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, 21014-21026 [06-3808]
Download as PDF
21014
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
6111, Kareem Monib 202–502–6265, or
Ghanshyam Patel 202–502–6431.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–6037 Filed 4–21–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
at: (202) 564–7027, or by e-mail at:
malave.maria@epa.gov. 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FRL–8160–7]
Background
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
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 https://www.epa.gov/compliance/
monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The
document may be located by date,
author, subpart, or subject search. For
questions about the ADI or this notice,
contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone
The General Provisions to the NSPS
in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source
owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain
intended actions constitute the
commencement of construction,
reconstruction, or modification. EPA’s
written responses to these inquiries are
broadly termed applicability
determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and
61.06. Although part 63 NESHAP and
section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
regulations contain no specific
regulatory provision that sources may
request applicability determinations,
EPA does respond to written inquiries
regarding applicability for the part 63
and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS
and NESHAP also allow sources to seek
permission to use monitoring or
recordkeeping which are different from
the promulgated requirements. See 40
CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f),
and 63.10(f). EPA’s written responses to
these inquiries are broadly termed
alternative monitoring decisions.
Furthermore, EPA responds to written
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS
and NESHAP regulatory requirements as
they pertain to a whole source category.
These inquiries may pertain, for
example, to the type of sources to which
the regulation applies, or to the testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting
requirements contained in the
regulation. EPA’s written responses to
these inquiries are broadly termed
regulatory interpretations.
EPA currently compiles EPA-issued
NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring
decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them on the
Applicability Determination Index (ADI)
on a quarterly basis. In addition, the
ADI contains EPA-issued responses to
requests pursuant to the stratospheric
ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR
part 82. The ADI is an electronic index
on the Internet with more than one
thousand EPA letters and memoranda
pertaining to the applicability,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of the NSPS and
NESHAP. The letters and memoranda
may be searched by date, office of
issuance, subpart, citation, and control
number or by string word searches.
Today’s notice comprises a summary
of 95 such documents added to the ADI
on February 28, 2006. The subject,
author, recipient, date and header of
each letter and memorandum are listed
in this notice, as well as a brief abstract
of the letter or memorandum. Complete
copies of these documents may be
obtained from the ADI through the
OECA Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/
adi.html.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the
database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database
system on February 28, 2006; the
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40
CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable)
covered by the document; and the title
of the document, which provides a brief
description of the subject matter. We
have also included an abstract of each
document identified with its control
number after the table. These abstracts
are provided solely to alert the public to
possible items of interest and are not
intended as substitutes for the full text
of the documents.
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2006
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Control
A050001
M050030
M050036
M050037
M050038
M050039
M050040
M050041
M050042
M050043
M050044
M050045
M050046
Category
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Subpart
Asbestos ...............
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
MACT ....................
M ...........................
A, EEE ..................
G ...........................
G ...........................
U ............................
A ............................
CC, G ....................
CC .........................
S ............................
S, VVV ..................
PPP, FFFF ............
S ............................
KK, QQQQ ............
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Title
Demolition of Residential Trailer Homes.
Stack Test Waiver for a Portland Cement Plant Kiln.
Alternative Monitoring of Orthoxylene Unit.
Waiver of Additional Performance Testing.
Alternative Reporting Period.
Waiver of Flare Performance Testing.
Alternative Reporting Period.
Alternative Reporting Period.
Alternative Test Method for Pulp and Paper Mill.
Cluster Rule Compliance Plan.
Primary Product Determination for Production Vessels.
Cluster Rule Compliance Plan.
Finishing of Architectural Elements.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2006—Continued
Category
Subpart
M050047 ................
Z050007 .................
0500048 .................
0500060 .................
0500061 .................
0500062 .................
0500063 .................
0500064 .................
0500065 .................
0500066 .................
0500067 .................
0500068 .................
0500069 .................
0500070 .................
0500071 .................
0500072 .................
0500073 .................
0500074 .................
0500075 .................
0500076 .................
0500077 .................
0500078 .................
0500079 .................
0500080 .................
0500081 .................
0500082 .................
0500083 .................
0500084 .................
0500085 .................
0500086 .................
0500087 .................
0500088 .................
0500089 .................
0500090 .................
0500091 .................
0500092 .................
0500093 .................
0500094 .................
0500095 .................
0500096 .................
0500097 .................
0500098 .................
0500099 .................
0500100 .................
0500101 .................
0500102 .................
0500103 .................
0500104 .................
0500105 .................
0500106 .................
0500107 .................
0500108 .................
0500109 .................
0500110 .................
0500111 .................
0500112 .................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Control
MACT ....................
NESHAP ...............
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
NSPS ....................
0500113
0500114
0500115
0500116
0500117
0500118
0500119
0500120
0500121
0500122
0500123
0500124
0500125
0500126
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
Hon R ....................
FF, V .....................
D ............................
Db ..........................
GG .........................
Db ..........................
J, Dc ......................
Dc ..........................
Da ..........................
NNN ......................
J ............................
J ............................
J ............................
J ............................
Dc ..........................
NNN ......................
J ............................
J ............................
GG .........................
Db, GG, Dc ...........
UUU ......................
Db, GG ..................
GG, Db ..................
GG, Db ..................
Da, GG ..................
Dc, GG ..................
Db ..........................
UUU, WWW ..........
Da ..........................
WWW ....................
WWW ....................
CC .........................
RRR, NNN ............
GG .........................
Dc ..........................
LL ..........................
D ............................
Db ..........................
WWW ....................
GG .........................
WWW ....................
Cc ..........................
Y, OOO .................
Dc ..........................
III, NNN .................
WWW ....................
Db ..........................
Dc ..........................
J ............................
D ............................
OOO ......................
Db ..........................
H, T, U, V ..............
XX .........................
UU .........................
A, D, Db, Dc, Kb,
DDD, III, NNN,
RRR.
VV, Y, OOO ..........
OOO, Y, Dc ...........
WWW, III, NNN .....
WWW ....................
WWW ....................
CC .........................
XX, J .....................
TT ..........................
VV .........................
Db, Dc ...................
UUU ......................
GG .........................
J, A, I .....................
J ............................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Title
C–12 Chemical Manufacturing Process Units.
Alternative Monitoring of Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valves.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring.
Alternative Monitoring of Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit.
Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines.
Compliance Monitoring Plan for Gas-Fired Boiler.
Alternative Monitoring of Gasoline Loading Rack.
Alternative Recordkeeping of Fuel Usage.
Alternative Monitoring of Duct Burners.
Alternative Monitoring of Catalytic Incinerators.
Alternative Monitoring of Gasoline Loading Rack.
Alternative Monitoring of Platformer Lock Hopper.
Alternative Monitoring of Vacuum Charge Heater.
Alternative Monitoring of Marine Dock Thermal Oxidizer.
Alternative Recordkeeping of Fuel Usage.
Alternative Monitoring of Distillation Units.
Alternative Monitoring of Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit.
Alternative Monitoring of Refinery Unit.
Alternative Monitoring of New Replacement Turbine.
Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule.
Kyanite Processing.
Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines.
Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule.
Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines.
Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines.
Alternative Monitoring of Gas Turbines.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring.
Stack Testing Waiver.
Tier 2 Sampling.
Alternative Monitoring Proposals for Landfill.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring.
Alternative Monitoring of Distillation Operations.
Alternative Monitoring of Combustion Turbines.
Alternative Recordkeeping of Fuel Usage.
Waiver of Visible Emission Test Requirements.
Alternative Opacity, SO2 , and NOX Monitoring.
Alternative Monitoring Plan Modification Request.
Passive Flares and Waiver of Testing Requirements.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Gas Turbines.
Temporary Disconnection of Gas Collection Wells.
Tier 2 Testing Deadline.
Initial Opacity Performance Testing.
Opacity Monitor Certification.
Waiver of Performance Test of Flare.
Waiver of Installation of Gas Collection Wells.
Initial Performance Test Waiver and Recordkeeping Waiver.
Initial Opacity Performance Testing.
Alternative Monitoring of Refinery Fuel Gas Streams.
Alternative Span Value.
Waiver of Initial Performance Test for Baghouses.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring.
Use of English Units for Monitoring and Recordkeeping.
VRU Bypass During Diesel Loading.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring and Performance Testing.
Alternative Monitoring of Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions.
Alternative Monitoring for Leak Detection.
Alternative Monitoring for Visible Emissions.
Alternative Monitoring of Surface Methane.
Landfill Testing and Emission Rate Calculation Issues.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Landfill Gas.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring.
Re-Test Requirements After Adding Equipment.
Alternative Test Method.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Leak Detection.
Boiler Derate Proposal.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fluidized Bed Dryer.
Modification of Initial Performance Testing.
Performance Test Extension Request.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for CEM Span Setting.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
21015
21016
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2006—Continued
Control
0500127
0500128
0500129
0500130
0500131
0500132
0500133
0500134
0500135
0500136
0500137
0500138
Category
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
NSPS
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Subpart
J ............................
J ............................
J ............................
J ............................
J ............................
NNN, RRR ............
NNN, RRR ............
B ............................
Db ..........................
NNN ......................
J ............................
J ............................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstracts
Abstract for [A050001]
Q1: Are trailer homes with different
owners located in the state of Delaware
that are recycled using two different
processes through the Delaware Solid
Waste Authority subject to 40 CFR part
61, subpart M?
A1: No. 40 CFR part 61, subpart M,
the asbestos NESHAP regulation, does
not apply to demolition of single
residential trailer homes because they
are classified as single dwelling units
and ownership remains with the trailer
owner, not the state. A single dwelling
unit that is being demolished is exempt
from the NESHAP regulation throughout
the entire recycling process. However,
when two or more residential homes are
located at the same demolition site and
are under control of the same owner or
operator, then the trailer homes become
a residential installation subject to the
NESHAP regulation.
Q2: Would 40 CFR part 61, subpart M,
apply if the residential trailer home
were purchased by a commercial entity
rather than being sent to the Delaware
Solid Waste Authority?
A2: No. A residential trailer home and
its recycling process are exempt from
the asbestos NESHAP regulation if at the
time of demolition, it can be classified
as single dwelling unit and does not
meet the definition of a residential
installation in 40 CFR 61.141.
Q3: Given the inapplicability of 40
CFR part 61, subpart M, what might the
State of Delaware do to minimize public
exposure to asbestos from the
demolition of residential trailer homes?
A3: EPA suggests that the State of
Delaware encourage inspection and
removal of asbestos-containing material
at the Delaware Solid Waste Authority
compaction site. The state might also
consider the addition of a permit
condition in the Delaware landfills
operating permits that would prohibit
landfills from accepting asbestoscontaining material as landfill cover.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Title
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Unit.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Unit.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Combustion Unit.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Refinery Unit.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Vent Gas Stream.
Alternative Opacity Monitoring.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Distillation Units.
Alternative Performance Specification Procedure.
Alternative Monitoring Plan for Cogeneration Unit.
SOCMI Distillation Operations.
Fuel Gas Combustion Devices and Process Gas Exemption.
Fuel Gases and Fuel Gas Combustion Devices.
Abstract for [0500060]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to
discontinue calibrating a carbon
monoxide continuous emission monitor
(CEM) with a 1,000-ppmv span gas for
a fluid catalytic cracking unit, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Db, at Flint Hill
Resources Pine Bend petroleum refinery
in Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request
because, based on information
submitted to EPA, Flint Hills Resources
meets the criteria for the exemption set
forth at 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii).
However, a State permit requires the
facility to calibrate its carbon monoxide
continuous emission monitor with a 100
ppmv span gas.
Abstract for [0500061]
Q1: Does EPA waive the multi-load
testing requirement, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, for Tristate’s Pyramid
Generating Station near Lordsburg, New
Mexico?
A1: Yes. EPA waives the multi-load
testing requirement under NSPS subpart
GG because the facility has a nitrogen
oxides continuous emissions monitor
(NOX CEM).
Q2: Does EPA approve the use of
monitoring conducted in accordance
with Part 75 in lieu of certain
monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, at Tristate’s Pyramid
Generating Station near Lordsburg, New
Mexico?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of
certain monitoring of part 75 in lieu of
certain monitoring requirements of
NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [0500062]
Q: Does EPA approve a compliance
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db, for a 185-mmBTU/hr
natural gas-fired boiler at Flint Hills
Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in
Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. On April 12, 2000, the
company supplemented its request in
accordance with EPA’s initial response.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The plan that Koch Fuels (FHR’s former
name) submitted included all of the
information required by 40 CFR
60.49b(c)(1), (2) and (3). Based upon a
review of the information that the
company submitted, EPA approves the
proposed compliance monitoring plan
under NSPS subpart Db.
Abstract for [Z050007]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 61,
subparts V and FF, for pressure/vacuum
relief valves in the wastewater treatment
plant tanks and oil-water separator
located at Flint Hills Resources (FHR)
petroleum refinery in Rosemount,
Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA concludes that the
pressure/vacuum relief valves function
as both pressure relief devices and
dilution air openings under NESHAP
subparts V and FF. EPA did not
promulgate a definition of ‘‘dilution air
opening’’ in NESHAP subpart FF.
NESHAP subpart V infers that a
pressure relief device is designed to
release pressure but is not designed to
function as a dilution air opening. Since
the pressure/vacuum relief valves
relieve excess pressure in the closed
vent system and allow dilution air to
enter the closed vent system, the
pressure/vacuum relief valves are both
pressure relief devices and dilution air
openings. EPA recognizes that the
requirements of 40 CFR
61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and (C) do not account
for this dichotomy, and thus approves
FHR’s request for an alternative
monitoring plan to resolve the
ambiguity.
Abstract for [0500063]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, to address a new refinery fuel
gas that Flint Hills Resources (FHR)
loads at a gasoline loading rack at its
Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount,
Minnesota?
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
A: Yes. EPA finds FHR has
demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas
meets the criteria in EPA’s August 14,
1987 guidance for refinery fuel gas
stream alternative monitoring plans, and
thus it approves the alternative
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J.
action. In addition, BASF will keep
records of organic flow rate to R–170 in
lb/hr. Any hourly flow rates that are
below the approved minimum will be
considered a violation of NSPS subpart
NNN and must be reported as excess
emissions.
Abstract for [0500064]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
fuel usage recordkeeping method, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for two
heaters at Devon Energy’s Bridgeport
Gas Processing Plant near Bridgeport,
Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the changes in
the fuel usage recordkeeping frequency
for NSPS subpart Dc boilers that are
fired with only natural gas and/or low
sulfur oil.
Abstract for [M050037]
Q: Will EPA waive, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart G, additional performance
testing if the scrubber/absorption system
organic absorption medium is changed
from utility water to recycle process
wastewater at a BP Chemicals Green
Lake facility in Port Lavaca, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA will waive additional
testing under MACT subpart G because
the change in medium at the scrubber/
absorption system would lead to only a
slight increase in emissions and the
total emissions remain below the
permitted emissions limit of 0.37 lb/hr.
Abstract for [M050036]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
control method, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G, using dual carbon canisters
to reduce HAP emissions at the
Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette,
Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
method under MACT subpart G,
conditioned on Chalmette’s daily
monitoring of the HAPs concentration
after the primary canister until
breakthrough has occurred three times.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500065]
Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring
requirement, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Da, to use a sulfur dioxide
continuous emission monitor (SO2
CEM) for duct burners located at
Calpine’s Channel Energy Center facility
in Houston, Texas?
A: No. EPA does not waive the
requirement under NSPS subpart Da.
However, EPA will consider the
approval of an alternative monitoring
plan in lieu of an SO2 CEM.
Abstract for [0500066]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart NNN, for the catalytic
incinerator at BASF’s Freeport, Texas
facility, which operates at varying
flowrates and must add hydrocarbons to
the stream to generate the required delta
T established by the performance test?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart
NNN for BASF’s R–170 Catalytic
Incinerator provided that: (1) The
minimum outlet temperature will be
550 degrees C; (2) the minimum delta T
across the bed will be 287 degrees C; (3)
the minimum organic loading to the bed
will be 89,380 lb/hr; and (4) the facility
establishes alarms at a 15 degrees C
differential to allow time for corrective
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Abstract for [0500067]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan (AMP), under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for a flare used by
Flint Hills Resources (FHR) during
periods of maintenance or malfunction
of a vapor recovery unit at a gasoline
loading rack at its Pine Bend Refinery in
Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has
demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas
meets the criteria in EPA’s guidance,
‘‘Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS
Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas’’ for refinery
fuel gas stream alternative monitoring
plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control
Number 0500138) and thus it approves
the alternative monitoring plan under
NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500068]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan (AMP), under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for the platformer
lock hopper and switch valve vent
refinery fuel gas stream at Flint Hills
Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in
Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has
demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas
meets the criteria in EPA’s guidance,
‘‘Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS
Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas’’ for refinery
fuel gas stream alternative monitoring
plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control
No. 0500138), and thus it approves the
alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J.
Abstract for [0500069]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide
continuous emission monitor (H2S
CEM) for the disulfide separator off-gas
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21017
in Atofina’s facility in Port Arthur,
Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J
based upon the data submitted, and
provided that the proposed alternative
monitoring plan correctly applies the
stipulated guidance in EPA’s letters to
Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and
February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control
Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [0500070]
Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide
continuous emission monitor (H2S
CEM) for the dock thermal oxidizer vent
gases in Atofina’s facility in Port Arthur,
Texas?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J
based upon the data submitted, and
provided that the proposed alternative
monitoring plan correctly applies the
stipulated guidance in EPA’s letters to
Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and
February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control
Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Q2: Does EPA approve alternative
recordkeeping requirements for boilers,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the
Frito-Lay facility in Mission, Texas?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
recordkeeping requirements under
subpart Dc based upon the information
submitted by the facility.
Abstract for [M050038]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to
align the periodic reporting
requirements of non-leak detection and
reduction (LDAR) and LDAR to a single
semiannual report, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart U, for the hypalon elastomer
unit at the DuPont Dow facility in
Beaumont, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request to
align the periodic reporting
requirements of non-LDAR and LDAR to
a single semiannual report under MACT
subpart U as long as the reports are
submitted in such a manner that there
are no missing days of reporting.
Abstract for [M050039]
Q: Does EPA waive a performance test
requirement for vent streams that
contain hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and
allow the use of an alternative method
of demonstrating compliance, under 40
CFR part 63, subpart A, at DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise’s facility
in Beaumont, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA grants the waiver of
performance testing under MACT
subpart A for flow measurement and
heat content because the facility has
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
21018
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
provided that the monitored parameters
and ranges at the facility have
supporting data.
demonstrated compliance using
alternate means.
Abstract for [0500071]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative
recordkeeping requirements, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for natural gas
burning boilers at the Frito-Lay facility
in Mission, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
recordkeeping requirements under
subpart Dc based upon the condition
that it is not necessary to keep daily fuel
usage records for units fired only with
natural gas since the emission standards
in subpart Dc are not applicable to these
units.
Abstract for [0500072]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart NNN, an alternative
plan to monitor the total flow to the
combustion device instead of
monitoring the flow of each vent stream
from several distillation units to the
combustion device at ExxonMobil’s
Baytown Chemical Plant in Baytown,
Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative
monitoring request under NSPS subpart
NNN with additional conditions to
ensure which combustion devices are
associated with which vent gas streams.
Abstract for [0500073]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan for a refinery generated
fuel gas stream, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises’
Convent Refinery in Convent,
Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J,
provided the facility follows the
stipulated guidance in EPA’s letters to
Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and
February 13, 2001 (see ADI Control
Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [M050040]
Q: Does EPA align the 40 CFR part 63,
subparts G and CC reporting periods for
Motiva Enterprises’ facility in Norco,
Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA aligns the reporting
periods under MACT subparts G and
CC, provided that the facility submits a
shortened report such that no days of
recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500074]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan for the regenerative
catalytic cracking unit (RCCU), under 40
CFR part 60, subpart J, at Motiva
Enterprises’ facility in Norco,
Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Abstract for [M050041]
Q: Does EPA allow aligning the
reporting period to a semi-annual
calendar year, under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC, for the Shell Norco
Chemical Plant in Norco, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA allows the aligning of the
reporting period under MACT subpart
CC, provided that the facility submits a
shortened report such that no days of
recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
Abstract for [M050042]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of
National Council for Air and Stream
(NCASI) hazardous air pollutants
(HAPS) Test Method 99.01, under 40
CFR part 63, subpart S, to analyze
condensate samples collected at
Appleton Papers’ Spring Mill in Roaring
Spring Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA allows the alternative
method under MACT subpart S,
provided that the appropriate correction
factors are used.
Abstract for [0500075]
Q1: Does EPA approve the
continuation of the current custom fuel
monitoring plan for the new
replacement turbine, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, at East Tennessee
Natural Gas Company’s Compressor
Station 3313 in Rural Retreat, Virginia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this request
under NSPS subpart GG because it
understands that there will be no
change in fuel quality since there is no
change in fuel source.
Q2: Does EPA approve a sampling
location, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GG, where the system’s three major
lines connect?
A2: Yes. Because the ownership of
East Tennessee Natural Gas Company
was transferred from El Paso Energy
Corporation (EPE) to a subsidiary of
Duke Energy Gas Transmission, EPA
approves a new sampling location at
Topside Junction Metering and Control
Station in Knoxville County, where the
system’s three major lines connect.
Abstract for [M050043]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative
monitoring parameters and parameter
values for ‘‘closed’’ biological treatment
systems, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
S, at the Smurfit (formerly Stone
Container Corporation) pulp and paper
mill in Hopewell, Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request
because the facility has adequately
demonstrated it meets the requirements
of MACT subpart S through both
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
continuous monitoring of the proposed
four parameters and continuous
monitoring to ensure that UNOX oxygen
purity is maintained at 96 percent
maximum.
Abstract for [M050044]
Q1: Does EPA approve the primary
product determination for specific
production vessels and precompliance
report for pilot vessels, under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPP, for the CRODA
Manufacturing facility in Mill Hall,
Pennsylvania?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the request
under MACT subpart PPP because it
accepts CRODA’s conclusion that
specific production vessels that do not
manufacture a polyether polyol as the
primary product are not polyether
polyol manufacturing units.
Q2: Does EPA agree that products
manufactured with epoxides do not
meet the definition of a polyether polyol
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP?
A2: Yes. EPA agrees that products that
do not meet the definition of polyether
polyol in MACT subpart PPP are not
subject to the requirements of that
subpart.
Abstract for [M050045]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of
alternative monitoring parameters and
parameter values to demonstrate
compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S for ‘‘closed’’ biological
treatment systems at the St. Laurent
Paperboard facility in West Point,
Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request
because the facility has adequately
demonstrated that the alternative
monitoring parameters meet the
requirements of MACT subpart S.
Abstract for [0500076]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel
monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, for Millennium
Inorganic Chemicals’ Hawkins Point
plant in Baltimore, Maryland?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request in
accordance with its August 14, 1987
custom fuel monitoring schedule
memorandum, and provided that
pipeline quality natural gas is the only
fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500077]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU,
apply to rotary calciners that are used in
the production of mullite with kyanite
as the raw material at Kyanite Mining
Corporation (KMC) facilities?
A: No. NSPS subpart UUU applies to
calciners and dryers at ‘‘mineral
processing plants,’’ i.e., a facility that
processes or produces one or more of
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
the seventeen specifically named
minerals listed in 40 CFR 60.731, their
concentrates, or mixtures which contain
greater than 50 percent of any of these
listed minerals. EPA understands that
silica is formed as a by-product during
the kyanite calcining process at KMC in
quantities that do not constitute the
majority (greater than 50 percent) of any
of the minerals processed or produced
at KMC.
Abstract for [M050046]
Q: Is a facility which primarily
applies finishing to architectural wood
molding materials subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
KK?
A: No. While EPA believes that the
definitions in 40 CFR 63.822 are
intended to be broadly applied and
inclusive, we have determined that
rotogravure printing on wood molding
was not intended to be regulated under
this rule. The facility does not produce
saleable paper products and does use a
flexographic press in its finishing
operations. It therefore does not qualify
as ‘‘publication rotogravure printing’’ as
that term is defined in 40 CFR 63.822.
However, EPA has determined that the
molding finishing operations at the
facility would be regulated under 40
CFR 43 Subpart QQQQ, the Wood
Building Products MACT, if the
molding products ‘‘finished’’ at the
facility are not included within the
category of surface coating (or other
operations specifically excluded under
40 CFR 63.4681(c)(1)–(5)) and are more
than 50 percent by weight wood.
Abstract for [0500078]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric
Power facility in Eddystone Borough,
Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative
monitoring plan request under NSPS
subpart GG, consistent with previous
determinations that provide for the use
of continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS) equipment to
continuously monitor compliance with
the standard for nitrogen oxides.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500079]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel
monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric
Power facility in Eddystone Borough,
Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel
monitoring schedule under NSPS
subpart GG in accordance with its
August 14, 1987 custom fuel monitoring
schedule memorandum, and provided
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
that natural gas is the only fuel fired in
the gas turbine.
Abstract for [0500080]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
test method request for performance
testing of (nitrogen oxides) NOX
emission limitations for two gas turbine/
duct burner combined cycle units,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at the
Liberty Electric Power facility in
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request
under NSPS subpart GG based on a
review by the Emission, Monitoring,
and Analysis Division (EMAD) of the
Office on Air Quality, Planning and
Standards, and subject to the conditions
specified in the EMAD memorandum
(C304–02) dated April 5, 2002.
Abstract for [0500081]
Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel
monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, for the Tenaska Virginia
Generating Station in Fluvanna County,
Virginia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this custom
fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS
subpart GG in accordance with its
August 14, 1987 custom fuel monitoring
schedule memorandum, and provided
that pipeline quality natural gas is the
only fuel being burned (see ADI Control
Number NS33).
Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, that provides for the use of
CEMS equipment to continuously
monitor compliance with the standards
for nitrogen oxides for the Tenaska
Virginia Generating Station in Fluvanna
County, Virginia?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
monitoring plan request under NSPS
subpart GG, based upon its consistency
with previous determinations made by
the Agency and conditions necessitating
specific additional requirements for
recordkeeping and monitoring.
Abstract for [0500082]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel
monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part
60 subpart GG, for Energy System North
East’s Cogeneration Plant in North East,
Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel
monitoring schedule under NSPS
subpart GG in accordance with its
August 14, 1987 custom fuel monitoring
schedule memorandum, and provided
that pipeline quality natural gas is the
only fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500083]
Q: Does EPA waive the opacity
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db for a wood-fired boiler at
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21019
the Homanit USA plant in Montgomery
County, North Carolina?
A: No. EPA finds that neither NSPS
subpart Db nor the NSPS general
provisions in subpart A provide the
authority to completely waive the
applicable opacity monitoring
requirement of NSPS subpart Db.
However, based upon the low
probability that there will be any
opacity in the regenerative thermal
oxidizer stack downstream of the boiler,
EPA would be willing to consider an
opacity monitoring alternative.
Abstract for [0500084]
Q: Does EPA approve use of an
alternative path length correction factor,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU,
based on width rather than equivalent
diameter for the continuous opacity
monitoring system on three rectangular
exhaust stacks at the 3M facility in
Moncure, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request.
EPA finds the alternative path length
correction factor is acceptable under
NSPS subpart UUU because of the high
bias in the opacity data created by using
equivalent diameter.
Abstract for [0500085]
Q: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part
60, subpart Da requirement to conduct
a stack test in order to determine
compliance with the applicable sulfur
dioxide limit for a duct burner at
Cogentrix Energy’s Caledonia Power
Station?
A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart
Da requirement based upon the margin
of compliance, provided that the unit is
fired with only pipeline quality natural
gas.
Abstract for [0500086]
Q: Does EPA allow collection of Tier
2 samples from the active gas collection
systems, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW, at the Prairie Bluff Landfill in
Chickasaw County, Mississippi, and the
Little Dixie Landfill in Madison County,
Mississippi?
A: Yes. Based upon NSPS subpart
WWW revisions promulgated on
October 17, 2000, EPA finds the
proposed Tier 2 sampling sites to be
acceptable, provided that they are
located prior to any gas moving or
condensate removal equipment. In
addition, at least three samples must be
collected from the proposed sampling
site at each of the landfills in question.
Abstract for [0500087]
Q1: Does EPA approve the proposed
alternative oxygen concentration limit
for 16 wells, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, at the Deans Bridge
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
21020
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
Road Landfill operated by the Augusta,
Georgia Public Works and Engineering
Department?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed
alternative concentration limit under
NSPS subpart WWW because the
temperature monitoring data for the
wells in question indicate that oxygen
levels greater than five percent have not
poisoned methane producing bacteria.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW to
conduct methane surface concentration
monitoring in a closed 52-acre section of
the landfill?
A2: No. Because NSPS subpart WWW
requires that methane surface
concentration monitoring in closed
areas be conducted at least annually,
EPA concludes that the requirement to
conduct this monitoring cannot be
waived. However, the monitoring
frequency can be reduced from a
quarterly to an annual basis if none of
the methane concentration readings in
the closed section of the landfill were
500 parts per million or more during the
June 2003 monitoring period.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500088]
Q: Does EPA approve an opacity
monitoring alternative for two glass
melting furnaces, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart CC, at the Anchor Glass
Company’s Warner Robbins, Georgia
plant?
A: No. EPA does not approve this
request under NSPS subpart CC. Based
upon the results of testing conducted on
both furnaces, there does not appear to
be a consistent relationship between
particulate emission rates and the
operating parameter (bridgewall
temperature) that Anchor Glass
proposed to monitor in lieu of
installing, certifying, and operating a
continuous emission monitoring system.
Abstract for [0500089]
Q: Does EPA find that the 40 CFR part
60, subpart RRR monitoring procedures
are an acceptable alternative to the 40
CFR part 60, subpart NNN requirements
for volatile organic compound (VOC)
excess emission monitoring at the
distillation operation in Celanese
Acetate’s plant in Rock Hill, South
Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the NSPS
subpart RRR monitoring procedures are
an acceptable alternative to the
monitoring procedures required under
NSPS subpart NNN in this case. The
NSPS subpart RRR requirement to
monitor diversions from the control
device accomplishes the same end as
the NSPS subpart NNN requirement to
monitor the flow to the control device.
In addition, based upon information in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
the preamble to the final rule
promulgating NSPS subpart RRR,
monitoring the combustion temperature
for boilers and process heaters, although
required under NSPS subpart NNN, is
not necessary when a VOC vent stream
is introduced with the primary fuel for
the boiler or heater.
Abstract for [0500090]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of Gas
Producers Association (GPA) Method
2265, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG,
to measure the sulfur content of natural
gas burned in turbines at the Clarksdale
Public Utilities Crossroads Power Plant?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request to
use GPA Method 2265 for monitoring
natural gas sulfur content under NSPS
subpart GG because it is an acceptable
alternative similar to American Society
for Testing Materials (ASTM) methods
for measuring sulfur content and
consistent with several other past
determinations.
Abstract for [0500091]
Q: Does EPA require requests for
approval of an alternative fuel usage
recordkeeping schedule to be submitted
to EPA for review, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Dc, especially routine
requests for natural gas and distillate
oil-fired boilers?
A: No. Requests of this type do not
have to be submitted exclusively to EPA
for review. Because of the routine nature
of such requests, review on a case-bycase basis at the Regional level slows
down the approval without providing
any environmental benefit. The low fuel
emissions from natural gas and distillate
oil-fired boilers means that monthly fuel
usage recordkeeping frequencies are
typically appropriate to verify these
sources’ compliance. Additionally,
proposals to apportion total fuel usage
between multiple units with a common
fuel flow meter do not have to be
submitted to EPA for review if the
apportionment approach is at least as
accurate as one that EPA approved for
several plants operated by Tyson Foods
in Region 5 in a determination dated
May 1, 2001 (ADI control number
010005), which was attached to EPA’s
response.
Abstract for [0500092]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL, to
perform visible emissions tests on
several affected facilities located inside
a building at the Treibacher
Schleifmittal grit plant in
Andersonville, Georgia?
A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart
LL requirement to conduct separate
visible emission tests on each of the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
fugitive emission sources inside the
facility because the results of EPA
Method 22 observations conducted on
the exterior of the building provide
adequate assurance of compliance for
the facilities located inside.
Abstract for [0500093]
Q: Does EPA approve the opacity,
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) alternative monitoring
proposals, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart D, for the Number 2 Bark Boiler
at Riverwood International’s kraft pulp
mill in Macon, Georgia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
monitoring proposals concerning
opacity, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxides under NSPS subpart D. EPA
finds monitoring of the scrubber liquor
flow rate and scrubber pressure drop to
be an acceptable alternative to using
continuous opacity monitors (COMS).
Additionally, monitoring the pH of the
scrubber liquor when coal is fired is an
acceptable alternative to an SO2 CEMS.
Furthermore, performing annual boiler
tune-ups and conducting annual NOX
performance tests is reasonable
assurance of compliance with the
applicable NOX emission limits in
subpart D in lieu of a NOX CEMS.
Abstract for [0500094]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to
modify the current opacity monitoring
alternative, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Db, for a boiler at Georgia
Pacific’s plywood plant in Monticello,
Georgia, by deleting one of the three
parameters currently monitored as an
indicator of scrubber performance?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request
under NSPS subpart Db to drop the
water supply pressure monitoring
requirement. Based on facts submitted
to EPA, monitoring both water flow rate
and supply pressure at this plant is
unnecessary. In addition, several other
NSPS subparts, including OOO and
UUU, require only pressure drop and
water flow rate monitoring.
Abstract for [0500095]
Q1: Does EPA approve a proposal to
use passive flares on a temporary basis
(not to exceed 18 months), under 40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at Waste
Management’s Live Oak Landfill in
DeKalb County, Georgia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed
flares under NSPS subpart WWW,
provided that they are used only in
areas where liners have been installed
on the sides and bottom of the landfill
in accordance with 40 CFR 258.40. This
determination is based upon the design
of the proposed flares, each of which
must include a pilot flame,
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
thermocouple, a thermocouple to
monitor the temperature at the flare tip,
and a data logger to record the
thermocouple data.
Q2: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part
60, subpart WWW performance testing
requirement for the passive flares at
Waste Management’s Live Oak Landfill
in DeKalb County, Georgia?
A2: No. EPA does not waive the NSPS
subpart WWW performance testing
requirement for the passive flares
because flare design flow rate data and
information regarding typical landfill
gas composition do not provide a
sufficient basis for a waiver. To obtain
such a waiver, the facility must test a
portion of the flares that it installs and
submit the results of the test to EPA for
review.
Abstract for [0500096]
Q: Does EPA approve American
Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
Method D 6667–01 as an alternative
method, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GG, for monitoring the sulfur content of
natural gas burned in three gas turbines
at the Williams Pipeline site in Coden,
Alabama?
A: Yes. EPA has previously approved
the proposed alternative method under
NSPS subpart GG for measuring natural
gas sulfur content at more than twenty
separate turbine installations
nationwide in lieu of the four ASTM
methods for determining the sulfur
content of gaseous fuels listed in 40 CFR
60.335(d).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500097]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to
temporarily abandon gas collection
wells during vertical expansion in
active areas that have held waste for five
years or more, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, at Waste Management’s
Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County,
Georgia?
A: No. EPA does not approve under
NSPS subpart WWW the proposal to
disconnect the wells for a six to twelve
month period while a vertical expansion
is taking place because it would
constitute a relaxation of the applicable
emission standard.
Abstract for [0500098]
Q1: Does EPA allow Clayton County,
Georgia, which missed the deadline for
a Tier 2 retest at its SR3 Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill, to have the option of
conducting another Tier 2 test prior to
the deadline for submittal of a gas
collection and control (GCCS) system
design plan under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc?
A1: Yes. EPA has determined that
additional Tier 2 testing can be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
conducted any time prior to the
deadline for installation of a GCCS (30
months after the landfill’s nonmethane
organic compound emission rate
exceeds 50 megagrams per year),
provided that a design plan is submitted
by the applicable deadline (12 months
after the landfill’s nonmethane organic
compound emission rate exceeds 50
megagrams per year).
Q2: Could EPA clarify whether the
results of initial Tier 2 testing in 1998
or of a Tier 2 retest in 2003 should be
used for calculating the 2003
nonmethane organic compound
(NMOC) emission rate, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc, at the Clayton
County, Georgia, Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill?
A2: Once the deadline for Tier 2
retesting has passed, NMOC emission
rates under NSPS subpart WWW must
be calculated using the 4000 part per
million default value, unless additional
Tier 2 testing is done. If additional
testing is done, the NMOC
concentration results from this retest,
rather than the default value, would
apply for calculating the NMOC
emission rate for year 2003.
Abstract for [0500099]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal for
shortening the visible emission (VE)
observation from three hours to one
hour for conveyor drop points, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Y, at DTE Energy
Services’ coal preparation plant in
Belews Creek, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request to
shorten the VE observation time to one
hour when no individual opacity
readings exceed 15 percent during the
first hour of readings. Demonstrating
that opacity levels do not exceed 15
percent of the applicable limit for an
entire hour will provide adequate
assurance of compliance with the
opacity limit in NSPS subpart Y.
Abstract for [0500100]
Q: Could EPA verify whether a
continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) located on a replacement stack
for a boiler at Trigen Biopower in
Caldwell, North Carolina, should be
subject, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Dc, to certification requirements in the
latest version of Performance
Specification 1 (PS–1)?
A: Yes. EPA finds that under NSPS
subpart Dc, the COMS is subject to the
latest PS–1 certification requirements.
Installing the monitor on the
replacement stack constitutes relocation
because a replacement stack is likely to
differ in some respects from the original
stack, and there is no way to be
absolutely sure two stacks are
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21021
completely identical. Relocating a
COMS is one of the conditions requiring
monitor certification in the August 10,
2000 version of PS–1.
Abstract for [0500101]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to
conduct a performance test on a flare
that controls volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from air oxidation and
distillation operations, under 40 CFR
part, 60 subparts III and NNN, at
Albemarle Corporation’s chemical plant
in Orangeburg, South Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA waives the performance
requirement under NSPS subparts III
and NNN. Information supplied by the
company demonstrates that the flare tip
velocity will be less than 50 percent of
the applicable limit even if the total
volume of reactants for the hydrogen
cyanide production unit were vented
through the control device. Hence, the
velocity limit promulgated in 40 CFR
60.18(c)(3)(i)(A) will not be exceeded.
Abstract for [0500102]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to
install gas collection wells in active
landfill areas that have held waste for
five years or more, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart WWW, at the Central
Disposal Facility in Brevard County,
Florida?
A: No. EPA does not waive this
requirement. Such a waiver would
constitute an unacceptable relaxation of
the emission standards of NSPS subpart
WWW because landfill gas that would
be collected and routed to control
equipment under the rule’s provisions
would instead be released to the
atmosphere without controls.
Abstract for [0500103]
Q1: Does EPA waive the requirement
to conduct an initial performance test,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, on
two of the three combustion turbines at
Forsyth Energy Project’s (FEP) plant in
Forsyth County, North Carolina?
A1: Yes. EPA grants this waiver
request. Under the conditions proposed
by FEP, EPA finds the test results for
one of the three identical turbines will
provide adequate assurance that the
other two units also comply with NSPS
subpart GG. Additionally, the use of
nitrogen oxides continuous emissions
monitors (NOX CEMS) at FEP provides
a further source of credible evidence
regarding the compliance for all three
turbines following the initial testing.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement
to keep records of the annual capacity
factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Db, for FEP’s auxiliary boiler?
A2: Yes. EPA waives this
requirement. EPA finds that since the
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
21022
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
company is not seeking an exemption
from the nitrogen oxides limit under
NSPS subpart Db, there is no regulatory
need for information regarding the
auxiliary boiler’s annual capacity factor.
Abstract for [0500104]
Q: Does EPA approve the shortening
in duration of the initial opacity
performance test, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Dc, from three hours to one
hour if there are no opacity readings
greater than ten percent during the
initial hour of observations on three oilfired boilers at the RJ Reynolds plant in
Tobaccoville, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request
under NSPS subpart Dc based upon the
expectation that there will be a low
variability in opacity levels when oil is
used to fire these boilers. The test
duration can be shortened to one hour
for any of the boilers that does not have
individual opacity readings exceeding
10 percent for each of the 15-second
visible emissions readings taken during
the first hour of observations.
Abstract for [0500105]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) monitoring
proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
J, submitted for refinery fuel gas burned
in a reformer furnace at the Air Products
and Chemicals Catlettsburg, Kentucky
hydrogen plant?
A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS
subpart J the proposed H2S alternative
monitoring plan. The hydrogen sulfide
content of the reformer’s fuel gas and
fuel gas streams is inherently low, and
Air Products has an economic incentive
to keep these levels low in order to
prevent poisoning the hydrogen
reformer catalyst.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500106]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
span value of 70 percent, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart D, proposed for two hog
fuel boilers at Weyerhaeuser’s Kraft
pulp mill in Plymouth, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed
alternative span value under NSPS
subpart J because it will not interfere
with the facility’s ability to identify and
report emissions’ exceedances for
opacity as stated in 40 CFR 60.45(g)(1).
In addition, the proposed alternative
span value for the hog fuel boilers will
improve the overall effectiveness of
Weyerhaeuser’s continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS) quality
assurance program by ensuring that all
five units with COMS at the Plymouth
mill have the same span value.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Abstract for [0500107]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to
conduct an initial performance test on
two existing baghouses used to control
particulate emissions from materials
handling equipment, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart OOO, at the Monarch
Ceramic Tile plant in Florence,
Alabama?
A: No. EPA does not approve this
request under NSPS subpart OOO.
Given the increase in particulate loading
at the baghouse inlet and the amount of
time elapsed since the last performance
test, prior test results do not provide
adequate assurance of compliance for
new equipment being added to the
plant.
Abstract for [0500108]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative
monitoring plan for opacity as proposed
for a backup package boiler for
additional steam generation, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Db, at the Jefferson
Smurfit linerboard mill in Fernadina
Beach, Florida?
A: No. Although EPA has approved
proposals for the monitoring of opacity
using visible emissions data collection
instead of using a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS), the
proposed alternative monitoring plan
includes provisions which are not
acceptable to ensure continuous
compliance. The specific provisions that
must be removed from this proposal
before it can be approved by EPA
include requests for making opacity
readings only on days when the boiler
operates for more than six hours, and
those provisions that eliminate opacity
readings on weekends and holidays.
Also, if the company seeks an
exemption from monitoring during
periods when weather conditions make
it impractical to collect opacity data, the
proposal must be revised to identify the
very specific conditions under which
such an exemption could be justified.
Abstract for [0500109]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring proposal, under 40 CFR part
60, subparts H, T, U and V, using
English units of measure, rather than
metric units of measure, for facilities at
the U.S. Agri-Chemicals plant in Polk
County, Florida?
A: Yes. With regard to NSPS subpart
H; EPA approval for the use of English
units is not required, as the applicable
monitoring provisions in the rule do not
specifically require the use of metric
units. Although the monitoring
provisions in NSPS subparts T, U, and
V require that feed rate data be
expressed in metric units (i.e.,
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
megagrams per hour), EPA approves
using English units (tons per hour) to
satisfy these requirements because the
fluoride emission limits in these rules
are expressed in both metric and
English units, and this does not hinder
a compliance determination.
Abstract for [0500110]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to
use an automated system to distinguish
between gasoline truck tanks and diesel
truck tanks, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart XX, in order to bypass the vapor
recovery unit (VRU) during diesel
loading at the Marathon Ashland
Petroleum (MAP) bulk gasoline terminal
in Knoxville, Tennessee?
A: Based on the information
submitted, EPA cannot approve the
proposed alternative monitoring plan at
this time. However, the concept behind
the proposal has merits. For further
consideration of the alternative
monitoring plan, MAP must submit to
EPA additional information including:
A demonstration that volatile organic
compound (VOC) concentrations differ
enough between different loading
scenarios for a continuous monitor to
tell when diesel trucks are being loaded;
data regarding VOC monitor response
time; and details regarding the quality
assurance/quality control procedures for
the continuous monitor.
Abstract for [0500111]
Q1: Does EPA approve the use of EPA
Method 22, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart UU, as an alternative to EPA
Method 9 for determining compliance
with the opacity standard for mineral
handling and storage facilities at the
TAMKO Roofing Products plant in Clay
County, Florida?
A1: No. EPA Method 22 is not an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9
because it determines the total duration
of visible emissions during the test
period but does not record opacity
levels when visible emissions are
present. Therefore, the use of EPA
Method 22 makes it impossible to
determine the magnitude of any
violations under NSPS subpart UU.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement
to conduct opacity performance testing,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, on
mineral surge tanks and limestone surge
tanks located inside a building at the
TAMKO Roofing Products plant in Clay
County, Florida?
A2: No. EPA denies this waiver
request. The applicable opacity standard
in NSPS subpart UU applies to tanks
located inside a building. EPA Method
9 can be performed inside buildings.
Furthermore, in order to obtain approval
for an opacity performance test waiver,
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
the facility must supply information
that could be used to demonstrate
compliance through other means. No
such information was provided in this
request.
Abstract for [0500112]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring proposal, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart A, for maintaining records of
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
periods only when there are occurrences
of excess emissions at the Eastman
Chemical plant in Kingsport,
Tennessee?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative
recordkeeping proposal under NSPS
general provisions, subpart A, because
the primary use for these records is to
determine the applicability of the
provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(c). Thus,
limiting recording of emissions data at
this type of facility during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
only when there are occurrences of
excess emissions is acceptable and
should not affect identifying compliance
violations.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500113]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of
sensory means (i.e., sight, sound, and
smell) as an acceptable alternative,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, to
using EPA Method 21 for detecting leaks
from equipment in acetic acid service at
the Eastman Chemical plant in
Kingsport, Tennessee?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative
under NSPS subpart VV because prior
monitoring results submitted by the
facility show that the number of leaks
identified using sensory methods for
equipment in acetic acid service has
been significantly higher than the
number detected using solely EPA
Method 21. Also, all of the previous
leaks found using EPA Method 21
would have been detected if only
sensory methods had been used.
Abstract for [0500114]
Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in
the duration of visible emission testing,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, for
conveyor belt transfer points at Eastman
Chemical Company’s (Eastman) plant in
Kingsport, Tennessee?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the request
under NSPS subpart Y to shorten the
test duration from three hours to one
hour if no individual readings exceed 20
percent and no more than three
individual readings equal 20 percent
during the first hour of observations.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement
to enter a building and conduct separate
visible emission tests, under 40 CFR
part 60, subparts Y and OOO, on several
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
conveyor belt transfer points if 75
minutes of EPA Method 22 observations
indicate that there are no fugitive
emissions from the building?
A2: Yes. EPA waives the requirement
under NSPS subparts Y and OOO to
conduct separate visible emission tests
for the conveyor belt transfer points
because the use of Method 22 to verify
that there are no fugitive emissions from
the building offers adequate assurance
of compliance for the facilities inside.
Abstract for [0500115]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposed
alternative surface methane
concentration monitoring frequency,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW,
for a Class III area at the North County
Resource Recovery Facility operated by
the Solid Waste Authority of Palm
Beach County, Florida?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative
under NSPS subpart WWW because
methane generation rates in the Class III
area are expected to be low given the
types of waste (construction demolition
debris, trash, paper, and glass) placed
there, and because no methane was
detected during five successive
quarterly monitoring periods. However,
as this landfill is still active, the
condition for this approval is that a
methane concentration of 250 ppm,
rather than 500 ppm, will be used as a
trigger for reverting back to a quarterly
methane surface monitoring frequency.
Abstract for [0500116]
Q1: Does EPA approve the option for
landfill facilities to conduct additional
Tier 2 testing, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, if an annual report
indicates that the nonmethane organic
compound (NMOC) emission rate
calculated with previous Tier 2 results
exceeds 50 megagrams/year?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this request
because, as Tier 2 testing is conducted
every five years and NSPS subpart
WWW requires periodic retesting, it
would be inconsistent and unreasonable
to deny facilities the option of
conducting additional testing that might
improve the accuracy of test data. With
additional testing, NMOC emission rates
calculated with new Tier 2 data will be
more representative of current
conditions than results calculated using
older data.
Q2: Does the presence of an existing
gas collection and control system
(GCCS) affect NMOC emission rate
calculations under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW?
A2: No. The presence of an existing
GCCS does not affect the NMOC
emission rate calculations under NSPS
subpart WWW. The variables specified
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21023
in 40 CFR 60.754(a)(1) for calculating
NMOC emission rates are not associated
with GCCS operation. Depending on the
calculated NMOC emissions rate, the
facility may be required to submit a
design plan for existing or planned
control systems for gas emission within
a specified timeframe.
Abstract for [0500117]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to
conduct monthly oxygen concentration
monitoring at the inlet to the flare,
rather than at each individual well,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at
Onyx Waste Services’ Pecan Road
Landfill in Valdosta, Georgia.
A: No. EPA does not approve the
proposed alternative monitoring
location under NSPS subpart CC
because it is downstream of the point
where the gas from all the wells in the
collection system combines. No
conclusions regarding the performance
of individual wells can be drawn from
the results at this monitoring location.
In addition, maintaining an oxygen
concentration of 5 percent or less at the
flare inlet will not provide assurance
that all wells comply with subpart CC.
Abstract for [0500118]
Q: Does EPA approve the alternative
opacity monitoring proposed, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart CC, for two glass
melting furnaces at the Anchor Glass
Company plant in Warner Robbins,
Georgia?
A: EPA may approve the proposal if
remaining issues can be resolved.
Although the proposal to monitor
furnace bridgewall temperature as an
alternative to installing a continuous
opacity monitoring system (COMS)
under NSPS subpart CC appears
reasonable, there are several issues that
need to be resolved before the proposal
can be approved. These issues include:
the appropriate margin of compliance
with the applicable particulate emission
standard if a COMS is not used; the
possibility that natural gas usage rates
will need to be monitored in addition to
bridgewall temperatures, and what
constitute excess emissions.
Abstract for [0500119]
Q: Could EPA clarify whether the
addition of in-line blending equipment
to a loading rack at the Magellan
Midstream Partners (Magellan) bulk
gasoline terminal in Greensboro, North
Carolina, would trigger the requirement
for a retest, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart XX, on the vapor recovery unit
(VRU) that controls emissions during
loading?
A: No. EPA has determined that
adding the in-line blending equipment
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
21024
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
does not automatically trigger VRU
retest. The initial VRU test that the
company conducted in February 2000 is
the only test specifically required for
sources subject to NSPS subpart XX.
Although the Administrator can ask for
a retest at anytime, EPA does not find
it necessary to require a new test
following the installation of the in-line
blending equipment at Magellan’s
Greensboro terminal. Adding the in-line
blending equipment did not increase the
number of trucks that can be loaded
simultaneously at the terminal. Also,
there was a significant margin of
compliance during the initial test.
Abstract for [0500120]
Q: Does EPA approve EPA Method
25A as an alternative to EPA Method 25,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT, for
carbon absorber efficiency testing on a
metal coil coating line at the Thermalex
plant in Montgomery, Alabama?
A: Yes. EPA approves EPA Method
25A as an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 25 for control device efficiency
testing where VOC concentrations in the
control system exhaust are expected to
be 50 ppm or less. In this case, the VOC
concentration is expected to be
approximately 10 ppm at the carbon
absorber outlet which is acceptable.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500121]
Q: Does EPA approve as an alternative
to EPA Method 21, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart VV, sensory means (i.e.≤,
sight, sound, smell) to identify leaks
from equipment in acetic acid and/or
acetic anhydride service at the Eastman
Chemical Company facility in
Kingsport, Tennessee?
A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed
alternative monitoring under NSPS
subpart VV because monitoring results
provided indicate that leaks from
equipment are more easily identified
through sensory methods than through
EPA Method 21. The physical properties
(i.e., high boiling points, high
corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of
acetic acid and acetic anhydride and the
process conditions at the facility in
question make sensory means
preferable.
Abstract for [0500122]
Q: Does EPA approve a boiler derate
proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Db, based on changes made to the
natural gas burner at North Carolina
Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves this proposal
under NSPS subpart Db because it has
determined that the proposed derate
method, which includes installing new
boiler tips limiting the heat input
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
capacity to 100 mmBtu/hr and
eliminating the burning of fuel oil, will
reduce the capacity of the boiler and
will comply with EPA’s policy on
derates.
Abstract for [0500123]
Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring procedure, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart UUU, for a spray tower
scrubber at the Short Mountain Silica
Company in Mooresburg, Tennessee?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed
alternative under NSPS subpart UUU to
monitor the scrubbing liquid supply
pressure and scrubbing liquid flow rate
rather than measuring the pressure loss
of the gas stream through the scrubber
and the scrubbing liquid flow rate.
Because there is little pressure drop of
the gas stream as it passes through the
spray tower, pressure drop is not a good
indicator of spray tower efficiency.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, to
conduct a performance test for a rotary
dryer which serves as a backup for the
fluidized bed dryer at the Short
Mountain Silica Company in
Mooresburg, Tennessee?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the
performance test waiver under NSPS
subpart UUU because demonstration of
compliance for the fluidized bed dryer
also shows an acceptable level of
compliance assurance for the rotary
dryer.
Abstract for [0500124]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of
nitrogen oxides continuous emission
monitors (NOX CEMs), under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, as an alternative to
the four-point load test for gas turbines
at Cinergy’s South Houston Green
Power Site facility in Houston, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
monitoring proposal under NSPS
subpart GG, provided that the CEMs for
NOX is capable of calculating a one-hour
average NOX emissions concentrations
corrected to 15 percent oxygen, and the
facility submits reports of excess
emissions and summary reports.
Abstract for [0500125]
Q: Does EPA approve a 90-day
extension of the performance testing
deadline, under 40 CFR part 60,
subparts A and I, in light of weather
conditions and material shortages that
made it impossible for the Pavers
Supply facility in Conroe, Texas, to run
at full rates?
A: No. EPA denies the request for a
90-day extension under NSPS subpart I.
Concurring with the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
grants a 60-day extension pursuant to 40
CFR 60.8(d).
Abstract for [0500126]
Q: Does EPA approve a span setting
of 100 ppmv on an outlet continuous
emission monitor (CEM), under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, for the sulfur dioxide
(SO2), CEMs for the fluid catalytic
cracking unit wet gas scrubber (WGS) at
the Shell Oil Products refining facility
in Deer Park, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves under NSPS
subpart JJ the span setting of 100 ppmv
for the WGS outlet SO2 CEMs, as it will
be acceptable with respect to the 50
ppmv rolling seven day average.
Abstract for [0500127]
Q: Does EPA waive continuous
emission monitor for the hydrogen
sulfide (CEM H2S) stream monitoring,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the
steam methane reformer unit pressure
swing adsorption (PSA) at Valero’s
Corpus Christi-West Plant, in Corpus
Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request
under NSPS subpart J because it has
determined that no CEM HS needs to be
installed for the purpose of monitoring
the H2S in the off-gas vent streams in the
PSA routed to the reformer heater.
Instead, the alternative parameter will
be the total sulfur content of the
combined feed to the sulfur vapor
recovery (SVR) unit.
Abstract for [0500128]
Q: Does EPA waive continuous
emission monitor for the hydrogen
sulfide (CEM H2S) stream monitoring,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, for the
catalytic reformer unit heater fuel gas
from fuel gas drums numbers 1 and 2
(which is a refinery and generates gas
stream) at Valero’s Corpus Christi-West
Plant, in Corpus Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA grants this waiver request
under NSPS subpart J because it has
determined that no CEM H2S needs to
be installed for the purpose of
monitoring the H2S in the off-gas vent
streams from fuel gas mixing drum #1
or #2 routed to the reformer heater.
Instead, the alternative parameter will
be the total sulfur content of the
combined feed to the CRU unit.
Abstract for [0500129]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of an
alternative monitoring plan, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart J, for the soil vapor
extraction system (SVE) at Western
Refining’s facility in El Paso, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
monitoring proposal under NSPS
subpart J to measure H2S content
directly at the inlet to the internal
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
combustion engine (ICE), which are
components of the SVE system.
Abstract for [0500130]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, for the catalytic reformer 1
unit (CR–1) at Motiva Enterprises’
facility in Norco, Louisiana? The
company proposes waiving the
continuous monitoring system (CMS)
requirement for hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
steam monitoring and instead
monitoring the gas stream using EPA
guidance on alternative monitoring
plans for low sulfur refinery fuel gas
streams.
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative
monitoring under NSPS subpart J. No
CMS needs to be installed for the
purpose of monitoring the H2S in the
make gas stream to the unit’s heaters.
Instead, H2S concentrations will be
monitored using detection tubes. This
determination is subject to the
conditions set forth in the stipulated
guidance in EPA’s letters to Koch Fuels
on December 2, 1999 and February 13,
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers
0500137 and 0100037).
NSPS subpart RRR, and must maintain
a schematic diagram for all related
affected vent streams, collection
system(s), fuel systems, control devices,
and bypass systems as stated in
60.705(s).
Abstract for [0500133]
Q: Does EPA approve certain
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart RRR, as alternative monitoring
requirements, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart NNN, for DuPont’s facility in La
Porta, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
use of the proposed provisions in NSPS
subpart RRR as an alternative means of
demonstrating compliance under NSPS
subpart NNN. As conditions of
approval, the facility must comply with
the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for flow indicators in
NSPS subpart RRR, and must maintain
a schematic diagram for all related
affected vent streams, collection
systems, fuel systems, control devices,
and bypass systems as stated in 40 CFR
60.705(s).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500131]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring for the hydrogen generation
unit (HGU) torvex catalytic converter,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at
Motiva Enterprises’ facility in Convent,
Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative
monitoring under NSPS subpart J. No
CEM needs to be installed for the
purpose of monitoring the H2S in the
H2S Concentration Column overhead
vent stream. Instead, the H2S
concentration will be measured daily
using detection tubes, with ranges and
frequency as set forth in the stipulated
guidance in EPA’s letters to Koch Fuels
on December 2, 1999 and February 13,
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers
0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [0500132]
Q: Does EPA approve certain
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart RRR, as alternative monitoring
requirements, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart NNN, for DuPont’s Sabine River
Works facility in Orange County, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
use of the proposed provisions in NSPS
subpart RRR as an alternative means of
demonstrating compliance under NSPS
subpart NNN for the specified
distillation unit. As conditions of
approval, the facility must comply with
the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for flow indicators in
Abstract for [0500134]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
performance specification procedure,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart B,
allowing the use of seven consecutive
unit operating days instead of seven
consecutive calendar days for the
calibration drift test period at
Cottonwood Energy’s facility in
Deweyville, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
the use under NSPS subpart B of seven
consecutive operating days for the
calibration drift test period, based on
previous EPA determinations and
guidance that a seven consecutive
operating day test is more stringent than
a seven consecutive calendar day test.
As a condition of this approval, if the
continuous monitoring system CMS
fails the seventh day test, the facility
will repeat the entire test.
Abstract for [0500135]
Q1: Does EPA approve alternative
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Db, for a cogeneration
unit at Shell Chemical Company’s
facility in Geismar, Louisiana
commensurate with past
determinations?
A1: No. EPA does not approve the
alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart Db because the determination
letter (ADI Control Number PS15),
referenced in Shell’s proposal, does not
apply to the fuel records required by 40
CFR 60.49b.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21025
Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative
reporting of nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions requirements, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Db, where the NOX
emission limit and excess emissions are
reported on an average ‘‘steam
generating unit operating day’’ basis,
instead of a 30-day average for Shell
Chemical Company’s facility in
Geismar, Louisiana?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
reporting plan under NSPS subpart Db,
provided that the records for the units
specified in 40 CFR 60.49(b) are
maintained on-site and are available at
the request of any state or Federal
agency inspector.
Abstract for [M050047]
Q: Does EPA consider the C–12
process area of INVISTA’s Victoria Plant
and its component chemical
manufacturing process units (CMPUs)
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, the
HON rule?
A: No. As none of these units qualify
for regulation under both 40 CFR
63.100(b) and 40 CFR 63.100(b)(1)–(2),
the only way likely for the C–12 process
area to qualify for regulation under 40
CFR 63.100 would be to conflate all
CMPUs into a single CMPD. Since these
units are not conflated into a single
CMPD unit, these units are not subject
to the HON Rule. This finding is
consistent with a previous
determination, ADI Control Number
M960028.
Abstract for [0500136]
Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart
NNN, apply to the SP–1 and SP–2
distillation units at INVISTA’s Victoria
Plant?
A1: No. Since the SP–1 and SP–2
units produce no products, by-products,
or co-products, or intermediates listed
in 40 CFR 60.667, NSPS subpart NNN
does not apply to these two units.
Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart
NNN, apply to a concentrated water
wash (CWW) system at INVISTA’s
Victoria Plant?
A2: Yes. Since the CWW vents into
the atmosphere, it is subject to NSPS
subpart NNN.
Abstract for [0500137]
Q1: How does 40 CFR part 60, subpart
J, apply to the fuel gas combustion
devices (FGCDs) and fuel gases involved
with operations at Koch Refining’s
Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
A1: NSPS subpart J apply to an
affected FGCD if the device combusts a
‘‘fuel gas,’’ that is, any gas that is
generated at a petroleum refinery. To
control sulfur oxide (SOX) emissions
into the atmosphere from affected
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
21026
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 2006 / Notices
FGCDs, NSPS subpart J limits the
amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
allowed in the fuel gas burned in these
devices. Except for fuel gas released to
a flare as a result of relief valve leakage
or other emergency malfunctions, a
facility may not burn fuel gas containing
greater than 230 mg/dscm of H2S in any
affected FGCD.
Q2: How does the process upset gas
exemption of 40 CFR part 60, subpart J,
apply to the flare gas recovery system in
operation at Koch Refining’s
Rosemount, Minnesota, refinery?
A2: The process upset gas exemption
under NSPS subpart J applies only to
extraordinary, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable upsets. Any
gases released as a result of normal
operations are not considered upset
gases. The routine combustion of
refinery gases in a FGCD, including
flares and other waste gas disposal
devices, do not qualify for the process
upset gas exemption of the rule. Based
on the background information of the
rule, the term upset does not apply to
normal operations. Therefore, the rule
exempts the combustion of process
upset gases in a FGCD, including the
combustion in a flare of fuel gas that is
released to the flare as a result of relief
valve leakage or other emergency
malfunction. However, the combustion/
flaring of those exempted gases in an
NSPS affected FGCD is still required to
comply with the good air pollution
control practices of 40 CFR 60.11(d),
even when such FGCDs are exempt from
the sulfur dioxide limit.
Q3: How does NSPS subpart J apply
to the various gas streams Koch
Refining’s Rosemount, Minnesota,
refinery?
A3: EPA has analyzed the 26 gas
streams identified at the Koch Refining
facility and has provided a finding for
each of these streams based on the
Agency’s responses in A1 and A2,
above.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Abstract for [0500138]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring plan, under 40 CFR, part 60,
subpart J, for fuel gases and fuel gas
combustion devices (FGCDs) at Koch
Refining’s Rosemount, Minnesota,
refinery?
A: No. Based on the information
submitted, EPA does not approve the
proposed alternative monitoring plan
for fuel gases and FGCDs since it needs
to provide for good air pollution control
practices to minimize flaring events.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Apr 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated: April 10, 2006.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 06–3808 Filed 4–21–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8161–3]
Science Advisory Board Staff Office;
Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC); Notification of a
Public Advisory Committee Meeting
(Teleconference) of the CASAC Ozone
Review Panel
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) Science
Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office
announces a public teleconference of
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review
Panel (Ozone Panel) to provide
additional advice to the Agency
concerning Chapter 8 (Integrative
Synthesis) of the Final Air Quality
Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (EPA/600/R–
05/004aF–cF, February 2006).
DATES: The teleconference will be held
on May 12, 2006, from 1 to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
member of the public who wishes to
obtain the teleconference call-in number
and access code; would like to submit
written or brief (less than five minutes)
oral comments; or wants further
information concerning this
teleconference, must contact Mr. Fred
Butterfield, Designated Federal Officer
(DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board
(1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; via
telephone/voice mail: (202) 343–9994;
fax: (202) 233–0643; or e-mail at:
butterfield.fred@epa.gov. General
information concerning the CASAC or
the EPA SAB can be found on the EPA
Web site at URL: https://www.epa.gov/
sab.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The CASAC, which is
comprised of seven members appointed
by the EPA Administrator, was
established under section 109(d)(2) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42
U.S.C. 7409) as an independent
scientific advisory committee, in part to
provide advice, information and
recommendations on the scientific and
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
technical aspects of issues related to air
quality criteria and national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) under
sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The
CASAC is a Federal advisory committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5
U.S.C., App. The CASAC Ozone Review
Panel, which consists of the members of
the chartered CASAC supplemented by
subject-matter-experts, complies with
the provisions of FACA and all
appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural
policies.
Under section 108 of the CAA, the
Agency is required to establish National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for each of six pollutants for
which EPA has issued criteria,
including ambient ozone (O3). Section
109(d) of the Act subsequently requires
periodic review and, if appropriate,
revision of existing air quality criteria
and NAAQS to reflect advances in
scientific knowledge on the effects of
the pollutant on public health and
welfare. The Ozone Panel met in a
public meeting in Durham, North
Carolina on December 6–7, 2005, to
conduct a peer review on EPA’s 2nd
draft Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants
(August 2005). In a February 10, 2006,
letter to the Administrator (EPA–
CASAC–06–003), the CASAC indicated
that it may need to provide additional
advice related to chapter 8 of the AQCD
which integrates human health effects
and exposure. The CASAC’s review of
the 2nd draft is available on the SAB
Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/sab/
pdf/oasac_ozone_casac-06–003.pdf.
On March 21, 2006, EPA’s National
Center for Environmental Assessment,
Research Triangle Park
(NCEA–RTP), released the Final
O3 AQCD. Concomitantly, EPA’s Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) is completing work on a 2nd
draft of A Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information. The latter
document evaluates the policy
implications of the scientific
information in the Final O3 AQCD, and
the results of the quantitative risk/
exposure analysis. CASAC will hold a
conference call to provide additional
advice to the Agency as it works to
complete the 2nd Draft NAAQS for O3.
Availability of Meeting Materials: The
Final O3 AQCD can be accessed via the
Agency’s NCEA Web site at: https://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923. Any
questions concerning the Final O3
AQCD should be directed to Dr. Mary
Ross, NCEA–RTP, at phone: (919) 541–
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21014-21026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8160-7]
Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI)
Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative
Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The document may be
located by date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions
about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at:
(202) 564-7027, or by e-mail at: malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical
questions about the individual applicability determinations or
monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the
individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to
the author of the document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP
in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's
written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability
determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although part 63 NESHAP and
section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific
regulatory provision that sources may request applicability
determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding
applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and
NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or
recordkeeping which are different from the promulgated requirements.
See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's
written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative
monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries
about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as
they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain,
for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or
to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements
contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries
are broadly termed regulatory interpretations.
EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination
Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-
issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone
regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic
index on the Internet with more than one thousand EPA letters and
memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart,
citation, and control number or by string word searches.
Today's notice comprises a summary of 95 such documents added to
the ADI on February 28, 2006. The subject, author, recipient, date and
header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well
as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of
these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site
at: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.
Summary of Headers and Abstracts
The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on February 28, 2006; the
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document,
which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also
included an abstract of each document identified with its control
number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert
the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as
substitutes for the full text of the documents.
ADI Determinations Uploaded on February 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Category Subpart Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A050001............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Demolition of Residential
Trailer Homes.
M050030............................ MACT.................. A, EEE................ Stack Test Waiver for a
Portland Cement Plant
Kiln.
M050036............................ MACT.................. G..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Orthoxylene Unit.
M050037............................ MACT.................. G..................... Waiver of Additional
Performance Testing.
M050038............................ MACT.................. U..................... Alternative Reporting
Period.
M050039............................ MACT.................. A..................... Waiver of Flare Performance
Testing.
M050040............................ MACT.................. CC, G................. Alternative Reporting
Period.
M050041............................ MACT.................. CC.................... Alternative Reporting
Period.
M050042............................ MACT.................. S..................... Alternative Test Method for
Pulp and Paper Mill.
M050043............................ MACT.................. S, VVV................ Cluster Rule Compliance
Plan.
M050044............................ MACT.................. PPP, FFFF............. Primary Product
Determination for
Production Vessels.
M050045............................ MACT.................. S..................... Cluster Rule Compliance
Plan.
M050046............................ MACT.................. KK, QQQQ.............. Finishing of Architectural
Elements.
[[Page 21015]]
M050047............................ MACT.................. Hon R................. C-12 Chemical Manufacturing
Process Units.
Z050007............................ NESHAP................ FF, V................. Alternative Monitoring of
Pressure/Vacuum Relief
Valves.
0500048............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500060............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit.
0500061............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500062............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Compliance Monitoring Plan
for Gas-Fired Boiler.
0500063............................ NSPS.................. J, Dc................. Alternative Monitoring of
Gasoline Loading Rack.
0500064............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
of Fuel Usage.
0500065............................ NSPS.................. Da.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Duct Burners.
0500066............................ NSPS.................. NNN................... Alternative Monitoring of
Catalytic Incinerators.
0500067............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Gasoline Loading Rack.
0500068............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Platformer Lock Hopper.
0500069............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Vacuum Charge Heater.
0500070............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Marine Dock Thermal
Oxidizer.
0500071............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
of Fuel Usage.
0500072............................ NSPS.................. NNN................... Alternative Monitoring of
Distillation Units.
0500073............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit.
0500074............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Refinery Unit.
0500075............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring of
New Replacement Turbine.
0500076............................ NSPS.................. Db, GG, Dc............ Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0500077............................ NSPS.................. UUU................... Kyanite Processing.
0500078............................ NSPS.................. Db, GG................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500079............................ NSPS.................. GG, Db................ Custom Fuel Monitoring
Schedule.
0500080............................ NSPS.................. GG, Db................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500081............................ NSPS.................. Da, GG................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500082............................ NSPS.................. Dc, GG................ Alternative Monitoring of
Gas Turbines.
0500083............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500084............................ NSPS.................. UUU, WWW.............. Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500085............................ NSPS.................. Da.................... Stack Testing Waiver.
0500086............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Tier 2 Sampling.
0500087............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Alternative Monitoring
Proposals for Landfill.
0500088............................ NSPS.................. CC.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500089............................ NSPS.................. RRR, NNN.............. Alternative Monitoring of
Distillation Operations.
0500090............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring of
Combustion Turbines.
0500091............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Alternative Recordkeeping
of Fuel Usage.
0500092............................ NSPS.................. LL.................... Waiver of Visible Emission
Test Requirements.
0500093............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Alternative Opacity, SO2 ,
and NOX Monitoring.
0500094............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
Modification Request.
0500095............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Passive Flares and Waiver
of Testing Requirements.
0500096............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Gas Turbines.
0500097............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Temporary Disconnection of
Gas Collection Wells.
0500098............................ NSPS.................. Cc.................... Tier 2 Testing Deadline.
0500099............................ NSPS.................. Y, OOO................ Initial Opacity Performance
Testing.
0500100............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Opacity Monitor
Certification.
0500101............................ NSPS.................. III, NNN.............. Waiver of Performance Test
of Flare.
0500102............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Waiver of Installation of
Gas Collection Wells.
0500103............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Initial Performance Test
Waiver and Recordkeeping
Waiver.
0500104............................ NSPS.................. Dc.................... Initial Opacity Performance
Testing.
0500105............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring of
Refinery Fuel Gas Streams.
0500106............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Alternative Span Value.
0500107............................ NSPS.................. OOO................... Waiver of Initial
Performance Test for
Baghouses.
0500108............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500109............................ NSPS.................. H, T, U, V............ Use of English Units for
Monitoring and
Recordkeeping.
0500110............................ NSPS.................. XX.................... VRU Bypass During Diesel
Loading.
0500111............................ NSPS.................. UU.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring and Performance
Testing.
0500112............................ NSPS.................. A, D, Db, Dc, Kb, DDD, Alternative Monitoring of
III, NNN, RRR. Startups, Shutdowns,
Malfunctions.
0500113............................ NSPS.................. VV, Y, OOO............ Alternative Monitoring for
Leak Detection.
0500114............................ NSPS.................. OOO, Y, Dc............ Alternative Monitoring for
Visible Emissions.
0500115............................ NSPS.................. WWW, III, NNN......... Alternative Monitoring of
Surface Methane.
0500116............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Landfill Testing and
Emission Rate Calculation
Issues.
0500117............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Landfill Gas.
0500118............................ NSPS.................. CC.................... Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500119............................ NSPS.................. XX, J................. Re-Test Requirements After
Adding Equipment.
0500120............................ NSPS.................. TT.................... Alternative Test Method.
0500121............................ NSPS.................. VV.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Leak Detection.
0500122............................ NSPS.................. Db, Dc................ Boiler Derate Proposal.
0500123............................ NSPS.................. UUU................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Fluidized Bed Dryer.
0500124............................ NSPS.................. GG.................... Modification of Initial
Performance Testing.
0500125............................ NSPS.................. J, A, I............... Performance Test Extension
Request.
0500126............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for CEM Span Setting.
[[Page 21016]]
0500127............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Unit.
0500128............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Unit.
0500129............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Combustion
Unit.
0500130............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Refinery Unit.
0500131............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Vent Gas Stream.
0500132............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Opacity
Monitoring.
0500133............................ NSPS.................. NNN, RRR.............. Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Distillation Units.
0500134............................ NSPS.................. B..................... Alternative Performance
Specification Procedure.
0500135............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Cogeneration Unit.
0500136............................ NSPS.................. NNN................... SOCMI Distillation
Operations.
0500137............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Fuel Gas Combustion Devices
and Process Gas Exemption.
0500138............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Fuel Gases and Fuel Gas
Combustion Devices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstracts
Abstract for [A050001]
Q1: Are trailer homes with different owners located in the state of
Delaware that are recycled using two different processes through the
Delaware Solid Waste Authority subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A1: No. 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, the asbestos NESHAP regulation,
does not apply to demolition of single residential trailer homes
because they are classified as single dwelling units and ownership
remains with the trailer owner, not the state. A single dwelling unit
that is being demolished is exempt from the NESHAP regulation
throughout the entire recycling process. However, when two or more
residential homes are located at the same demolition site and are under
control of the same owner or operator, then the trailer homes become a
residential installation subject to the NESHAP regulation.
Q2: Would 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, apply if the residential
trailer home were purchased by a commercial entity rather than being
sent to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority?
A2: No. A residential trailer home and its recycling process are
exempt from the asbestos NESHAP regulation if at the time of
demolition, it can be classified as single dwelling unit and does not
meet the definition of a residential installation in 40 CFR 61.141.
Q3: Given the inapplicability of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, what
might the State of Delaware do to minimize public exposure to asbestos
from the demolition of residential trailer homes?
A3: EPA suggests that the State of Delaware encourage inspection
and removal of asbestos-containing material at the Delaware Solid Waste
Authority compaction site. The state might also consider the addition
of a permit condition in the Delaware landfills operating permits that
would prohibit landfills from accepting asbestos-containing material as
landfill cover.
Abstract for [0500060]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to discontinue calibrating a carbon
monoxide continuous emission monitor (CEM) with a 1,000-ppmv span gas
for a fluid catalytic cracking unit, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db,
at Flint Hill Resources Pine Bend petroleum refinery in Rosemount,
Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request because, based on information
submitted to EPA, Flint Hills Resources meets the criteria for the
exemption set forth at 40 CFR 60.105(a)(2)(ii). However, a State permit
requires the facility to calibrate its carbon monoxide continuous
emission monitor with a 100 ppmv span gas.
Abstract for [0500061]
Q1: Does EPA waive the multi-load testing requirement, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near
Lordsburg, New Mexico?
A1: Yes. EPA waives the multi-load testing requirement under NSPS
subpart GG because the facility has a nitrogen oxides continuous
emissions monitor (NOX CEM).
Q2: Does EPA approve the use of monitoring conducted in accordance
with Part 75 in lieu of certain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part
60, subpart GG, at Tristate's Pyramid Generating Station near
Lordsburg, New Mexico?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of certain monitoring of part 75 in
lieu of certain monitoring requirements of NSPS subpart GG.
Abstract for [0500062]
Q: Does EPA approve a compliance monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db, for a 185-mmBTU/hr natural gas-fired boiler at Flint
Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. On April 12, 2000, the company supplemented its request in
accordance with EPA's initial response. The plan that Koch Fuels (FHR's
former name) submitted included all of the information required by 40
CFR 60.49b(c)(1), (2) and (3). Based upon a review of the information
that the company submitted, EPA approves the proposed compliance
monitoring plan under NSPS subpart Db.
Abstract for [Z050007]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 61, subparts V and FF, for pressure/vacuum relief valves in the
wastewater treatment plant tanks and oil-water separator located at
Flint Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA concludes that the pressure/vacuum relief valves
function as both pressure relief devices and dilution air openings
under NESHAP subparts V and FF. EPA did not promulgate a definition of
``dilution air opening'' in NESHAP subpart FF. NESHAP subpart V infers
that a pressure relief device is designed to release pressure but is
not designed to function as a dilution air opening. Since the pressure/
vacuum relief valves relieve excess pressure in the closed vent system
and allow dilution air to enter the closed vent system, the pressure/
vacuum relief valves are both pressure relief devices and dilution air
openings. EPA recognizes that the requirements of 40 CFR
61.343(a)(1)(i)(B) and (C) do not account for this dichotomy, and thus
approves FHR's request for an alternative monitoring plan to resolve
the ambiguity.
Abstract for [0500063]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, to address a new refinery fuel gas that Flint Hills
Resources (FHR) loads at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend
Refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
[[Page 21017]]
A: Yes. EPA finds FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel gas
meets the criteria in EPA's August 14, 1987 guidance for refinery fuel
gas stream alternative monitoring plans, and thus it approves the
alternative monitoring plan under NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500064]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative fuel usage recordkeeping method,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for two heaters at Devon Energy's
Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant near Bridgeport, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the changes in the fuel usage recordkeeping
frequency for NSPS subpart Dc boilers that are fired with only natural
gas and/or low sulfur oil.
Abstract for [M050036]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative control method, under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart G, using dual carbon canisters to reduce HAP emissions
at the Chalmette Refinery in Chalmette, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative method under MACT subpart G,
conditioned on Chalmette's daily monitoring of the HAPs concentration
after the primary canister until breakthrough has occurred three times.
Abstract for [0500065]
Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring requirement, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Da, to use a sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitor
(SO2 CEM) for duct burners located at Calpine's Channel
Energy Center facility in Houston, Texas?
A: No. EPA does not waive the requirement under NSPS subpart Da.
However, EPA will consider the approval of an alternative monitoring
plan in lieu of an SO2 CEM.
Abstract for [0500066]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart NNN, for the catalytic incinerator at BASF's Freeport,
Texas facility, which operates at varying flowrates and must add
hydrocarbons to the stream to generate the required delta T established
by the performance test?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart NNN for BASF's R-170 Catalytic Incinerator provided that: (1)
The minimum outlet temperature will be 550 degrees C; (2) the minimum
delta T across the bed will be 287 degrees C; (3) the minimum organic
loading to the bed will be 89,380 lb/hr; and (4) the facility
establishes alarms at a 15 degrees C differential to allow time for
corrective action. In addition, BASF will keep records of organic flow
rate to R-170 in lb/hr. Any hourly flow rates that are below the
approved minimum will be considered a violation of NSPS subpart NNN and
must be reported as excess emissions.
Abstract for [M050037]
Q: Will EPA waive, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, additional
performance testing if the scrubber/absorption system organic
absorption medium is changed from utility water to recycle process
wastewater at a BP Chemicals Green Lake facility in Port Lavaca, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA will waive additional testing under MACT subpart G
because the change in medium at the scrubber/absorption system would
lead to only a slight increase in emissions and the total emissions
remain below the permitted emissions limit of 0.37 lb/hr.
Abstract for [0500067]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40
CFR part 60, subpart J, for a flare used by Flint Hills Resources (FHR)
during periods of maintenance or malfunction of a vapor recovery unit
at a gasoline loading rack at its Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount,
Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel
gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, ``Alternative Monitoring Plan
for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas'' for refinery fuel gas stream
alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control Number
0500138) and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under
NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500068]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP), under 40
CFR part 60, subpart J, for the platformer lock hopper and switch valve
vent refinery fuel gas stream at Flint Hills Resources (FHR) petroleum
refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA finds that FHR has demonstrated that this refinery fuel
gas meets the criteria in EPA's guidance, ``Alternative Monitoring Plan
for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas'' for refinery fuel gas stream
alternative monitoring plans (see AMP attached to ADI Control No.
0500138), and thus it approves the alternative monitoring plan under
NSPS subpart J.
Abstract for [0500069]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission
monitor (H2S CEM) for the disulfide separator off-gas in
Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed
alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance
in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13,
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [0500070]
Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart J, in lieu of a hydrogen disulfide continuous emission
monitor (H2S CEM) for the dock thermal oxidizer vent gases
in Atofina's facility in Port Arthur, Texas?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J based upon the data submitted, and provided that the proposed
alternative monitoring plan correctly applies the stipulated guidance
in EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13,
2001 (see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Q2: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements for
boilers, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the Frito-Lay facility in
Mission, Texas?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements
under subpart Dc based upon the information submitted by the facility.
Abstract for [M050038]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to align the periodic reporting
requirements of non-leak detection and reduction (LDAR) and LDAR to a
single semiannual report, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart U, for the
hypalon elastomer unit at the DuPont Dow facility in Beaumont, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request to align the periodic reporting
requirements of non-LDAR and LDAR to a single semiannual report under
MACT subpart U as long as the reports are submitted in such a manner
that there are no missing days of reporting.
Abstract for [M050039]
Q: Does EPA waive a performance test requirement for vent streams
that contain hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and allow the use of an alternative
method of demonstrating compliance, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, at
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise's facility in Beaumont, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA grants the waiver of performance testing under MACT
subpart A for flow measurement and heat content because the facility
has
[[Page 21018]]
demonstrated compliance using alternate means.
Abstract for [0500071]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative recordkeeping requirements, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for natural gas burning boilers at the
Frito-Lay facility in Mission, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative recordkeeping requirements
under subpart Dc based upon the condition that it is not necessary to
keep daily fuel usage records for units fired only with natural gas
since the emission standards in subpart Dc are not applicable to these
units.
Abstract for [0500072]
Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, an
alternative plan to monitor the total flow to the combustion device
instead of monitoring the flow of each vent stream from several
distillation units to the combustion device at ExxonMobil's Baytown
Chemical Plant in Baytown, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring request under NSPS
subpart NNN with additional conditions to ensure which combustion
devices are associated with which vent gas streams.
Abstract for [0500073]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a refinery
generated fuel gas stream, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at Motiva
Enterprises' Convent Refinery in Convent, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J, provided the facility follows the stipulated guidance in
EPA's letters to Koch Fuels on December 2, 1999 and February 13, 2001
(see ADI Control Numbers 0500137 and 0100037).
Abstract for [M050040]
Q: Does EPA align the 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and CC reporting
periods for Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA aligns the reporting periods under MACT subparts G and
CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such that no
days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
Abstract for [0500074]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for the
regenerative catalytic cracking unit (RCCU), under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J, at Motiva Enterprises' facility in Norco, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative monitoring plan under NSPS
subpart J, provided that the monitored parameters and ranges at the
facility have supporting data.
Abstract for [M050041]
Q: Does EPA allow aligning the reporting period to a semi-annual
calendar year, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the Shell Norco
Chemical Plant in Norco, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA allows the aligning of the reporting period under MACT
subpart CC, provided that the facility submits a shortened report such
that no days of recordkeeping and reporting are missed.
Abstract for [M050042]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of National Council for Air and Stream
(NCASI) hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) Test Method 99.01, under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart S, to analyze condensate samples collected at Appleton
Papers' Spring Mill in Roaring Spring Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA allows the alternative method under MACT subpart S,
provided that the appropriate correction factors are used.
Abstract for [0500075]
Q1: Does EPA approve the continuation of the current custom fuel
monitoring plan for the new replacement turbine, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, at East Tennessee Natural Gas Company's Compressor Station
3313 in Rural Retreat, Virginia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG because it
understands that there will be no change in fuel quality since there is
no change in fuel source.
Q2: Does EPA approve a sampling location, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, where the system's three major lines connect?
A2: Yes. Because the ownership of East Tennessee Natural Gas
Company was transferred from El Paso Energy Corporation (EPE) to a
subsidiary of Duke Energy Gas Transmission, EPA approves a new sampling
location at Topside Junction Metering and Control Station in Knoxville
County, where the system's three major lines connect.
Abstract for [M050043]
Q: Does EPA approve alternative monitoring parameters and parameter
values for ``closed'' biological treatment systems, under 40 CFR part
63, subpart S, at the Smurfit (formerly Stone Container Corporation)
pulp and paper mill in Hopewell, Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has
adequately demonstrated it meets the requirements of MACT subpart S
through both continuous monitoring of the proposed four parameters and
continuous monitoring to ensure that UNOX oxygen purity is maintained
at 96 percent maximum.
Abstract for [M050044]
Q1: Does EPA approve the primary product determination for specific
production vessels and precompliance report for pilot vessels, under 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPP, for the CRODA Manufacturing facility in Mill
Hall, Pennsylvania?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the request under MACT subpart PPP because it
accepts CRODA's conclusion that specific production vessels that do not
manufacture a polyether polyol as the primary product are not polyether
polyol manufacturing units.
Q2: Does EPA agree that products manufactured with epoxides do not
meet the definition of a polyether polyol in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPP?
A2: Yes. EPA agrees that products that do not meet the definition
of polyether polyol in MACT subpart PPP are not subject to the
requirements of that subpart.
Abstract for [M050045]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of alternative monitoring parameters
and parameter values to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S for ``closed'' biological treatment systems at the St.
Laurent Paperboard facility in West Point, Virginia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the facility has
adequately demonstrated that the alternative monitoring parameters meet
the requirements of MACT subpart S.
Abstract for [0500076]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for Millennium Inorganic Chemicals' Hawkins Point
plant in Baltimore, Maryland?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request in accordance with its August 14,
1987 custom fuel monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that
pipeline quality natural gas is the only fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500077]
Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, apply to rotary calciners that
are used in the production of mullite with kyanite as the raw material
at Kyanite Mining Corporation (KMC) facilities?
A: No. NSPS subpart UUU applies to calciners and dryers at
``mineral processing plants,'' i.e., a facility that processes or
produces one or more of
[[Page 21019]]
the seventeen specifically named minerals listed in 40 CFR 60.731,
their concentrates, or mixtures which contain greater than 50 percent
of any of these listed minerals. EPA understands that silica is formed
as a by-product during the kyanite calcining process at KMC in
quantities that do not constitute the majority (greater than 50
percent) of any of the minerals processed or produced at KMC.
Abstract for [M050046]
Q: Is a facility which primarily applies finishing to architectural
wood molding materials subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK?
A: No. While EPA believes that the definitions in 40 CFR 63.822 are
intended to be broadly applied and inclusive, we have determined that
rotogravure printing on wood molding was not intended to be regulated
under this rule. The facility does not produce saleable paper products
and does use a flexographic press in its finishing operations. It
therefore does not qualify as ``publication rotogravure printing'' as
that term is defined in 40 CFR 63.822. However, EPA has determined that
the molding finishing operations at the facility would be regulated
under 40 CFR 43 Subpart QQQQ, the Wood Building Products MACT, if the
molding products ``finished'' at the facility are not included within
the category of surface coating (or other operations specifically
excluded under 40 CFR 63.4681(c)(1)-(5)) and are more than 50 percent
by weight wood.
Abstract for [0500078]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative monitoring plan request under
NSPS subpart GG, consistent with previous determinations that provide
for the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) equipment
to continuously monitor compliance with the standard for nitrogen
oxides.
Abstract for [0500079]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, for the Liberty Electric Power facility in
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that natural gas is the
only fuel fired in the gas turbine.
Abstract for [0500080]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative test method request for
performance testing of (nitrogen oxides) NOX emission
limitations for two gas turbine/duct burner combined cycle units, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at the Liberty Electric Power facility in
Eddystone Borough, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request under NSPS subpart GG based on a
review by the Emission, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (EMAD) of the
Office on Air Quality, Planning and Standards, and subject to the
conditions specified in the EMAD memorandum (C304-02) dated April 5,
2002.
Abstract for [0500081]
Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40
CFR part 60, subpart GG, for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in
Fluvanna County, Virginia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality
natural gas is the only fuel being burned (see ADI Control Number
NS33).
Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GG, that provides for the use of CEMS equipment to
continuously monitor compliance with the standards for nitrogen oxides
for the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station in Fluvanna County,
Virginia?
A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan request under
NSPS subpart GG, based upon its consistency with previous
determinations made by the Agency and conditions necessitating specific
additional requirements for recordkeeping and monitoring.
Abstract for [0500082]
Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR
part 60 subpart GG, for Energy System North East's Cogeneration Plant
in North East, Pennsylvania?
A: Yes. EPA approves this custom fuel monitoring schedule under
NSPS subpart GG in accordance with its August 14, 1987 custom fuel
monitoring schedule memorandum, and provided that pipeline quality
natural gas is the only fuel being burned.
Abstract for [0500083]
Q: Does EPA waive the opacity monitoring requirement in 40 CFR part
60, subpart Db for a wood-fired boiler at the Homanit USA plant in
Montgomery County, North Carolina?
A: No. EPA finds that neither NSPS subpart Db nor the NSPS general
provisions in subpart A provide the authority to completely waive the
applicable opacity monitoring requirement of NSPS subpart Db. However,
based upon the low probability that there will be any opacity in the
regenerative thermal oxidizer stack downstream of the boiler, EPA would
be willing to consider an opacity monitoring alternative.
Abstract for [0500084]
Q: Does EPA approve use of an alternative path length correction
factor, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, based on width rather than
equivalent diameter for the continuous opacity monitoring system on
three rectangular exhaust stacks at the 3M facility in Moncure, North
Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request. EPA finds the alternative path
length correction factor is acceptable under NSPS subpart UUU because
of the high bias in the opacity data created by using equivalent
diameter.
Abstract for [0500085]
Q: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da requirement to
conduct a stack test in order to determine compliance with the
applicable sulfur dioxide limit for a duct burner at Cogentrix Energy's
Caledonia Power Station?
A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart Da requirement based upon the
margin of compliance, provided that the unit is fired with only
pipeline quality natural gas.
Abstract for [0500086]
Q: Does EPA allow collection of Tier 2 samples from the active gas
collection systems, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Prairie
Bluff Landfill in Chickasaw County, Mississippi, and the Little Dixie
Landfill in Madison County, Mississippi?
A: Yes. Based upon NSPS subpart WWW revisions promulgated on
October 17, 2000, EPA finds the proposed Tier 2 sampling sites to be
acceptable, provided that they are located prior to any gas moving or
condensate removal equipment. In addition, at least three samples must
be collected from the proposed sampling site at each of the landfills
in question.
Abstract for [0500087]
Q1: Does EPA approve the proposed alternative oxygen concentration
limit for 16 wells, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Deans
Bridge
[[Page 21020]]
Road Landfill operated by the Augusta, Georgia Public Works and
Engineering Department?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed alternative concentration limit
under NSPS subpart WWW because the temperature monitoring data for the
wells in question indicate that oxygen levels greater than five percent
have not poisoned methane producing bacteria.
Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW to conduct methane surface concentration monitoring in a closed 52-
acre section of the landfill?
A2: No. Because NSPS subpart WWW requires that methane surface
concentration monitoring in closed areas be conducted at least
annually, EPA concludes that the requirement to conduct this monitoring
cannot be waived. However, the monitoring frequency can be reduced from
a quarterly to an annual basis if none of the methane concentration
readings in the closed section of the landfill were 500 parts per
million or more during the June 2003 monitoring period.
Abstract for [0500088]
Q: Does EPA approve an opacity monitoring alternative for two glass
melting furnaces, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC, at the Anchor Glass
Company's Warner Robbins, Georgia plant?
A: No. EPA does not approve this request under NSPS subpart CC.
Based upon the results of testing conducted on both furnaces, there
does not appear to be a consistent relationship between particulate
emission rates and the operating parameter (bridgewall temperature)
that Anchor Glass proposed to monitor in lieu of installing,
certifying, and operating a continuous emission monitoring system.
Abstract for [0500089]
Q: Does EPA find that the 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR monitoring
procedures are an acceptable alternative to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart
NNN requirements for volatile organic compound (VOC) excess emission
monitoring at the distillation operation in Celanese Acetate's plant in
Rock Hill, South Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA finds that the NSPS subpart RRR monitoring procedures
are an acceptable alternative to the monitoring procedures required
under NSPS subpart NNN in this case. The NSPS subpart RRR requirement
to monitor diversions from the control device accomplishes the same end
as the NSPS subpart NNN requirement to monitor the flow to the control
device. In addition, based upon information in the preamble to the
final rule promulgating NSPS subpart RRR, monitoring the combustion
temperature for boilers and process heaters, although required under
NSPS subpart NNN, is not necessary when a VOC vent stream is introduced
with the primary fuel for the boiler or heater.
Abstract for [0500090]
Q: Does EPA approve the use of Gas Producers Association (GPA)
Method 2265, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, to measure the sulfur
content of natural gas burned in turbines at the Clarksdale Public
Utilities Crossroads Power Plant?
A: Yes. EPA approves this request to use GPA Method 2265 for
monitoring natural gas sulfur content under NSPS subpart GG because it
is an acceptable alternative similar to American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) methods for measuring sulfur content and consistent
with several other past determinations.
Abstract for [0500091]
Q: Does EPA require requests for approval of an alternative fuel
usage recordkeeping schedule to be submitted to EPA for review, under
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, especially routine requests for natural gas
and distillate oil-fired boilers?
A: No. Requests of this type do not have to be submitted
exclusively to EPA for review. Because of the routine nature of such
requests, review on a case-by-case basis at the Regional level slows
down the approval without providing any environmental benefit. The low
fuel emissions from natural gas and distillate oil-fired boilers means
that monthly fuel usage recordkeeping frequencies are typically
appropriate to verify these sources' compliance. Additionally,
proposals to apportion total fuel usage between multiple units with a
common fuel flow meter do not have to be submitted to EPA for review if
the apportionment approach is at least as accurate as one that EPA
approved for several plants operated by Tyson Foods in Region 5 in a
determination dated May 1, 2001 (ADI control number 010005), which was
attached to EPA's response.
Abstract for [0500092]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
LL, to perform visible emissions tests on several affected facilities
located inside a building at the Treibacher Schleifmittal grit plant in
Andersonville, Georgia?
A: Yes. EPA waives the NSPS subpart LL requirement to conduct
separate visible emission tests on each of the fugitive emission
sources inside the facility because the results of EPA Method 22
observations conducted on the exterior of the building provide adequate
assurance of compliance for the facilities located inside.
Abstract for [0500093]
Q: Does EPA approve the opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) alternative monitoring proposals,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, for the Number 2 Bark Boiler at
Riverwood International's kraft pulp mill in Macon, Georgia?
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring proposals
concerning opacity, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides under NSPS
subpart D. EPA finds monitoring of the scrubber liquor flow rate and
scrubber pressure drop to be an acceptable alternative to using
continuous opacity monitors (COMS). Additionally, monitoring the pH of
the scrubber liquor when coal is fired is an acceptable alternative to
an SO2 CEMS. Furthermore, performing annual boiler tune-ups
and conducting annual NOX performance tests is reasonable
assurance of compliance with the applicable NOX emission
limits in subpart D in lieu of a NOX CEMS.
Abstract for [0500094]
Q: Does EPA approve a request to modify the current opacity
monitoring alternative, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a boiler
at Georgia Pacific's plywood plant in Monticello, Georgia, by deleting
one of the three parameters currently monitored as an indicator of
scrubber performance?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request under NSPS subpart Db to drop the
water supply pressure monitoring requirement. Based on facts submitted
to EPA, monitoring both water flow rate and supply pressure at this
plant is unnecessary. In addition, several other NSPS subparts,
including OOO and UUU, require only pressure drop and water flow rate
monitoring.
Abstract for [0500095]
Q1: Does EPA approve a proposal to use passive flares on a
temporary basis (not to exceed 18 months), under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County,
Georgia?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the proposed flares under NSPS subpart WWW,
provided that they are used only in areas where liners have been
installed on the sides and bottom of the landfill in accordance with 40
CFR 258.40. This determination is based upon the design of the proposed
flares, each of which must include a pilot flame,
[[Page 21021]]
thermocouple, a thermocouple to monitor the temperature at the flare
tip, and a data logger to record the thermocouple data.
Q2: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW performance
testing requirement for the passive flares at Waste Management's Live
Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia?
A2: No. EPA does not waive the NSPS subpart WWW performance testing
requirement for the passive flares because flare design flow rate data
and information regarding typical landfill gas composition do not
provide a sufficient basis for a waiver. To obtain such a waiver, the
facility must test a portion of the flares that it installs and submit
the results of the test to EPA for review.
Abstract for [0500096]
Q: Does EPA approve American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
Method D 6667-01 as an alternative method, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GG, for monitoring the sulfur content of natural gas burned in
three gas turbines at the Williams Pipeline site in Coden, Alabama?
A: Yes. EPA has previously approved the proposed alternative method
under NSPS subpart GG for measuring natural gas sulfur content at more
than twenty separate turbine installations nationwide in lieu of the
four ASTM methods for determining the sulfur content of gaseous fuels
listed in 40 CFR 60.335(d).
Abstract for [0500097]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to temporarily abandon gas
collection wells during vertical expansion in active areas that have
held waste for five years or more, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW,
at Waste Management's Live Oak Landfill in DeKalb County, Georgia?
A: No. EPA does not approve under NSPS subpart WWW the proposal to
disconnect the wells for a six to twelve month period while a vertical
expansion is taking place because it would constitute a relaxation of
the applicable emission standard.
Abstract for [0500098]
Q1: Does EPA allow Clayton County, Georgia, which missed the
deadline for a Tier 2 retest at its SR3 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill,
to have the option of conducting another Tier 2 test prior to the
deadline for submittal of a gas collection and control (GCCS) system
design plan under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc?
A1: Yes. EPA has determined that additional Tier 2 testing can be
conducted any time prior to the deadline for installation of a GCCS (30
months after the landfill's nonmethane organic compound emission rate
exceeds 50 megagrams per year), provided that a design plan is
submitted by the applicable deadline (12 months after the landfill's
nonmethane organic compound emission rate exceeds 50 megagrams per
year).
Q2: Could EPA clarify whether the results of initial Tier 2 testing
in 1998 or of a Tier 2 retest in 2003 should be used for calculating
the 2003 nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate, under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc, at the Clayton County, Georgia, Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill?
A2: Once the deadline for Tier 2 retesting has passed, NMOC
emission rates under NSPS subpart WWW must be calculated using the 4000
part per million default value, unless additional Tier 2 testing is
done. If additional testing is done, the NMOC concentration results
from this retest, rather than the default value, would apply for
calculating the NMOC emission rate for year 2003.
Abstract for [0500099]
Q: Does EPA approve a proposal for shortening the visible emission
(VE) observation from three hours to one hour for conveyor drop points,
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, at DTE Energy Services' coal
preparation plant in Belews Creek, North Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA approves the request to shorten the VE observation time
to one hour when no individual opacity readings exceed 15 percent
during the first hour of readings. Demonstrating that opacity levels do
not exceed 15 percent of the applicable limit for an entire hour will
provide adequate assurance of compliance with the opacity limit in NSPS
subpart Y.
Abstract for [0500100]
Q: Could EPA verify whether a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) located on a replacement stack for a boiler at Trigen Biopower
in Caldwell, North Carolina, should be subject, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Dc, to certification requirements in the latest version of
Performance Specification 1 (PS-1)?
A: Yes. EPA finds that under NSPS subpart Dc, the COMS is subject
to the latest PS-1 certification requirements. Installing the monitor
on the replacement stack constitutes relocation because a replacement
stack is likely to differ in some respects from the original stack, and
there is no way to be absolutely sure two stacks are completely
identical. Relocating a COMS is one of the conditions requiring monitor
certification in the August 10, 2000 version of PS-1.
Abstract for [0500101]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to conduct a performance test on
a flare that controls volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
air oxidation and distillation operations, under 40 CFR part, 60
subparts III and NNN, at Albemarle Corporation's chemical plant in
Orangeburg, South Carolina?
A: Yes. EPA waives the performance requirement under NSPS subparts
III and NNN. Information supplied by the company demonstrates that the
flare tip velocity will be less than 50 percent of the applicable limit
even if the total volume of reactants for the hydrogen cyanide
production unit were vented through the control device. Hence, the
velocity limit promulgated in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(i)(A) will not be
exceeded.
Abstract for [0500102]
Q: Does EPA waive the requirement to instal