling annual total emissions for the previous month by the 
fifth day of each month.
    Q3: Does EPA approve Albemarle's request for a waiver of the 
performance test requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(i) for a flare used 
to control Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) emissions from the HCN Pharmaceutical 
Manufacturing Process Unit (PMPU)?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves a waiver of the requirement to conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(i). 
This waiver is for the same flare being operated under the same 
conditions for which Albemarle submitted information in 2002 and 2003 
to support its request for a waiver of the performance test 
requirements under 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(i). In addition, the regulatory 
language of 40 CFR.11(b)(6)(i) is identical to that of 40 CFR 
60.18(c)(3)(i).
    Q4: Does EPA approve Albemarle's setting alternate operating limits 
for a hydrochloric acid (HCl) bubbler control device to those required 
by 40 CFR 63.1258(b)(1)(ii) for scrubbers?
    A4: EPA conditionally approves the alternate operating parameters 
pending a successful performance test and other conditions listed in 
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1000021]

    Q: Do the requirements for external floating roof tanks (EFR) in 40 
CFR 60.112b(a)(2), the requirements for internal floating roof (IFR) 
tanks in 40 CFR 112b(a)(1) apply, or both, apply to EFR tanks which 
have been enclosed with a fixed roof located at the TransMontaigne 
Operating Company LP facility in Selma, North Carolina?
    A: An EFR tank which is enclosed by the installation of a fixed 
roof meets the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb description of an IFR tank 
and is therefore subject to the requirements for IFR tanks. An enclosed 
EFR tank is no longer subject to the NSPS subpart Kb requirements for 
EFR tanks.

Abstract for [1000022]

    Q1: Is a municipal solid waste landfill that already has a design 
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million 
cubic meters required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, to submit an 
amended design capacity report upon approval of a further expansion?
    A1: No. The facility is not required to do so as it is subject to 
the standards 40 CFR 60.752(b), which does not require such reports.
    Q2: Is a municipal solid waste landfill that already has a design 
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million 
cubic meters required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, to submit a 
notice for a physical or operation change pursuant to 40 CFR 60.7(a)(4) 
upon approval of a further expansion?
    A2: Yes. Under NSPS subpart WWW, the facility is required to do so 
for all modifications that meet the definition of 40 CFR 60.14.

Abstract for [A100001]

    Q1: Does the removal of asbestos containing coating materials from 
stator bars at a metal recycling facility in Ashtabula, Ohio, 
constitute an asbestos conversion process subject to 40 CFR 61.155?
    A1: No. 40 CFR 61.155 applies to situations where regulated 
asbestos containing material, and asbestos-containing waste material, 
is converted to a non-asbestos material. The information provided by 
the requestor indicates that stator bars coated with an asbestos 
containing resin and wrapped with tape covered by an asbestos 
containing tar will be removed from various locations and the bars will 
be taken to a recycling operation where the asbestos containing resin 
and tar will be removed from the bars. All of the asbestos that is 
removed from the stator bars will remain asbestos after it is removed 
from the bars. The asbestos material that is removed will be disposed 
of in a landfill. Because the asbestos containing material is not 
subject to any process or treatment that would convert it to a 
nonasbestos material, there is no conversion to a non asbestos material 
taking place.
    Q2: Are the notification requirements at 40 CFR 61.145 applicable 
to the removal of asbestos covered and coated stator bars at the site 
where they are removed and at the site where the asbestos is stripped 
from the bars?
    A2: At each site where the stator bars are removed, if the surface 
area (of the bars to be removed) covered with asbestos containing resin 
and tar equals or exceeds 160 square feet, then the notification 
requirements of 40 CFR 61.145 apply and a notice must be submitted to 
the Federal, State or local agency delegated to receive such 
notifications. Because the stator bars will be stripped of asbestos at 
a site in Ashtabula, Ohio, a copy of each notification for bars removed 
outside of Ohio should also be sent to the Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency. No matter where the bars are removed, a notification 
must be in place for each batch of stator bars stripped of asbestos 
containing materials at the site in Ashtabula, Ohio.
    Q3: Which sections of 40 CFR 61.145(c) apply at the site where the 
stator bars are removed?
    A3: Because the stator bars are not going to be stripped of 
asbestos at the site where they are removed, and because the stator 
bars are going to be shipped to Ashtabula, Ohio, the bars must be 
handled in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 61.145(c)(5)(i) 
through (iii).

Abstract for [M100019]

    Q: With respect to the operating limits for cold core machines 
utilizing capture and wet acid scrubbers to control triethylamine (TEA) 
emissions at the Indianapolis Casting facility in Indianapolis, 
Indiana: When dampers are manually set in a fixed position, does the 
exemption from the continuous parameter monitoring system (``CPMS'') 
requirement apply only to exempting a CPMS with regard to damper 
position or would a fixed damper position exempt the cold core machine 
capture system from monitoring the hourly average rate as with respect 
to 40 CFR 63.7740(a)?
    A: 40 CFR 63.7710(b)(2)(i) contains two different requirements (at 
a minimum) for the capture system: level of ventilation draft and 
damper position settings. Both types of CPMS are required, but the CPMS 
for damper system is not needed if the damper position is manually set 
and in a fixed position. Thus, the CPMS exemption referred to in 40 CFR 
63.7740(a)(2)

[[Page 36127]]

applies solely to the installation of a CPMS for damper position.

Abstract for [1000023]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request for alternate performance testing 
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK, for combustion turbines and direct-
fired heaters being installed as part of a process modification at the 
PL Propylene facility in Houston, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that the stationary combustion turbines 
are subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart KKKK, and has approved 
the request to conduct one performance test downstream of the selective 
catalytic reduction units, and to apply reference method results from 
the NOx continuous monitoring system certification for the initial 
demonstration of compliance with 40 CFR 60.4320. However, testing must 
be conducted using the fuel or combination of fuels that would result 
in the highest emissions.

Abstract for [1000024]

    Q. Is the proposed Earth Energy oil sand mine and processing 
facility in eastern Utah, which will include mining of the naturally 
occurring oil sands and extraction of the bitumen from these sands, 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja?
    A: No. The Earth Energy facility would not be considered a 
``petroleum refinery'' and thus is not subject to NSPS subpart Ja.

Abstract for [M100020]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the Tooele Army Depot's (TEAD's) request to 
establish a limit on the minimum baghouse inlet temperature to replace 
the requirement to establish a limit on the maximum baghouse 
temperature (40 CFR 63.1209(k)(1)(i)) to assure compliance with the 
dioxin and furan limit in 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(1)?
    A1: EPA conditionally approves the use of a minimum baghouse inlet 
temperature rather than a maximum baghouse inlet temperature during the 
Comprehensive Performance Test if the baghouse inlet temperature is 
maintain at the required level, as established in the EPA response 
letter.
    Q2: Does EPA approve TEAD's request to establish a limit on the 
maximum afterburner outlet temperature to replace the requirement to 
establish a limit on the maximum baghouse inlet temperature (40 CFR 
63.1209(n)(1)) to ensure compliance with the semi-volatile and low 
volatility metals limits in 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(3) and (4)?
    A2: No. EPA cannot approve the request because the temperature 
range of the inlet to the baghouse can vary so dramatically.
    Q3: Does EPA approve TEAD's request to establish the maximum 
potential particulate matter (PM) generation as a limit to replace the 
requirement to establish the maximum ash feed rate limit to ensure 
compliance with 40 CFR 63.1219(a)(7)?
    A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to establish the 
maximum potential particulate matter (PM) generation as a limit to 
replace the requirement to establish the maximum ash feed rate limit, 
provided that (i) The propellants, explosives and pyrotechnics (PEP) 
feed rate will not exceed 56.28 lb/hr and (ii) the PM generation will 
not exceed the worst case theoretical maximum based on the PEP feed 
rate above.

Abstract for [M100021]

    Q1: Does EPA approve of the operator of a secondary aluminum 
continuous caster at the Commonwealth Aluminum Concast (Commonwealth) 
facility in Uhrichsville, Ohio, weighing the metal by measuring the 
volume of the slab produced by the continuous caster even if the method 
does not meet the one percent accuracy requirement at 40 CFR 
63.1510(e)?
    A1: Yes. Although these accuracies do not meet the one percent 
accuracy requirement at 40 CFR 63.1510(e), EPA has concluded that on 
the basis of the information provided the affected source should be 
able to meet the relevant emission standard.
    Q2: May the operator record and report on a 24-hour basis the 
chlorine injection rate for its in-line fluxers since the chlorine 
meter is not accurate to one percent for the 15-minute block time 
period intervals specified in the rule at 40 CFR 63.1510(j)?
    A2: No. In this instance, available data indicate that the required 
one percent accuracy can be achieved on a 16-hour basis. Therefore, EPA 
determines that there is no basis for extending the averaging period 
beyond 16 hours.
    Q3: May the operator test only one of two identical in-line fluxers 
to measure particulate matter emissions?
    A3: Yes. Because the in-line casters operate in series, the test 
plan does not contemplate testing of PM emissions from each fluxer 
individually. For the purposes of compliance calculations, however, the 
particulate matter is assumed to emit from the tested caster. This 
would represent a conservative worst-case assumption, and does not 
require the assumption that an equal amount of particulate matter is 
emitted from each caster.
    Q4: May the operator conduct performance testing for two of the 
four aluminum melting furnaces?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves the testing of two of a total of four of the 
aluminum melting furnaces if these have the same physical dimensions 
and capacity, and the operator charges each furnace with the same 
materials and the same reactive fluxing agents in the same proportions, 
and this will maintain identical work practices. Also, Commonwealth 
will perform three test runs for two representative furnaces during a 
complete operating cycle, which is defined for purposes of this testing 
as the initial metal charging through the final skim, or about 1.5 
hours. In addition, each melting furnace (M1 through M4) has the same 
physical dimensions and capacity of 233,000 tons, and maximum 21 
million Btu/hour heat input natural gas burners. The testing of 
emissions from M1 will be representative of emissions from M3, and the 
testing of emissions from M2 will be representative of emissions from 
M4.

Abstract for [M100022]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the revised comprehensive performance test 
plan (CPT) and continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance 
evaluation test (PET) plan for Sunoco Chemicals, in Haverhill, Ohio, 
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1207(e)(1)(i)(A)?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves Sunoco's revised CPT and CMS PET plan under 
MACT subpart EEE.
    Q2: Does the requirement for a one-time dioxin/furan test apply to 
Boiler UC pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1207(b)(3)(ii) and 63.1207(b)(3)(iii)?
    A2: EPA concludes that the requirement for a one-time dioxin/furan 
test for Boiler UC does not apply until Sunoco resumes generation and 
incineration of its two hazardous waste feedstreams.
    Q3: Does EPA approve Sunoco's PM DIL requests for Boiler UC?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves Sunoco's PN DIL requests for Boiler UC.
    Q4: Does EPA approve Sunoco's request to use data from a 2006 DRE 
test on Boiler UC as documentation of conformance with the applicable 
DRE emission standard for Boiler UC pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1207(c)(2)?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves Sunoco's request to use data from a 2006 DRE 
test on Boiler UC as documentation of conformance with the applicable 
DRE emission standard for Boiler UC.
    Q5: Does EPA approve Sunoco's request to use data from a November

[[Page 36128]]

2001 DRE test on Boiler UE as documentation of conformance with the 
applicable DRE emission standard for Boiler UE pursuant to 40 CFR 
63.1207(c)(2)?
    A5: Yes. EPA approves Sunoco's request to use data from a November 
2001 DRE test on Boiler UE as documentation of conformance with the 
applicable DRE emission standard for Boiler UE pursuant to 40 CFR 
63.1207(c)(2).
    Q6: Does EPA approve a maximum theoretical emission concentration 
request for Boiler UC and Boiler UE pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7(h) and 
63.1207(m)?
    A6: Yes. EPA approves a maximum theoretical emission concentration 
request for Boiler UC and Boiler UE pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7(h) and 
63.1207(m).

Abstract for [1000025]

    Q1: Are the flow monitoring procedures under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart RRR, an acceptable alternative to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
NNN, requirements for the distillation operation at Flint Hills' 
facility in Saint Paul, Minnesota?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that in this instance the NSPS subpart RRR flow 
monitoring procedures are an acceptable alternative to those under NSPS 
subpart NNN. The NSPS subpart RRR requirement to monitor diversions 
from the control device accomplishes the same result (i.e., providing a 
record of when vent streams are not controlled) as the NSPS subpart NNN 
requirement to monitor the flow to the control device.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the use of certain monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting provisions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, as 
alternative monitoring requirements to those under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart NNN, for the Flint Hills' facility in Saint Paul, Minnesota?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of the provisions in NSPS subpart RRR 
as an alternative means of demonstrating compliance under NSPS subpart 
NNN for the specified distillation unit. As conditions of approval, the 
facility must comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for flow indicators in NSPS subpart RRR and must maintain a schematic 
diagram for all related affected vent streams, collection system(s), 
fuel systems, control devices, and bypass systems as stated in 40 CFR 
60.705(s).
    Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver of initial performance tests for 
certain boilers and heaters at the Flint Hills' facility in Saint Paul, 
Minnesota?
    A3: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), EPA conditionally approves 
the performance test waiver for the boilers and process heaters which 
are fired with fuel gas containing a vent stream from the Poly Unit De-
Propanizer (43V-5), Saturates Gas De-Propanizer (43V-19), and Alky Unit 
De-Propanizer (35V-2). This waiver is applicable for boilers and 
process heaters that meet the definitions of a boiler or process heater 
in 40 CFR 60.701. Both the alternative monitoring and the waiver of 
performance testing are contingent upon the vent streams being vented 
to a fuel gas system and introduced into the flame zone with the 
primary fuel.
    Q4: Does EPA approve Flint Hills' request for alternate flare 
reporting required by 40 CFR 60.665(l)(4), Subpart NNN?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves Flint Hills Resources' (FHR's) request to 
comply with the reporting requirements on the status of the pilot flame 
in 40 CFR 63.654(g)(6)(i)(B) of Subpart RRR in lieu of the flare 
requirements in 40 CFR 60.665(l)(4) of Subpart NNN, based on approval 
of the AMP request.

Abstract for [M100023]

    Q: What is considered a comparable new source under 40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart PPPPP, when determining if reconstruction has occurred under 40 
CFR 3.2 of the General Provisions at John Deere's engine testing 
facility in Dubuque, Iowa?
    A: While the regulations do not define ``comparable new source,'' 
it is clear within context of the paragraph (see 63.2, reconstruction 
definition) that the term stands for ``a newly reconstructed existing 
facility.'' EPA has determined that the addition of the new test cells 
equipment to a facility, as defined in 40 CFR part 63, Subpart PPPPP, 
does not automatically trigger new source MACT requirements, unless the 
definition of reconstruction as listed in 40 CFR 63.2 is met. Based on 
the information provided, EPA has determined that for the John Deere 
Facility the cost of new equipment is not more than 50 percent of the 
cost to construct a comparable new facility. Therefore, the definition 
of reconstruction would not be met and new source MACT requirements 
were not triggered. The percent cost of installation should be 
calculated by dividing the cost of new components (i.e., new test cell 
equipment) by the cost of a newly reconstructed existing facility 
(i.e., cost of existing test cells and existing equipment) to determine 
if the cost criterion in the definition of reconstruction at 40 CFR 
63.2 is met.

Abstract for [M100024]

    Q1: How does the vacatur of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM) exemption provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, impact the 
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
    A1: In general, the SSM vacatur should have no impact on the 
reporting requirements in MACT subpart RRR.
    Q2: If a monitoring malfunction occurs that does not cause excess 
emissions, is it a reportable occurrence?
    A2: Yes, all malfunctions are required to be reported regardless of 
the resulting emissions.

Abstract for [1000026]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of the Enbridge Energy facility in 
Superior, Wisconsin, to perform an internal inspection under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Kb, on the internal floating roofs (IFR) tanks while 
they are in-service and out-of-service?
    A: Yes. Enbridge Energy may perform an internal inspection by 
visually inspecting the IFR components from the top of the IFR using 
inspection procedures that are similar to those found in 40 CFR 
63.1063(d)(1) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. The proposed alternative 
monitoring procedure, based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, would serve 
to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 60.113b(a)(4).

Abstract for [Z100001]

    Q: Are sour water streams managed in sour water strippers regulated 
upstream of the sour water stripper exit under 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
FF?
    A: Yes. Assuming that the total annual benzene quantity from 
facility waste is 10 Mg/year or greater, as provided by 40 CFR 
61.342(b), the facility must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 
61.342 (c)-(h). Thus, these requirements would apply to sour water 
streams managed upstream of the sour water stripper exit.

Abstract for [M100025]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of Ross Incineration Services in 
Grafton, Ohio, for the hazardous waste incinerator operator to use 
alternate operating parameters in lieu of flow rate measurements for 
the scrubbers to avoid automatic waste feed cutoffs should a flow meter 
fail pursuant to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this request based upon the 
review of the data submitted showing that the alternate operating 
parameters, specifically, scrubber temperatures, water pump current, 
and nozzle pressure, can be measured and

[[Page 36129]]

maintained within a normal operating range, thereby assuring the 
performance of scrubber water pumps. The approval is contingent upon 
the ability of the facility to continuously maintain the scrubber flow 
rates for the radial-flow scrubber (RFS) and the gas-liquid contactor 
(GLC).

Abstract for [M100026]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of the Tooele Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility (TOCDF) in Stockton, Utah, to modify conditions of 
the alternative monitoring request (AMR) approved by EPA on June 29, 
2009, pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, with regards to the use 
of a thermal desorption mercury analyzer and mercury sampling 
timeframes?
    A: Yes, EPA approves revisions to applicable conditions of the June 
26, 2009 AMR approval. All conditions of approval are restated in the 
current AMR approval.

Abstract for [M100027]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of the Tooele Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility (TOCDF) in Stockton, Utah, to comply with the mercury 
emission standard (130 micrograms/dscm, corrected to 7 percent oxygen) 
at the Metal Parts Furnace (MPF) by: 1) continuously collecting exhaust 
gas samples and sampling for mercury (Hg) and taking the rolling 
average of the results obtained from three consecutive 4-hour sampling 
events, resulting in a 12-hour averaging period for compliance 
determination purposes, rather than relying on an operating parameter 
limit (OPL) for a maximum Hg feedrate as required by 40 CFR 
63.1209(l)(1)(i); and (2) continuously sampling exhaust gas samples 
using a modified EPA method approved for use by coal-fired power plants 
found at 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix K rather than using Method 29 for Hg 
emissions, as required by 40 CFR 63.1208(b)(2)?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request provided that the 
facility meets all of the conditions set out in the EPA response 
letter.

Abstract for [M100028]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request of the Tooele Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility (TOCDF) in Stockton, Utah, to modify some of the 
Conditions of Approval contained in determination letters issued by EPA 
on April 27, 2006 and September 24, 2007 approving previously submitted 
alternative monitoring requests (AMRs) pertaining to the Manual Mercury 
(Hg) Emission Measurement method used during the Mustard Agent 
Processing in TOCDF's Metal Parts Furnace (MPF), and to add the Manual 
Hg Emission Measurement method on the Liquid Incinerators (LICs)?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request, provided that the 
facility meets all of the conditions set out in the EPA response 
letter.

Abstract for [A110001]

    Q1: If a city, county, municipality undertakes an ``urban renewal'' 
project that demolishes or renovates multiple single family homes, is 
it subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulation, NESHAP subpart M?
    A1: It may be subject to the asbestos NESHAP. The city, county or 
municipality may be the owner or operator, depending upon the 
situation. As the owner or operator, the government entity must conduct 
a thorough inspection of each home that is identified to be demolished 
or renovated for the project. If the combined amount of friable 
asbestos or asbestos that will be made friable during the demolition or 
renovation operation exceeds the regulated threshold, then the 
demolition or renovation operation must comply with the air emission, 
the waste management, and the disposal requirement of the asbestos 
NESHAP.
    Q2: Are single family homes not subject to the asbestos NESHAP 
based on the 1995 Clarification of Intent which described how isolated 
single family homes were exempt from the asbestos NESHAP?
    A2: As stated in the question, the Clarification of Intent 
describes how to determine an isolated single family home. The ``urban 
renewal'' projects are not about isolated homes but a group of homes as 
part of a project that will be demolished or renovated over a period of 
time. In the preamble to the 1990 asbestos NESHAP amendments, EPA did 
not consider residential structures that are demolished as part of a 
commercial or public project to be exempt from this rule.
    Q3: What is or please define ``planning period?''
    A3: Planning period is not defined in the asbestos NESHAP 
regulation. Planning period was identified in the 1995 Clarification of 
Intent to provide guidance when considering single family homes being 
demolished, and whether the home was considered a facility under the 
demolition operation. Demolition or renovation operations planned at 
the same time or as part of the same planning period or scheduling 
period are considered to be part of the same project, and that in the 
case of municipalities, a planning or scheduling period is often a 
fiscal or calendar year or the term of a contract. The fact that 
demolitions might be spread out over multiple fiscal or calendar years 
or even multiple contracts, however, does not necessarily mean they are 
not occurring as part of the same planning period.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
David Hindin,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2011-15416 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P