Notice: Air Programs: Applicability Determination Index Database System Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, Etc. Postings

Thursday,
July 26, 2007
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Recent Posting to the Applicability
Determination Index (ADI) Database
System of Agency Applicability
Determinations, Alternative Monitoring
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations
Pertaining to Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program; Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:32 Jul 25, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26JYN2.SGM 26JYN2
41110 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 143 / Thursday, July 26, 2007 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to the applicability, monitoring,

AGENCY Background: The General Provisions recordkeeping, and reporting
to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP.
[FRL–8439–5] NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that The letters and memoranda may be
a source owner or operator may request searched by date, office of issuance,
Recent Posting to the Applicability a determination of whether certain subpart, citation, control number or by
Determination Index (ADI) Database intended actions constitute the string word searches.
System of Agency Applicability commencement of construction,
Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Today’s notice comprises a summary
reconstruction, or modification. EPA’s of 86 such documents added to the ADI
Decisions, and Regulatory written responses to these inquiries are
Interpretations Pertaining to Standards on July 6, 2007. The subject, author,
broadly termed applicability recipient, date and header of each letter
of Performance for New Stationary determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and
Sources, National Emission Standards and memorandum are listed in this
61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP notice, as well as a brief abstract of the
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the and section 111(d) of the Clean and Air
Stratospheric Ozone Protection letter or memorandum. Complete copies
Act regulations contain no specific of these documents may be obtained
Program. regulatory provision that sources may from the ADI through the OECA Web
AGENCY: Environmental Protection request applicability determinations, site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
Agency (EPA). EPA does respond to written inquiries monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.
regarding applicability for the part 63
ACTION: Notice of Availability. and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS Summary of Headers and Abstracts
SUMMARY: This notice announces
and NESHAP also allow sources to seek
permission to use monitoring or The following table identifies the
applicability determinations, alternative database control number for each
monitoring decisions, and regulatory recordkeeping which is different from
the promulgated requirements. See 40 document posted on the ADI database
interpretations that EPA has made system on July 6, 2007; the applicable
under the New Source Performance CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f),
and 63.10(f). EPA’s written responses to category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part
Standards (NSPS); the National 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air these inquiries are broadly termed
alternative monitoring decisions. the document; and the title of the
Pollutants (NESHAP); and the document, which provides a brief
Furthermore, EPA responds to written
Stratospheric Ozone Protection description of the subject matter. Please
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS
Program. note that the table that appeared in the
and NESHAP regulatory requirements as
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An they pertain to a whole source category. December 4, 2006 notice (71 FR 70383)
electronic copy of each complete These inquiries may pertain, for contained one document whose title
document posted on the Applicability example, to the type of sources to which was in error. The title for the document
Determination Index (ADI) database the regulation applies, or to the testing, assigned control number M060016 was
system is available on the Internet monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting listed in the table as ‘‘Once In/Always
through the Office of Enforcement and requirements contained in the In Rule.’’ It should have read ‘‘Once In/
Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site regulation. EPA’s written responses to Always In Policy.’’
at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ these inquiries are broadly termed We have also included an abstract of
monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The regulatory interpretations. each document identified with its
document may be located by date, EPA currently compiles EPA-issued control number after the table. These
author, subpart, or subject search. For NSPS and NESHAP applicability abstracts are provided solely to alert the
questions about the ADI or this notice, determinations, alternative monitoring public to possible items of interest and
contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone decisions, and regulatory are not intended as substitutes for the
at: (202) 564–7027, or by e-mail at: interpretations, and posts them on the full text of the documents. This notice
malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical Applicability Determination Index (ADI) does not change the status of any
questions about the individual on a quarterly basis. In addition, the document with respect to whether it is
applicability determinations or ADI contains EPA-issued responses to ‘‘of nationwide scope or effect’’ for
monitoring decisions, refer to the requests pursuant to the stratospheric purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
contact person identified in the ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR Clean Air Act. Neither does it purport
individual documents, or in the absence part 82. The ADI is an electronic index to make any document that was
of a contact person, refer to the author on the Internet with over one thousand previously non-binding into a binding
of the document. EPA letters and memoranda pertaining document.
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 6, 2007

Control Category Subparts Title
number
600030 ......... NSPS ............................. X .................................... Applicability for Distribution Facilities.

600031 ......... NSPS ............................. Y .................................... Classification of Coal Truck Dump Operations.
600032 ......... NSPS ............................. Y .................................... Applicability to Existing Conveying Equipment.
600033 ......... NSPS ............................. RRR, VV ........................ Biomass Ethanol Production.
600034 ......... NSPS ............................. NNN, RRR ..................... Biomass Ethanol Production.
600035 ......... NSPS ............................. III .................................... Thirty Day Notification Requirement.
600036 ......... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Date of Construction and/or Modification.
600037 ......... NSPS ............................. Kb .................................. Definition of Reconstruction for Oil Storage Tank.
600038 ......... NSPS ............................. GG ................................. Custom Monitoring Schedule: Gas Processing Plant.
600039 ......... NSPS ............................. GG ................................. Custom Monitoring Schedule for Turbine.
600040 ......... NSPS ............................. KK .................................. Reversing Modifications to Avoid Applicability.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 143 / Thursday, July 26, 2007 / Notices 41111
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 6, 2007—Continued

number
600041 ......... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Waiver of Monitoring Requirements.

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

M060037 ...... MACT ............................ OOOO ........................... Shoelace Tipping Operations.
M060038 ...... MACT ............................ AAAA ............................. Alternative Deadline for SSM Reports.
M060039 ...... MACT ............................ RRR ............................... Definition of Clean Charge.
M060041 ...... MACT ............................ DDDD ............................ Typical Manufacturing Component Scenarios.
M060042 ...... MACT ............................ F .................................... Benzene Emissions from Heat Exchanger Leaks.
ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 6, 2007—Continued

number
M060044 ...... MACT ............................ NNNNN .......................... 30 Weight Percent Acid.

M060045 ...... MACT ............................ WWWW ......................... Emission Factors vs. Tests to Determine Compliance.
Z060002 ....... NESHAP ........................ T .................................... Cessation of Annual Reports.
Z060004 ....... NESHAP ........................ F .................................... Benzene Emissions from Exchange Leaks.
Abstract for [M060027] passing the web between two steel rolls metal parts and products surface coating
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative or plates, one of which is engraved. In facility, where previously no
monitoring request under 40 CFR part the laminating/ply-bonding operation, miscellaneous metal parts and products
63, subpart O, to use a gas detection adhesive is applied by a roller to bind surface coating facility had existed, then
sensor (i.e., CEA Instruments ET–6200R multiple layers of substrate. the replaced primer booth would be a
U Series) instead of a gas chromatograph A: EPA finds that the adhesive is new source under 40 CFR part 63,
or flame ionization analyzer for the applied as a continuous coating layer by subpart MMMM. The facility will need
International Sterilization Laboratory the laminating/ply-bonding operation. to provide documentation to the
(ISL) facility in Groveland, Florida? Based on the web coating line definition delegated state agency to demonstrate
A: Yes. EPA finds that a gas detection and the description of the laminating/ that the replaced booth does not meet
sensor is an acceptable alternative to a ply-bonding operation included with the definition of ‘‘reconstruction’’ in 40
gas chromatograph or flame ionization the letter, the laminating/ply-bonding CFR 63.2, and to document that the
detector, contingent upon the successful operation takes place on a web coating facility remains in compliance with a
outcome of the required performance line, and is therefore subject to the potential to emit limitation.
specification (PS) 8 testing in 40 CFR requirements of part 63, subpart JJJJ,
Abstract for [M060032]
part 60, appendix B, for ethylene oxide. provided that it takes place at a major
source of HAP emissions. Q1: Could EPA clarify to Vorys, Sater,
Abstract for [M060028] Seymour and Pease LLP whether the
Q: Could the EPA clarify to the refinishing of metal equipment that is
American Forest & Paper Association Q: Could the EPA clarify to the used to manufacture wood furniture and
whether the manufacturing of cores for American Forest & Paper Association coats metal parts and equipment that are
rolled towels and tissue is subject to 40 whether facilities may use the results of not metal components of wood furniture
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ? In Method 24, which measures the volatile is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ?
manufacturing the cores, two rolls of organic compound (VOC) content of A1: EPA finds that the refinishing of
core stock are unwound with glue coating materials, instead of the results metal equipment at the facility falls
continuously applied, then wound of Method 311, which measures the within the affected source of 40 CFR
together to form a core, and cut to fit the organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) part 63, subpart MMMM, and would
rewinder length. content of the materials, in compliance therefore be excluded from 40 CFR part
A: EPA finds that this core calculations under 40 CFR part 63, 63, subpart JJ. EPA also finds that this
manufacturing activity is subject to 40 subpart JJJJ? activity falls within facility maintenance
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ when it takes A: EPA has determined that facilities activities that are exempt from 40 CFR
place at a major source of hazardous air may substitute Method 24 part 63, subpart MMMM requirements.
pollutants. The affected source under determinations of VOC content for
Q2: Is the construction and painting
subpart JJJJ is the collection of all web Method 311 determinations of organic
of wooden workbenches, shelving, and/
coating lines at a facility, with certain HAP content, provided that the
or shadow boards, as well as the
exceptions. The core stock is a web substitution is implemented
recoating or refinishing of wooden
because it is a continuous substrate consistently within an equation and all
workbenches subject to 40 CFR part 63,
flexible enough to be wound or given set of compliance calculations.
subpart JJ, if the materials are for use
unwound as rolls. Glue application Compliance determinations under part
within the facility?
occurs within a web coating line 63, subpart JJJJ requires monthly
calculation of as-applied organic HAP A2: Yes. EPA finds that construction
because the glue is applied to the core
content using measurements of the and painting activities are subject to 40
stock web substrate between an unwind
organic HAP content of as-purchased CFR part 63, subpart JJ. This rule does
or feed station and a rewind or cutting
material, and of any added material. 40 not distinguish activities that produce
station. Glue is an adhesive coating
CFR 63.3360(c)(2) allows substitution of items for sale from activities that
material within the subpart JJJJ
Method 24 determinations of VOC produce items for use at the facility. For
definition.
content for Method 311 determinations refinishing and restoration activities, the
Abstract for [M060029] background information document for
of organic HAP.
Q: Could the EPA clarify to the subpart JJ clarifies that those activities
American Forest & Paper Association Abstract for [M060031] are not considered part of wood
whether the laminating/ply-bonding of Q: Is a replaced primer booth at the furniture manufacturing and thus are
embossed, multi-layered paper products CNH America, LLC facility a new source not subject to subpart JJ.
that occurs at a major source of under part 63, subpart MMMM? Q3: Is the ink jet printing of letters or
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions A: No. EPA does not find the replaced numbers on wood substrate subject to
is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR primer booth to be a new source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ?
part 63, subpart JJJJ? The process 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. If the A3: Yes. EPA finds that this activity
consists of a raised or depressed pattern replacement had involved construction is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ
that is embossed on a paper web by of a completely new miscellaneous because inks are included in the coating
definition and the printing serves as a more hours to manufacture Coating (a) Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing
functional use. than Coating (b), is Process Vessel (A) Product (b), meets all of the criteria for
then part of the MCM rule affected an MCPU and is subject to none of the
source of Plant 1? If, in a year, Process exemptions of the MON rule. Is process
Q: Does EPA approve the monitoring Vessel (A) manufactures more product vessel (A) subject to the MON rule?
of alternative operating parameters for on a weight basis of Coating (a) than A4: EPA finds that process Vessel (A)
the lime kiln scrubber, under 40 CFR Coating (b), then is Process Vessel (A) would be subject to the MON rule
part 63, subpart MM, at part of the MCM rule affected source of because it meets all of the criteria for an
MeadWestvaco’s pulp mill in Rumford, Plant 1? MCPU in the rule and does not meet any
Maine? A2: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) of the exemptions. Whether there is
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves is part of the affected source under the chemical reaction during the
the request to install, calibrate, MCM rule at all times that it is manufacturing process is not a factor for
maintain, and operate a continuous flow manufacturing Coating (b). The MCM determining the applicability of the
monitoring system and supply pressure rule does not include the concept of MON rule. Although chemical reaction
monitoring system to measure scrubbing ‘‘primary product.’’ Therefore, neither is typically associated with the
liquid re-circulation flow rates and the time in use for the production of a manufacture of organic chemicals, it is
pressure from the wet scrubber used to product, nor the mass amount of a not exclusively so.
control emissions from the lime kiln. product affects the applicability of the Q5: Could EPA clarify the
This system, in conjunction with four standard. applicability criteria of the following
conditions specified in the EPA Q3: Could EPA clarify the scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 has
response letter, can be used in lieu of applicability criteria under the operations subject to both 40 CFR part
monitoring and recording the following specific scenarios at 3M 63, subpart FFFF (MON rule) and the 40
differential pressure across the scrubber, facilities: Plant 1 is subject to 40 CFR CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM
as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule). rule). Process Vessel (A) at plant 1 is not
MM. Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is not part an affected source or part thereof under
Abstract for [M060034] of a PUG under 40 CFR part 63, subpart another MACT standard. Process Vessel
FFFF (MON rule). It is also not an (A) is not part of a PUG developed
Q1: Could EPA clarify to 3M EHS affected source or part thereof under under the MON rule. Process Vessel (A)
Operations whether shared ‘‘process another 40 CFR part 63 standard. is used to manufacture two products,
equipment’’ under the Process Unit Process Vessel (A) is used to Product (a) and Product (b). Product (a)
Group (PUG) definition in 40 CFR part manufacture two products, Product (a) is a coating as defined in the MCM rule
63, subpart FFFF, the National Emission and Product (b), neither of which are and involves the process, use, or
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: coatings as defined by the MCM rule. production of HAP. Process Vessel (A),
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Process Vessel (A), while manufacturing while manufacturing Product (b), meets
Manufacturing (MON rule), may include Product (a), meets all of the criteria of all of the criteria for an MCPU under the
the following scenarios at various 3M a multiple miscellaneous chemical MON rule and meets none of the
facilities: (i) Piping manifold systems process unit (MCPU) under the MON exemptions in the MON rule. Is Process
and pumps used to deliver raw rule, and does not meet any of the Vessel (A) subject to either the MON
materials or remove waste or product exemptions in the MON rule. Process rule, the MCM rule, or both?
from process units; (ii) portable Vessel (A), while manufacturing A5: EPA finds that process Vessel (A)
equipment, such as filtering systems; Product (b), either does not meet the is subject to the MCM rule when
and/or (iii) ovens used to warm raw criteria for an MCPU under the MON manufacturing Product (a). Process
materials in drums or totes prior to rule, or is subject to one of the Vessel (A) is subject to the MON rule
introduction into the process vessel? exemptions in the MON rule. Is Process when manufacturing Product (b).
A1: Yes. EPA finds that while those Vessel (A) subject to the MON rule Process Vessel (A) cannot be subject to
pieces of equipment may be part of a during the manufacture of both Product both standards at the same time because
PUG, they cannot be the sole shared (a) and Product (b)? both the MON rule and MCM rule
equipment in the PUG. A3: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) contain language that states that the
Q2: Could EPA clarify the is subject to the MON standard only particular affected facility cannot be
applicability criteria under the National during the manufacture of Product (a). part of another 40 CFR part 63 affected
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air This is the only time it meets the facility.
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating applicability of that rule because the Q6: Could EPA clarify the following
Manufacturing (MCM rule) at 40 CFR product of the process determines rule scenario(s) regarding applicability
part 63, subpart HHHHH, under the applicability. criteria at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is
following specific scenarios at 3M Q4: Could EPA clarify the subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
facilities: Plant 1 contains Process applicability criteria of the following HHHHH (MCM rule), and is not subject
Vessel (A), which is used to scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1 is a to the National Emission Standards for
manufacture two types of coatings, i.e., major source of HAP emissions. Process Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Coating (a) and Coating (b). Process Vessel (A) at Plant 1 is not part of a PUG Other Web Coating (POWC rule) at 40
Vessel (A) is not an affected source or under the MON rule in 40 CFR part 63, CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. Plant 2
part thereof under another MACT subpart FFFF. Process Vessel (A) is used consists of a Web Coating Line (B)
standard. The production of Coating (a) to manufacture Product (b) from several which is part of an affected source
does not involve the process, use or Raw Materials (a), and mixing, blending, under the POWC rule. Process Vessel
production of any hazardous air etc., in Process Vessel (A) do not (A) at Plant 1 is used only to
pollutant (HAP). The production of involve any chemical reaction or change manufacture a coating that is used by
Coating (b) does involve the process, use in basic chemistry of Product (b) from the Web Coating Line (B). Plants 1 and
or production of a HAP. Both Coating (a) Raw Materials (a). Product (b) is not a 2 are not contiguous and may in fact be
and Coating (b) are sold to commerce. If, coating as defined by the MCM rule in located in different states. Does 40 CFR
in a year, Process Vessel (A) is used 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule)
apply to Plant 1 for the production of Line (C). During this time, the process not be an affiliated operation as the
the coating in Process Vessel (A)? carried out in these equipments would HAP-Containing Coating (d) is not used
A6: Yes, the MCM rule is applicable be an affiliated operation under the in a 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC
to Plant 1 for the production of the MCM rule at 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2). rule) process. The MCM rule would not
coating in Process Vessel (A) because Equipment (B), when making Finished apply to Process Vessel (A) in Plant 1
Process Vessel (A) is not located at the Product (a), would be subject to the when producing HAP-Containing
POWC affected source and therefore MCM rule, as it would not qualify as an Coating (a) for use in Web Coating Line
cannot be an affiliated operation of a affiliated operation of a POWC rule (D) because it would be exempt under
POWC affected source. affected source because Finished 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2) as an affiliated
Q7: Plant 1 consists of Process Vessel Product (a) is not applied at the POWC operation located at a POWC rule
(A), which is an MCPU under the MON rule affected source. affected source. Process Vessel (C) in
rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF). Q9: Could EPA clarify the Plant 2, which produces HAP-
Process Vessel (A) is not part of a PUG applicability criteria of the following Containing Coating (c) for use with Web
under the MON rule. Plant 2 consists of scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Web Coating Coating Line (E), would be an affiliated
both Web Coating Line (C), which is Line (B) at Plant 1 is part of an affected operation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ
part of an affected source under the source under 40 CFR part 63, subpart (POWC) Web Coating Line (E) and
POWC rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (POWC rule). Process Vessel (A) at therefore not subject to the MCM rule
JJJJ), and Process Vessel (B), which Plant 1 is used to manufacture HAP- per the same exemption. When
manufactures coatings for Web Coating containing Coatings (a) for Web Coating manufacturing HAP-Containing Coating
Line (C). Process Vessel (A) produces Line (B). Some part of the Coatings (a) (b) for Web Coating Line (D), Process
miscellaneous organic chemical Product are sent to Off-site Locations (C) for Vessel (B) also would be exempt from
(b), which is sold to commerce, and quality assurance/quality control, pilot the MCM rule under 40 CFR
miscellaneous organic chemical Product coating lines, and/or research and 63.7985(d)(2). However, because there is
(a) which is used as an ingredient by development. Is Process Vessel (A) an no concept of primary use in either the
Plant 2 to manufacture the coating in affected source under 40 CFR part 63, POWC rule or the MCM rule, Process
Process Vessel (B). How do the MON subpart HHHHH (MCM rule)? Vessel (B), would be subject to the MCM
rule and the POWC rule apply to Plant A9: EPA finds that when Process rule when producing HAP-Containing
1 and Plant 2? Vessel (A) is making HAP-containing Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (E)
A7: EPA finds that Process Vessel (A) Coatings (a) for Web Coating Line (B), it because it would not be an affiliated
in Plant 1 is subject to the MON rule is not a MCM rule affected source operation located at the relevant POWC
when producing either Product (a) or because it is an affiliated operation of rule affected source.
Product (b) because production of the POWC rule affected source. Q11: Could EPA clarify the
Product (b) meets the applicability of However, when Process Vessel (A) is applicability criteria of the following
the MON rule and production of making HAP-containing Coatings (a) for scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Plant 1
Product (a) does not meet the exemption use off-site, it no longer meets the produces product coatings and chemical
for affiliated operations under 40 CFR definition of affiliated operations for the intermediates in several steps. In Step
63.2435(c)(3) of the MON rule. The POWC rule affected source. If the Off- 1a, Process Vessel (A) is used to
production of the coating in Process site Locations (C) met the exemptions in manufacture Intermediate (a). While
Vessel (B) would be an affiliated the rule, then the production of HAP- manufacturing Intermediate (a), Process
operation under the POWC rule, containing Coatings (a) for these Vessel (A) meets all of the criteria for an
because the mixing or dissolving of purposes would be exempt from MCM MCPU under the MON rule (40 CFR part
coatings prior to application as an rule. 63, subpart FFFF) and meets none of the
affiliated operation would include the Q10: Could EPA clarify the exemptions in the MON rule. Process
actual production of the coating when applicability criteria of the following Vessel (A) is not a PUG under the MON
performed at an affected source listed in scenario(s) at 3M facilities: Web Coating rule. It is also not part of an affected
40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2). Line (D) is part of an affected source at source under another subpart of 40 CFR
Q8: Could EPA clarify the Plant 1 under 40 CFR part 63, subpart part 63. In Step 1b, one-half of the
applicability criteria of the following JJJJ (POWC rule). Web Coating Line (E) Intermediate (a) is drained away from
scenario(s) at 3M facilities: The Web is part of an affected source at Plant 2 Process Vessel (A) into drums for
Coating Line (C) is part of an affected under the POWC rule. Process Vessel temporary storage. In Step 2a and 2b,
source at Plant 1 under 40 CFR part 63, (A) at Plant 1 manufactures (with or other raw materials, some of which
subpart JJJJ (POWC rule). Equipment (A) without an intended chemical reaction) contain HAP, are added to the
at Plant 1, which consists of process the HAP-Containing Coating (a) for Web remaining one-half of Intermediate (a) in
vessels with associated agitators, Coating Line (D). Process Vessel (B) at Process Vessel (A) to manufacture a
pumps, etc., is used to manufacture Plant 1 manufactures (with or without a coating (with or without a chemical
HAP-containing coatings for the Web chemical reaction) the HAP-Containing reaction). In Step 3, the one-half of
Coating Line (C). A subset of Equipment Coating (b) for Web Coating Line (D) and Intermediate (a) which was drained into
(A), designated as Equipment (B), is also for Web Coating Line (E), and drums is removed from storage and
used at other times to manufacture manufactures another HAP-Containing pumped back into the now empty
different coatings which are sold to Coating (d) which is sold to commerce. Process Vessel (A) or another process
general commerce as Finished Products Process Vessel (C) in Plant 2 vessel, along with other raw materials
(a). Are Equipment (A) and/or manufactures a HAP-Containing Coating (some of which contain HAP) to
Equipment (B) subject to 40 CFR part (c) for Web Coating Line (E). Does 40 manufacture a coating (with or without
63, subpart HHHHH (MCM rule)? CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM chemical reaction). How do 40 CFR part
A8: EPA finds that all of the rule) apply to Plant 1 and/or Plant 2? 63, subpart FFFF (MON) and 40 CFR
equipment in Equipment (A), including A10: EPA finds that the MCM rule part 63, subpart HHHHH (MCM) apply
Equipment (B), would not be subject to would apply to Process Vessel (B) in to Plant 1?
the MCM rule when they are used to Plant 1 when manufacturing HAP- A11: EPA finds that Steps 1a and 1b
manufacture a coating for Web Coating Containing Coating (d) because it would would be subject to the MON rule
because it applies to the production of Landfill facility to submit startup, lubricants, or where the owner or
an isolated intermediate at an MCPU. shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) operator knows that paints, coatings and
Because a portion of Intermediate (a) is reports within 60 days after the end of lubricants have been removed
removed from the process in Step 1b each semiannual reporting period? consistent with the definition of ‘‘clean
into a drum for storage, Intermediate (a) A: Yes. EPA approves the North charge.’’ Similarly, the owner or
is an isolated intermediate. Steps 2a, 2b, Shelby Landfill facility request of operator also may process scrap from
and Step 3 would all be subject to the extending the submittal of SSM reports outside entities where they are familiar
MCM rule because the final product of until 60 days after the end of each with the history of the scrap and,
these processes is a coating, and they semiannual reporting period, which therefore, know that the scrap meets the
appear to meet the applicability corresponds with the existing deadline definition of ‘‘clean charge.’’
requirements of the MCM rule (e.g., use for submitting semiannual reports under
the Title V permitting program. Under Abstract for [M060041]
of HAPs).
40 CFR 63.9(i), an owner or operator of Q: Could EPA clarify to the American
Abstract for [M060036] a facility subject to this reporting Home Furnishing Alliance’s (AHFA) the
Q: Is the Battisons of Avon, requirement can request an alternative applicability criteria under 40 CFR part
Connecticut, (Battisons) facility a major schedule. Under the new deadline, the 63, subpart DDDD, for nine general
source or an area source of hazardous SSM reports and semiannual Title V manufacturing scenarios in the home
air pollutants (HAP) emissions subject reports can be submitted at the same furnishing industry involving
to 40 CFR, part 63, subpart M, if it time to simplify the owner/operator manufacturing components from
replaces its old dry cleaning systems reporting requirements. plywood and engineered lumber?
and installs all new dry-to-dry dry A: The Agency has determined that
Abstract for [M060039] most of the furniture components
cleaning systems before the compliance
date? Q: Could EPA clarify to Briggs & described in the scenarios, except for
A: EPA finds that Battisons is an area Stratton Corporation whether aluminum processes involving cold pressing of
source of HAP emissions subject to 40 sows, ingots, and T-bars that have solid wood pieces, would meet the
CFR part 63, subpart M because it has painted markings considered ‘‘clean definition of ‘‘plywood’’ under 40 CFR
maintained its perchloroethylene charge’’ in the National Emission part 63, subpart DDDD and, therefore, be
consumption below the 2,100 gallons Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants subject to applicable requirements in
threshold limit since before the for Secondary Aluminum at 40 CFR part that rule, as described in EPA’s response
compliance date. The applicability 63, subpart RRR? letter. EPA interprets the term ‘‘panel
provision at 40 CFR 63.320(g) states A: EPA finds that as a result of the product’’ in the definition of plywood to
that, ‘‘In lieu of measuring a facility’s typographical errors in the definition of include flat as well as curved furniture
potential to emit perchloroethylene ‘‘clean charge,’’ aluminum T-bars, sows, panels. It should be noted that most of
emissions or determining a facility’s ingots, billets, and pigs which have the manufacturing equipment used by
potential to emit perchloroethylene painted markings are not defined as the industry, such as hot presses, would
emissions, a dry cleaning facility is a ‘‘clean charge.’’ It is the Agency’s intent not be subject to emission limits but
major source if: (1) It includes only dry- that aluminum T-bar, sow, ingot, billet, only to notification requirements under
to-dry machine(s) and has a total yearly and pig be considered ‘‘clean charge,’’ 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD.
perchloroethylene consumption greater and that the phrase ‘‘entirely free of
than 8,000 liters (2,100 gallons) as paints, coatings, and lubricants’’ not
determined according to apply to these materials. EPA believes Q: What is EPA’s guidance to
63.323(d). * * *’’ However, if Battisons these materials, notwithstanding ink, regulators on the implementation and
exceeds the yearly perchloroethylene grease or paint markings, should be compliance monitoring of the capture,
consumption of 2,100 gallons when it treated as clean charge. EPA intends to collection, and ventilation requirements
starts up the new systems, it will amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR to in the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP
become a major source of HAP clarify this point. under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR?
A: EPA finds that the Secondary
emissions, according to 40 CFR Abstract for [M060040] Aluminum NESHAP incorporates by
63.320(i), and all its dry cleaning
Q: What is EPA’s guidance to reference chapters 3 and 5 of Industrial
systems will have to comply with the
regulators on how an owner or operator Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
appropriate requirements within 180
of a secondary aluminum production Practice, 23rd edition, published by the
calendar days from the date it exceeded
facility can know that the scrap American Conference of Governmental
that threshold value.
processed at its facility is ‘‘entirely free Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). As
Abstract for [M060037] of paints, coatings, and lubricants’’ required by 40 CFR 63.1506(c) of
Q: Is the Rhode Island Textile under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR? NESHAP subpart RRR, owners or
Company, Inc. (RIT) facility, located in A: EPA believes that an owner or operators of affected sources or
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, that operator of a secondary aluminum emissions units with add-on air
manufactures shoelaces and submits the production facility may know whether pollution control devices must design
shoelaces to tipping operations subject the scrap material being processed at the and install a system for the capture and
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO? facility is ‘‘entirely free of paints, collection of emissions to meet the
A: No. EPA has determined that coatings, and lubricants’’ in one of two engineering standards for minimum
because the company is not coating, ways. The first way to ensure a ‘‘clean exhaust rates as published in the ACGIH
printing, slashing, finishing or dyeing charge’’ would be to maintain direct manual. In addition, 40 CFR
control of the scrap material being 63.1515(b)(5) requires facilities to
the product, it is not subject to 40 CFR

part 63, subpart OOOO. processed by processing scrap generated provide design information and
within the facility or from other analysis, with supporting
Abstract for [M060038] facilities within the same company that documentation, demonstrating
Q: Is it acceptable under 40 CFR part the owner or operator knows has not conformance with these capture/
63, subpart V, for the North Shelby been subjected to paints, coatings and collection system requirements. The
memorandum provides further specifics and reporting requirements under the BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., Texas facility be
on what steps and documentation are Reinforced Composites Production rule included in the calculation of the Total
required to demonstrate compliance (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) to Annual Benzene (TAB) quantity from
with these requirements. ensure continuous compliance, the facility waste water under the NESHAP
regulatory agency is able to know when for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR
a source first becomes subject to the rule part 61, subpart FF?
Q1: Could EPA clarify to Kean Miller and whether it is complying with the A: Yes. EPA finds that neither
whether an HCl unit at a facility that rule. A regulatory agency could also benzene emissions occurring from non-
stops producing 30 weight percent acid elect, as part of its compliance and contact heat exchanger leaks into
for commercial sale after the compliance enforcement program, to inspect a cooling tower water nor benzene
date is subject to 40 CFR part 63, source to evaluate its compliance with quantities from ‘‘contact heat
subpart NNNNN? the 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW exchangers ‘‘qualify for the exemption
A1: 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN requirements and take any actions, as or exclusion from the required TAB
does not only apply to the production appropriate. calculation under the NESHAP for
for commercial sale of 30 weight percent Q2: What tests are required to ensure Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR part
or greater HCl acid. Consequently, the that organic hazardous air pollutant 61, subpart FF. The benzene emissions
production of HCl acid with a (HAP) emissions are no greater than the are directly generated by these processes
concentration of 30 weight percent or organic HAP emissions predicted by the and are not the result of either leakage
greater for internal use, as well as for applicable non-atomized application or process offgas. Therefore, waste in
commercial sale, may be subject to 40 equation(s) in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, the form of gases or vapors that is
CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN. subpart WWWW? emitted during these processes from the
Q2: If a facility infrequently produces A2: No tests are required. 40 CFR part process fluids is required to be part of
HCl at a 30 weight percent strength, and 63, subpart WWWW allows sources to the calculation of the total annual
its monthly or weekly average is below use the equations in Table 1 to calculate benzene quantity in facility waste
30 weight percent, is the facility subject HAP emission factors that are then used generation.
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN? to estimate sources’ emissions instead of
A2: No. EPA finds that a facility conducting actual testing. Table 1 Abstract for [0600030]
would not be subject to 40 CFR part 63, emission factors were used to calculate Q: Could EPA clarify to the Florida
subpart NNNN if its production of HCl the emission limits for the MACT floor Department of Environmental Protection
acid with a concentration of 30 weight for this rule. Accordingly, the rule whether the Agrico’s Big Bend Terminal
percent or greater is infrequent, allows a source to use Table 1 emission in Hillsborough County, Florida, is
irregular, or not consistent with the factors to calculate its emissions and subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart X, if
facility’s normal operations. In demonstrate compliance with the it contends that it is a distribution and
determining whether the production of emission standard. not a storage of granular triple
30 weight percent HCl acid is occasional Q3: Could EPA clarify how it will superphosphate (GTSP) manufacturing
or part of a facility’s normal operations, address the known discrepancy between facility?
EPA will make a case-by-case the emissions estimated using the A: Yes. EPA finds that the Big Bend
determination based on the frequency published Table 1 and/or emission Terminal facility is subject to NSPS
and regularity of HCl acid production of factors for unfilled resin, under 40 CFR subpart X since it was constructed,
30 weight percent or greater. part 63, subpart WWWW, and the actual reconstructed, or modified after October
Q3: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart emissions from tub/shower facilities, 25, 1974. In addition, the definition of
NNNNN apply to a facility that which can be verified by means of EPA GTSP storage facility in 40 CFR 60.241
produces liquid HCl at concentrations emissions testing methods 18 and 25A? does not restrict applicability to storage
exceeding 30 weight percent only on an A3: EPA does not yet have the facilities at manufacturing sites.
occasional basis, when requested by a industry data to do an evaluation of the
customer? Abstract for [0600031]
current emission factors for 40 CFR part
A3: If a facility infrequently produces 63, subpart WWWW. After the data is Q: Are coal truck dump operations at
HCl with a concentration of 30 weight received and evaluated, a determination the ARCO Coal Company, Colorado
percent or greater and this production is will be made as to whether changes facility ‘‘affected facilities’’ subject to 40
not a routine part of normal operations, should be made to the rule. CFR part 60, subpart Y?
the facility would not be subject to 40 A: Coal truck dump operations are not
CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN. Abstract for [Z060002] affected facilities for purposes of NSPS
Q: Is the Aerovox Division Parallax subpart Y. However, EPA finds that
Abstract for [M060045] these operations are part of the coal
Power Components facility subject to
Q1: Could EPA clarify to Lasco reporting requirements under 40 CFR preparation plant if they are located at
Bathware Incorporated what measures part 63, subpart T, if all machines at the the site of the plant, as defined in 40
are being taken by the Agency to ensure facility subject to the rule have been CFR 60.251(a) of NSPS subpart Y.
that any composite operation utilizing removed or converted to non-regulated Therefore, quantifiable fugitive
the ‘‘non-atomized mechanical solvents? particulate emissions from coal dump
application’’ emission factors for A: No. EPA finds that the facility is no operations must be included in a total
gelcoats or filled resins, is in longer subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart source emissions inventory to determine
compliance with the requirements T and therefore is no longer required to whether the stationary source is to be
specified in the National Emissions submit reports under the subpart, unless considered a major source of hazardous
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
the facility once again uses solvents air pollutant emissions.

Reinforced Plastic Composites regulated under this rule.
Production under 40 CFR part 63, Abstract for [0600032]
subpart WWWW? Abstract for [Z060004] Q: Are conveyors 1 and 2 at the
A1: Since affected sources must Q: Should benzene emissions that Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
comply with monitoring, recordkeeping, occur from heat exchanger leaks at the (AEPCO) part of the affected facility
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y? rule, and this memorandum further The cost of the new foundation for the
Conveyor numbers 1 and 2 were built clarifies an earlier EPA response dated storage tank, or other costs not directly
prior to the AEPCO screening and October 7, 1996, regarding the related in containerization cannot be
crushing facility. applicability of these standards to included in calculating the fixed capital
A: Yes. EPA finds that AEPCO biomass ethanol production. cost of the new components.
conveyor numbers 1 and 2 are part of
the affected facility subject to NSPS Abstract for [0600035] Abstract for [0600038]
subpart Y because these are used to Q: Could EPA clarify the 30-day Q1: Does EPA approve a custom fuel
convey coal or coal refuse from the reporting requirement for sources which monitoring schedule for sulfur for a gas
machinery and the exemption in 40 CFR were constructed or reconstructed turbine, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
60.14(c) would therefore, not apply. 40 between proposal and promulgation, GG, at Conoco’s Acadia Gas Processing
CFR 60.14(c) exempts existing facilities under 40 CFR part 60, subpart III? Plant?
from becoming affected facilities by the A: Although 40 CFR part 60, subpart A1: Yes. Given that the sulfur levels
addition of a new affected facility. III does not specifically address the continue to be low and consistent as
However, this case involves changes to issue of notification deadlines for demonstrated, EPA approves a custom
an existing affected facility. sources for which the 30-day deadline schedule for sulfur, with a one week
has already or nearly passed, EPA composite for each of the first six
Abstract for [0600033]
believes that it is only reasonable under months and a one week composite for
Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability NSPS subpart III to allow owners and each of the following quarters. Conoco
of 40 CFR part 60, subparts NNN, RRR, operators the full 30 days after must re-evaluate the fuel composition if
and VV to the production of ethyl promulgation to provide the necessary there is a change in the feedstock.
alcohol through biological fermentation notifications. Q2: Does EPA approve a custom fuel
processes? monitoring schedule for nitrogen for a
A: These regulations and their Abstract for [0600036] gas turbine, under 40 CFR part 60,
background documents state that these Q: Could EPA clarify whether heaters subpart GG, at Conoco’s Acadia Gas
subparts apply only to specific F–501 and F–510 at the Chevron USA Processing Plant?
processes involving synthesis of organic refinery in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, A2: No. EPA does not approve a
chemicals using petroleum-based are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart custom schedule for nitrogen for a gas
feedstocks (in this case ethylene to J either because their construction turbine at this facility. If Conoco would
ethanol) and not biological fermentation commenced after June 11, 1973, or like to reapply for a custom schedule, it
processes where emissions because the heaters were modified in should provide sufficient data to
characteristics and industry economics 1982? demonstrate the consistency of the fuel
differ. EPA clarified that these A: EPA finds that heaters F–501 and quality on a daily basis, rather than on
regulations do not apply to chemicals F–510 are subject to NSPS subpart J an average basis.
extracted from natural sources or totally because they commenced construction
produced by biological process in the after the applicability date of June 11, Abstract for [0600039]
following Federal Register notices: the 1973. The terms ‘‘commenced’’ and Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative
notice proposing the NSPS for volatile ‘‘construction’’ are defined in 40 CFR monitoring schedule for analyzing fuel
organic compound (VOC) emissions 60.2. The terms were also discussed in sulfur content, under 40 CFR part 60,
from synthetic organic chemical EPA’s earlier response to Chevron on subpart GG, which would allow the use
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) May 2, 1976 (see ADI Control Number of weekly instead of daily composites to
distillation operations (40 CFR part 60, CO08). Based on these definitions, EPA determine sulfur content, for the
subpart NNN) (48 FR 57541); the notice finds that the construction of heaters F– combined cycle gas turbines at Dow
promulgating the NSPS for equipment 501 and F–510 commenced on January Chemical USA (Dow)? In addition, Dow
leaks of VOC in SOCMI (40 CFR part 60, 31, 1974, the date the contract for the would like these weekly composites to
subpart VV) (48 FR 48335); and the construction of heaters F–501 and F– be conducted on a quarterly basis and
notice promulgating the NSPS for VOC 510 was signed and became legally believes that this alternative schedule is
emissions from SOCMI reactor binding. Because the construction of consistent with 40 CFR 60.334(b)(2).
processes (40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR) these heaters commenced after the A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of a
(58 FR 45962). applicability date of June 11, 1973, these weekly composite for analyzing fuel
heaters are subject to NSPS subpart J. sulfur content. However, EPA does not
Abstract for [0600034] approve the proposed quarterly
Q: Could EPA clarify the applicability Abstract for [0600037] sampling at this time. Weekly
of 40 CFR part 60, subparts NNN, RRR, Q: Is a fuel oil storage tank (Tank 19) composites should be analyzed and
and III to biomass ethanol production? at the Chevron Products Company, New checked for accuracy and consistency
A: EPA finds that NSPS subparts Jersey facility subject to 40 CFR part 60, for six months. If after the first six
NNN, RRR, and III do not contain a subpart Kb, if the tank is converted to months the sulfur levels remain
blanket exemption for biomass ethanol an internal floating roof tank with a consistent with the data provided in this
production facilities from applicability mechanical shoe seal for storing crude review, quarterly monitoring may be
of these subparts. Inherent difficulties in oil? requested.
determining emissions characteristics A: Yes. EPA finds that the storage Q2: Does EPA approve the
and processes make it necessary to tank is subject to NSPS subpart Kb microcoulometric titration technique for
provide exemptions on a case-by-case because the conversions constitute determining the sulfur content of fuel
basis, beyond those provided for ‘‘reconstruction’’ as defined in 40 CFR under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
explicitly in the rule. This case-by case 60.14 and 40 CFR 60.15. The fixed A2: No. EPA does not approve Dow’s
applicability exemption determination capital costs of the new components microcoulometric titration technique for
is consistent with the approaches used exceed 50 percent of the initial fixed determining sulfur content. The method
in implementing other rules, such as the capital cost, which subjects the storage is not a previously approved equivalent
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) tank to NSPS subpart Kb requirements. method under NSPS subpart GG, and
lacks supporting data demonstrating its newly-constructed affected facility Abstract for [0600045]
equivalency to proven testing methods. would be. The subsequent removal of Q1: Could EPA clarify to Woodward-
the added equipment leaves behind a Clyde Consultants whether a change in
plant that still contains affected volatile organic liquid (VOL) or an
Q1: Could EPA clarify the facilities since its production rate increase in throughput makes an
applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart remains well above the NSPS subpart existing storage vessel subject to 40 CFR
KK for the Excide Corporation (Excide) KK applicability threshold. The entire part 60, subpart Kb?
lead acid battery manufacturing plant in affected facility is subject to the A1: Based on 40 CFR 60.14(e),
Greer, South Carolina? standards of performance, not just the switching to a higher vapor pressure
A1: Excide’s four facilities located at portion of the affected facility which is VOL will not by itself be considered a
this plant are subject to NSPS subpart responsible for the increase in modification if the existing storage
KK if they were constructed or modified emissions. vessel was designed to accommodate
after January 14, 1980, and are part of
Abstract for [0600041] the higher vapor pressure VOL prior to
any plant that produces or has the
July 23, 1984. Similarly, under 40 CFR
design capacity to produce in one day Q: Does EPA waive the monitoring 60.14(e), an increase in throughput will
(24 hours) batteries containing an requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, not be considered a modification if the
amount equal to or greater than 6.5 tons subpart J, for the Hunt Refining original design of the storage vessel
of lead. Excide produces batteries Company? could accommodate the increased
containing an amount of lead greater
A: No. EPA does not have the throughput.
than 6.5 tons. Also, since January 14, Q2: Could EPA clarify the
authority to waive NSPS subpart J
1980, Excide has installed additional applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
monitoring requirements. However, the
equipment on all four facilities, which Kb to a storage vessel that is covered by
facility emits the regulated pollutants in
constituted modifications to these a state permit, which does not specify
low quantities and may qualify for a
facilities. Therefore, the plant is subject what VOL can be stored, and where the
to NSPS subpart KK. Removal of all monitoring frequency reduction. The
facility remains subject to continuous VOL is changed to a level that is within
equipment added after January 14, 1980, the emission limits established by the
would not by itself terminate the monitoring requirements until an
alternative is approved. state permit?
applicability of NSPS subpart KK to the A2: If an existing source undergoes
Exide facilities. To terminate the Abstract for [0600042] reconstruction or modification after July
applicability of NSPS subpart KK, Exide 23, 1984, then the storage vessel will
Q: Are two boilers, which burn only
would have to either dismantle the become subject to NSPS subpart Kb
Jet A fuel, subject to 40 CFR part 60,
affected facilities or permanently because state permits do not provide
subpart Db?
decrease (physically restrict) the plant’s shielding from the NSPS. Therefore, 40
capacity so that the plant no longer had A: No. The boilers are designed to
burn natural gas, and are therefore CFR part 60, subpart Kb requirements
the capacity to produce in 1 day (24 applies to the storage vessel even when
hours) batteries containing more than subject to NSPS subpart Db. However,
these boilers are not subject to any the state permit fails to include such
6.5 tons of lead (down from the present requirements.
amount of lead). emission standards or monitoring
Q3: Is acetone considered a VOL with
Q2: Would Excide have a period of requirements when solely burning Jet A
respect to 40 CFR part 60, subparts A
time to remove the additional fuel. EPA has determined that Jet A fuel
and Kb?
equipment which constituted the is classified as ‘‘other fuel’’ as A3: No. EPA finds that acetone is not
modification in order to avoid being referenced in NSPS subpart Db, rather a VOL under NSPS subparts A and Kb.
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK than as residual or distillate oil. Jet A Q4: Are blending tanks with a
regulations? fuel is covered in ASTM D1655–95, capacity of at least 40 cubic meters
A2: No. The applicability which also covers diesel and gas turbine subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb?
determination is made based on fuels. A4: Yes. EPA finds that the blending
whether and when modification Abstract for [0600043] tank is considered a storage tank subject
occurred. Subsequent restoration of the to NSPS subpart Kb because 40 CFR
facilities to the previous physical and Q: Could EPA clarify the particulate 60.110(b) does not differentiate between
operational configuration would not matter and opacity limits applicable to storage vessels based on usage.
change the finding that the facilities the kiln, clinker cooler, and raw mill Q5: Is the presence or absence of a
were modified and therefore would not operations, under 40 CFR part 60, mechanical agitator in the blending tank
relieve the company from having to subpart F, at the Roanoke Cement relevant to the applicability of 40 CFR
comply with NSPS subpart KK. Company in Cloverdale, Virginia? part 60, subpart Kb?
Q3: Could EPA distinguish between a A: All of the gas exiting the clinker A5: EPA finds that the presence of a
boiler derate and removing additional cooler goes to the kiln as process gas mechanical agitator is only relevant
equipment in relation to the and is therefore not subject to the when one considers the question of
applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart opacity or particulate matter limits for ‘‘modification.’’ For example, if a
KK to this facility? clinker cooler gas in NSPS subpart F. product change requires blending, the
A3: A boiler derate involves a Instead, this process gas, as well as all installation of a mechanical agitator in
permanent restriction of the boiler of the other gas exiting the kiln (that is the tank constitutes ‘‘physical change.’’
production capacity and could alter the not diverted to raw mill operations as a Providing that there are emission
entire regulated entity in such a way process gas) is subject to the kiln gas increases associated with the product
that it no longer meets the definition of standards. The raw mill uses some kiln storage change, the tank will become
‘‘affected facility.’’ In contrast, once an gas as process gas. This process gas and subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb
existing facility has been modified by all other gas exiting the raw mill because the tank is not considered
installing additional equipment, it is operations is subject to the 10 percent capable of accommodating the
considered an affected facility under opacity limit applicable to raw mill gas alternative product without the
NSPS subpart KK in the same way as a (no particulate matter limit applies). installation of an agitator.
Q6: Will 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb production from this unit routinely A1: Yes. EPA approves waiving the
apply if the storage tank has a usable exceeds 20 LTD, and Navajo has failed requirement under 40 CFR 60.334(b) of
capacity greater than or equal to 151 m3 to demonstrate the design capacity was NSPS subpart GG to monitor the
without an internal floating roof, but the 20 LTD or less. nitrogen content of pipeline quality
usable capacity drops below 151 m3 natural gas given that the natural gas
after the installation of an internal does not contain fuel-bound nitrogen,
floating roof? Which capacity should be Q: In lieu of the standard daily fuel and any free nitrogen in the gas would
considered the design capacity for nitrogen and sulfur monitoring under 40 not contribute appreciably to the
applicability purposes? CFR part 60, subpart GG, may the formation of nitrogen oxide emissions.
A6: EPA finds that the capacity of the Algonquin Power co-generation facility Q2: Does EPA approve a custom
tank prior to the installation of the in Windsor Locks, Connecticut monitoring schedule to monitor the
internal floating roof is the design (Algonquin Power) facility use the sulfur content at each renewal of the
capacity for purposes of determining procedures in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix Title V Operating Permit, under 40 CFR
applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart D, 2.3.1.4 and 2.3.2.4, to show that the part 60, subpart GG, for a natural gas
Kb. The designed capacity is the gas used in a turbine meets sulfur- fueled combustion turbine at the
nominal figure or nominal rating given content specifications for pipeline- Bridgewater Correctional Complex in
to the storage vessel by the tank quality natural gas? Bridgewater, Massachusetts
manufacturer. 40 CFR 60.110(a–c) A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR (Bridgewater)?
identify ‘‘design capacity,’’ not ‘‘usable’’ 60.334(b)(2), EPA approves that A2: No. EPA does not approve this
capacity of the storage vessel to be the Algonquin Power use the procedures in custom monitoring schedule.
key parameter for considering 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, 2.3.1.4 and Bridgewater may use the two custom
applicability. In addition, the volume 2.3.2.4, to show that the gas meets monitoring schedules set forth in 40
occupied by the internal floating roof sulfur-content specifications for CFR 60.334(i)(3)(i)(A) through (D),
cannot be subtracted to bring the tank pipeline-quality natural gas. Under this without prior approval. Otherwise,
below the threshold of NSPS subpart approach, the daily fuel nitrogen and Bridgewater must continue to follow 40
Kb. sulfur monitoring requirements of NSPS CFR 60.334(i)(2) for the monitoring
subpart GG would not apply as long as frequency of the fuel’s sulfur content.
Abstract for [0600046] the part 75 monitoring demonstrated
Q: Are three proposed 316.9 million that the fuel met pipeline-quality Abstract for [0600052]
Btu/hr resource recovery boilers, located specifications. Q: Does EPA approve a parametric
at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, monitoring plan that includes
Norfolk, Virginia facility, which will Abstract for [0600049] and [0600050] monitoring the fuel input rate, the
burn a combination of coal and refuse Q: Does EPA approve changing the electric load, and the combustor
derived fuel (RDF), subject to 40 CFR frequency of Relative Accuracy Test temperature during the initial stack
part 60, subparts D and/or Da? The Audits (RATAs) and Cylinder Gas performance test, under 40 CFR part 60,
steam and electricity generated by these Audits (CGAs) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, at the Bridgewater
boilers will be used exclusively to Appendix F, at the ANP Bellingham Correctional Complex in Bridgewater,
furnish the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Energy Company facilities in Massachusetts?
A: The boilers will not be subject to Bellingham and Blackstone, A: Yes. EPA approves the parametric
NSPS subpart Da because the boilers Massachusetts, so that the frequency is monitoring plan with certain
will not provide electricity for sale. The consistent with similar requirements modifications and additional
boilers will, however, be subject to under 40 CFR part 75? conditions, as specified in the EPA
NSPS subpart D because the boilers A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR response letter. This parametric
would have the capability to fire in 60.13(i)(2), EPA approves changing the approach will be correlated with
excess of 250 million Btu/hr of fossil annual RATA due date to once every emissions to ensure proper operation of
fuel. The boilers will be required to four operating quarters instead of once the control system and to ensure the
meet all emission limits for the portion every four calendar quarters, and facility stays within permitted limits.
of the heat input which is attributable approves a NOX, CO and O2 CGA every
operating quarter. An operating quarter Abstract for [0600053]
to the fossil fuel.
is defined as one in which the unit Q: Does EPA approve a revision to the
Abstract for [0600047] operates 168 hours or more. Regardless November 22, 2002 alternative opacity
Q: Is the sulfur recovery plant (SRP) of operation, the facility must conduct monitoring procedure for boiler Number
at the Navajo Refining Company’s a CGA for NOX, CO and O2 at least once 15, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db,
(Navajo’s) Artesia, New Mexico, refinery every four calendar quarters, and must at the Fraser Papers facility in Berlin,
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J? conduct a RATA at least once every New Hampshire (Fraser)? The
A: Yes. The 20 long tons per day eight calendar quarters. This EPA November 22, 2002 approval allowed
(LTD) exception criterion in 40 CFR approval allows ANP to follow the grace Fraser to continuously monitor and
60.100(a) for the production or period provisions of 40 CFR part 75, record the voltage across the
processing capacity for the Navajo SRP Appendix B, Section 2.2.4 (for CGAs) electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and to
does not apply. The SRU allows for the and Section 2.3.3 (for RATAs). continuously monitor and record the
processing of more than 20 long tons per scrubber liquid flow rate to the spray
day (LTD) of sulfur based on the design Abstract for [0600051] tower (wet scrubber) in lieu of
basis of the unit. Although applicability Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver from installing, calibrating, maintaining and
of NSPS subpart J should be determined the nitrogen-monitoring requirement in operating a continuous opacity
before construction begins, Navajo has 40 CFR 60.334(b) of NSPS subpart GG, monitoring system (COMS).
not provided information sufficient to for a natural gas fuel combustion turbine A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves
establish that the design capacity of the at the Bridgewater Correctional the revision to the 2002 alternative
SRP to process input sulfur was 20 LTD Complex in Bridgewater, opacity monitoring procedure to meet
or less. In addition, the sulfur Massachusetts? NSPS subpart Db. Fraser will use
secondary voltage-to-fuel oil firing rate Audits (RATAs) and Cylinder Gas for the specified distillation unit. As
or average performance test secondary Audits (CGAs) under 40 CFR part 60, conditions of approval, the facility must
voltage as an alternative to opacity Appendix F, for auditing continuous comply with the recordkeeping and
monitoring under all load conditions. emission monitors (CEMs) at the Stony reporting requirements for flow
The facility must set the appropriate Brook Energy Center facility in Ludlow, indicators in NSPS subpart RRR, and
parameter values based on performance Massachusetts, so that the frequency is must maintain a schematic diagram for
tests at low and high load rates. consistent with similar requirements all related affected vent streams,
under 40 CFR part 75? The collection system(s), fuel systems,
Abstract for [0600054] Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale control devices, and bypass systems as
Q: Does EPA approve the use of the Electric Company (MMWEC) operates stated in 40 CFR 60.705(s).
extended testing timelines outlined in three combustion turbines at this Q2: Will EPA approve a waiver of
40 CFR part 75 instead of the timelines facility, units 1A, 1B and 1C with CEMs initial performance tests for certain
outlined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide boilers and heaters at the same facility?
(by referenced 40 CFR part 60, appendix and carbon dioxide as required by 40 A2: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR
F) for conducting a Relative Accuracy CFR part 60, NSPS subpart Db, and 40 60.8(b)(4), EPA conditionally approves
Test Audit (RATA) for a continuous CFR part 75. the performance test waiver for the
emission monitoring system at the A: Yes. EPA approves changing the boilers and process heaters which are
General Electric facility in Lynn, annual RATA due date to once every fired with fuel gas containing a vent
Massachusetts? four operating quarters, and approves stream from the Number 2 Isomerization
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the omitting a CGA for the required Units and the Number 2 Parex Units.
part 75 timeline instead of NSPS monitoring systems except during an This waiver is applicable for boilers and
subpart Db timeline. This alternative operating quarter. An operating quarter process heaters which meet the
will ensure that the facility does not is defined as one in which the unit definitions of a boiler or process heater
need to start up the boiler for the sole operates 168 hours or more. Regardless in 40 CFR 60.701 under NSPS subpart
purpose of conducting the RATA test of operation, the facility must conduct RRR. Both the alternative monitoring
within the annual (four calendar a CGA for each monitoring system at and the waiver of performance testing
quarter) deadline established in 40 CFR least once every four calendar quarters are contingent upon the vent streams
part 60, Appendix F, Section 5, given and must conduct a RATA at least once being vented to a fuel gas system and
that the boiler is used only between 10 every eight calendar quarters. introduced into the flame zone with the
to 50 percent of the year. primary fuel.
Abstract for [0600055] Q: Does EPA approve VRI’s request to Abstract for [0600060]
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative demonstrate that its enclosure meets the Q: For three natural gas-fired boilers
schedule to monitor fuels combusted on permanent total enclosure (PTE) at the Edgefield Correctional Complex
a monthly basis, under 40 CFR part 60, definition in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix (ECC) in Edgefield, South Carolina,
subpart Dc, for the Goodrich Fuel and M, Method 204, as an alternative to the subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc,
Utility System facility in Vergennes, monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part will EPA allow the facility to maintain
Vermont (Goodrich)? 60, subpart VVV, for a capture system records of the total amount of gas used
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative serving one or more coating lines at the in the powerhouse instead of keeping
monitoring schedule request under 40 Von Roll Isola USA facility (VRI) in records on the amount of fuel burned in
CFR part 60, subpart Dc, provided that New Haven, Connecticut? The capture each of the boilers separately?
Goodrich meets specific recordkeeping system is unlikely to comply with the A: No. EPA cannot waive the
requirements. This alternative fuel requirement to stay within five percent requirement under NSPS subpart Dc to
consumption monitoring option is not of the monitor readings during the keep separate fuel usage records for
an exemption from compliance with any performance test established in 40 CFR each boiler. However, the South
of the fuel certification requirements in part 60, subpart VVV due to various Carolina Department of Health and
NSPS subpart Dc. factors. Environmental Control can approve an
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves alternative approach under which the
Abstract for [0600056] VRI’s alternative monitoring request to total gas usage in the powerhouse would
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative demonstrate that its enclosure meets the be measured and apportioned between
monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part PTE definition in Method 204, provided the three boilers in question, as
60, subpart Dc, for gas-fired boilers at that VRI adheres to conditions specified established in a March 7, 2002, EPA
the MassMutual Center facility in in EPA’s response letter involving Region 4 guidance letter.
Springfield, Massachusetts? Under the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
proposed alternative, fuel records would Abstract for [0600061]
reporting.
be maintained on a monthly instead of Q: Does EPA approve conducting
daily basis. Abstract for [0600059] visible emission (VEs) observations on a
A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative Q1: Does EPA approve the use of daily basis as an alternative to installing
monitoring schedule as long as the certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and a continuous opacity monitoring (COM)
boilers continue to burn exclusively reporting provisions under 40 CFR part system, under 40 CFR part 60, subparts
natural gas. If the boilers burn any fuel 60, subpart RRR, as alternative AA and AAa, if it uses negative pressure
other than natural gas, all provisions of monitoring requirements to those under baghouses, each with a single stack, to
NSPS subpart Dc will apply as written, 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for the control emissions from the two electric
including daily tracking of all fuel use Flint Hills Resources West Refinery in arc furnaces (EAFs) and an argon-
from that day forward. Corpus Christi, Texas? oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel at
A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of the the Alloys Resources plant in
Abstract for [0600057] provisions in NSPS subpart RRR as an Albertville, Alabama?
Q: Does EPA approve changing the alternative means of demonstrating A: Yes. EPA finds that the company’s
frequency of Relative Accuracy Test compliance under NSPS subpart NNN alternative monitoring proposal for the
three affected facilities would be OOO, for particulate emission testing at monitoring options under NSPS subpart
acceptable provided that it follows the the outlet of a baghouse that controls GG.
procedures outlined in 40 CFR 60.273(c) emissions from conveying equipment Q2: Do the procedures from 40 CFR
and 40 CFR 60.273a(c). The EAFs and and two storage silos at the Henry Brick part 75, Appendix D satisfy the fuel
AOD are much smaller than those Company (HBC) plant in Selma, sulfur content monitoring provisions
typically used in the secondary steel Alabama? under NSPS subpart GG for determining
production industry, therefore, the cost A: Yes. EPA approves a waiver for the the sulfur content of natural gas burned
of COMS would be relatively high performance test requirement under in these same units?
compared to the size and the potential NSPS subpart OOO because the silos A2: Yes. EPA finds that, provided the
particulate emission rate from the and sand conveying equipment at the units are fired with pipeline quality gas,
furnaces at Alloys Resources which is a plant operate for only short periods of the procedures from 40 CFR part 75,
reasonable justification for allowing the time on an intermittent basis. Appendix D may satisfy the fuel sulfur
use of daily VEs as an alternative to Alternatively, the HBC facility will content monitoring provisions under
COMS, as described in the preamble to demonstrate compliance by conducting NSPS, subpart GG for determining the
the Federal Register notice for the visible emission observations during sulfur content of natural gas burned in
promulgation of NSPS subpart AAa. one complete loading cycle to these units.
demonstrate compliance. Q3: Does EPA waive the requirement,
Abstract for [0600062] under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, to
Q: May the Orange County Solid Abstract for [0600065] correct NOX emission rates to
Waste Management facility change its Q: Does EPA waive the stack testing International Standard Organization
standard operating procedures for requirements, under 40 CFR part 60, (ISO) standard day conditions for these
landfill gas extraction wells, under 40 subpart TT, for a new coil coating line three units?
CFR part 60, subpart WWW, and shut at the Termalex plant in Montgomery, A3: EPA finds that the requirement
down, as an alternative to Alabama? can be waived for the initial testing if
decommissioning, the wells where gas A: EPA finds that the requested test the units are in compliance with the
flows are so low that applying even waiver is unnecessary. Volatile organic NOX limits in their Prevention of
minimal vacuum results in air compound (VOC) emissions from the Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit.
infiltration that causes exceedances of line in question are controlled with a Following the initial test, Reliant Energy
the applicable oxygen concentration carbon adsorption system, and under will not need to correct results to an ISO
limit? NSPS subpart TT, compliance for standard basis continuously. However,
A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative facilities using this control approach is the company must maintain records of
operating procedure provided that that determined by comparing the amount of the information used in making the
the facility diagrams are updated to solvent recovered to the amount correction so that results could be
indicate which wells have been consumed. This allows compliance to calculated in terms of the applicable
shutdown because landfill gas be assessed without a stack test; thus, NSPS subpart GG limit when there are
production rates are too low to permit the requested testing waiver is exceedances of the PSD permit limit.
continuous extraction. EPA finds that unnecessary. Q4: For these same three units, may
shutting down nonproductive wells, Reliant Energy, under 40 CFR part 60,
Abstract for [0600066] subpart GG conduct a single load test
rather than decommissioning them, has
the potential to lower overall non- Q: Does the gas processing conducted instead of a four-load test, use reference
methane organic compounds emissions at the Central Sanitary Landfill in method results from NOX continuous
by making it easier to resume gas Pompano Beach, Florida constitutes emission monitoring system (CEMS)
collection in nonproductive areas of the treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart relative accuracy test audit (RATA) for
landfill that subsequently experience an Cc? the initial compliance demonstration,
improvement in gas quality. A: Yes. EPA finds that the landfill gas and conduct the test downstream of the
processing operation includes the three duct burners and selective catalytic
Abstract for [0600063] activities (filtrating to 10 microns or reduction (SCR)?
Q: Does EPA find that leachate risers less, compression, and de-watering) that A4: EPA finds that the Mississippi
connected to the landfill gas collection EPA has previously identified as Office of Pollution Control can approve
system at the Pecan Grove Sanitary necessary steps in landfill gas the proposals to conduct a single load
Landfill (PGSL) in Harrison County, processing to constitute treatment under test instead of a four-load test and to use
Mississippi are subject to the NSPS subpart WWW. The same reference method results from NOX
operational and monitoring definition would apply under NSPS continuous emission monitoring system
requirements for gas collection wells subpart Cc. (CEMS) relative accuracy test audit
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? (RATA) for the initial compliance
Abstract for [0600067] demonstration. EPA also finds that it is
A: Yes. EPA finds for purposes of
NSPS subpart WWW that the risers, Q1: Does EPA accept the nitrogen acceptable to conduct the test
which function as interior wells, must monitoring waiver and the sulfur downstream of the duct burners and
be connected to the gas collection and custom fuel monitoring plan proposed SCR system because the proposed
control system if PGSL is extracting gas by Reliant Energy Choctaw County LLC sampling location is downstream of the
from active areas where waste has been (Reliant Energy), under 40 CFR part 60, combined cycle unit’s control system.
in place for five years or more, or from subpart GG, for three natural gas-fired Q5: May data from CEMS installed on
closed areas or areas at final grade combined cycle electric utility the exhaust stack of each of these
generating units located in Choctaw Reliant Energy units be used for
where waste has been in place for two

years or more. County, Mississippi? reporting gas turbine excess emissions
A1: Yes. EPA finds that these under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
Abstract for [0600064] proposals are acceptable because they A5: Yes. EPA finds that although
Q: Does EPA waive a performance are consistent with previous EPA Reliant Energy proposed reporting
test, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart guidance regarding fuel quality excess emissions under NSPS subpart
GG only while operating in the Q9: Does EPA waive the applicable Q2: Could EPA clarify how earlier
combined cycle mode, the company NOX emission limit, under 40 CFR part compliance activities performed under
must also monitor and report excess 60, subpart Da, of 1.6 pounds per 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG affect
emissions when the turbines are megawatt—hour for the duct burners in compliance schedules and requirements
operating in the simple cycle mode. these units? under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW at
Q6: Does EPA waive the requirement A9: No. Since Reliant Energy this landfill?
to test and monitor NOX emissions compliance proposal for NOX blends A2: EPA finds that the impact under
separately for the natural gas-fired aspects of the two compliance options these overlapping rules would depend
turbines and duct burners in the for duct burners subject to the 1.6 lb/ upon whether the non-methane organic
combined cycle systems, under 40 CFR Mwh limit in 40 CFR 60.44a(d), the EPA compound (NMOC) emission rate from
part 60, subpart GG? cannot waive the performance testing the landfill exceeded 50 megagrams
A6: EPA finds that the requested requirements under either of these prior to the applicability of NSPS
waiver is unnecessary because NSPS options at this time. subpart WWW. Triggering this threshold
subpart Da includes an option that Q10: Does EPA find that there are prior to the applicability of NSPS
allows owners and operators of acceptable alternative procedures subpart WWW would not change the
combined cycle systems to determine/ proposed for demonstrating compliance applicable compliance deadlines under
monitor duct burner NOX compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, NOX NSPS subpart GGG. If the 50 megagram
using results from a CEMS located limits for duct burners at these units? threshold is not exceeded prior to the
downstream of the duct burner. A10: No. EPA finds that there are two applicability of NSPS subpart WWW,
Q7: Does demonstrating compliance NOX compliance demonstration options prior Tier 2 or Tier 3 test results can be
with the particulate emission limit in for duct burners under NSPS subpart used for calculating NMOC emission
the PSD permit for these units constitute Da, and EPA cannot approve an rates, provided that the five-year
an adequate demonstration of alternative approach until Reliant deadline for retesting is based upon the
compliance for the duct burner’s Energy clarifies which of the two original test date instead of the NSPS
particulate limit under 40 CFR part 60, compliance options is covered by the subpart WWW applicability date.
subpart Da? company’s request. Abstract for [0600070]
A7: Yes. EPA finds that particulate
Abstract for [0600068] Q: Does EPA approve the request for
testing conducted after the duct burners
while the combined cycle units are Q: Does EPA allow Berkshire Power’s an alternative opacity monitoring
operating at no less than 95 percent of facility in Agawam, Massachusetts to method for an oil-fired auxiliary steam
capacity is acceptable. Since the conduct nitrogen oxides (NOX) and generating unit that has a design heat
applicable PSD limit for particulate oxygen (O2) daily continuous emissions input capacity of 652.58 mmBtu/hr,
emissions from the Reliant Energy’s monitoring system (CEMS) calibrations under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, at the
combined cycle systems is one-third of using 40 CFR part 75 procedures, Cardinal Power Plant (Cardinal) in
the corresponding subpart Da for the instead of the procedures specified in 40 Brilliant, Ohio, owned by the American
Reliant Energy’s duct burners, CFR part 60, subpart GG? Electric Power (‘‘AEP’’) and Buckeye
demonstrating compliance with the PSD Power Inc.?
A: Yes. EPA finds that under 40 CFR A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative
limit would provide adequate assurance 60.13(i)(2), it has the authority to opacity monitoring requests, under
of compliance with NSPS subpart Da approve alternate methods and NSPS subpart Db, provided that the
and would justify a waiver of the procedures. Accordingly, EPA approves annual capacity factor is limited to 10
requirement to conduct particulate the request to show compliance with percent, and that the company collect
testing at both the inlet and outlet of the NSPS subpart GG daily calibration opacity data and report exceedances of
duct burners. requirements by conducting NOX and the opacity standard in 40 CFR
Q8: Does EPA waive the requirement O2 daily calibrations according to the 60.43b(f), as discussed in the EPA
to conduct testing for determining provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix response.
compliance with the sulfur dioxide B, Section 2.1, subject to specific
limit under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da conditions. Note that this alternative Abstract for [0600071]
at these units? May Reliant Energy use calibration option is not an exemption Q: Does EPA approve a performance
the sulfur dioxide reporting and from compliance with NSPS subpart test time extension under 40 CFR part
recordkeeping provisions from 40 CFR GG. 60, subpart OOO, to combine the testing
part 75, Appendix D in lieu of those in into a single test program upon
subpart Da? completion of the proposed
A8: EPA finds that if Reliant Energy Q1: Could EPA clarify the ‘‘Day 0’’ modifications at the P.J. Keating
verifies that the fuel used in the duct compliance dates for 40 CFR part 60, Company facility in Acushnet,
burners is pipeline quality natural gas, subpart GGG, and 40 CFR part 60, Massachusetts (Keating)?
then no testing will be required because subpart WWW, at Brown Ferris A: No. The request involves Keating’s
the emissions from pipeline natural gas Industries of North America’s (BFI) primary crusher, and the test is required
will be orders of magnitude below the Little Dixie Sanitary Landfill in to demonstrate compliance pursuant to
NSPS subpart Da limit. For reporting, Ridgeland, Mississippi? NSPS subpart OOO. Based on the
the same results can be used to quantify A1: EPA finds that based upon the information provided, there are no
emissions under both part 75 and NSPS effective date of NSPS subpart GGG, the grounds for an extension under NSPS
subpart Da. Because reporting sulfur ‘‘Day 0’’ compliance date would be subpart OOO or 40 CFR 60.8.
dioxide excess emissions under NSPS April 6, 2000. ‘‘Day 0’’ for NSPS subpart
subpart Da will provide EPA with useful WWW compliance would be the day Abstract for [0600072]
information and is not overly that BFI commenced the vertical Q: Does EPA approve alternative
burdensome, the request to waive the expansion approved in a permit issued operating parameter monitoring and
NSPS subpart Da reporting requirements to the Mississippi Office of Pollution recording requirements under 40 CFR
is not approved. Control on October 14, 2003. part 60, subpart Ec, for a medical
infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) Abstract for [0600077] after the first reaction step will comply
located at the Wilkes-Barre General Q: Does EPA approve a boiler capacity with 40 CFR 60.482–8(a)(2) and will be
Hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania? deration due to a burner change, under in heavy liquid service. EPA’s response
A: Yes. EPA approves monitoring and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the also includes a clarification of the
recording the tertiary chamber Sunsweet Growers facility in Fleetwood, recordkeeping and reporting
temperature instead of the secondary Pennsylvania? requirements for the equipment in
chamber temperature and recording the A: Yes. EPA approves of the boiler heavy liquid service complying with 40
minimum flow rate of 50 percent NaOH deration due to the burner change under CFR 60.482–8(a)(2).
to the Evaporative Cooler/Scrubber as a NSPS subpart Dc. This project will meet Abstract for [0600081]
site-specific operating parameter under the requirements of EPA’s deration
NSPS subpart Ec. EPA also relieves the policy and will be a permanent physical Q: Does EPA approve of alternative
hospital from monitoring the minimum change to the boiler operation that will temperature limits proposed for seven
pressure drop across the wet scrubber or limit the heat input capacity on a gas collection wells, under 40 CFR part
the minimum horsepower or amperage permanent basis. 60, subpart WWW, at the Broadhurst
to the wet scrubber. EPA agrees that, Environmental Landfill located in
Abstract for [0600078] Screven, Georgia?
given site-specific considerations,
neither of these monitoring parameters Q: Does EPA approve a heat input A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed
is appropriate as the removal efficiency capacity derate procedure, under 40 alternative temperature limits are
of the acid gases in the spray tower is CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for a boiler, acceptable under NSPS subpart WWW
not dependent upon pressure drop, located at Temple University in because the criteria for approval of a
minimum horsepower, or amperage. Pennsylvania, that involves mechanical higher wellhead temperature limit
Instead, EPA agrees that establishing and electronic changes to limit the heat under the provisions in 40 CFR
and monitoring the flow rate of both the input to less than 30 million BTUs per 60.753(c) is met. Specifically, the data
50 percent NaOH (liquid) and the flow hour? indicates that the elevated temperatures
rate of the lime injected into the system A: No. EPA does not approve of the in these wells have not caused landfill
are appropriate operating parameters for derate procedure under NSPS subpart fires or significantly inhibited anaerobic
this system. Dc because it does not represent a decomposition at the site.
permanent physical change to limit the
Abstract for [0600074] Abstract for [0600083]
heat input capacity of the boiler in
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative accordance with established EPA Q: Does EPA approve an alternative
monitoring and recordkeeping policy. monitoring plan for the purge gas stream
frequency for boiler fuel usage from to a flare, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Abstract for [0600079] J, at the Valero’s Wilmington Refinery?
daily to monthly monitoring and
Q: Can a nitrogen oxides predictive A: Yes. EPA finds that an alternative
recordkeeping, under 40 CFR part 60,
emission monitoring system (PEMS) monitoring plan is appropriate under
subpart Dc, at ISG’s Steelton,
installed and tested on a 40 CFR part 60, NSPS subpart J, provided the purge gas
Pennsylvania steelmaking facility?
subpart Db boiler at the BP Chemical stream is stable and low in H2S
A: Yes. EPA approves the change to Company plant in Decatur, Alabama, be concentration.
monthly recordkeeping and monitoring used for both the initial performance
of the boiler fuel usage under NSPS Abstract for [0600084]
test and the ongoing compliance
subpart Dc, as this is a very small boiler monitoring required for the unit? Q: Could EPA clarify the
that combusts only natural gas fuel. A: Yes. EPA finds that based on the interpretation of the term ‘‘3 percent,’’
Abstract for [0600075] results of relative accuracy test audits under 40 CFR part 60, subpart O, when
conducted on the PEMS and the large recording the average oxygen content
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative margin of compliance with respect to measured in the exhaust gas of a sewage
monitoring method for opacity, under the applicable emission standard, the sludge incinerator? Specifically, could
40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, for the PEMS is an acceptable alternative to a EPA clarify whether ‘‘3 percent’’ means
Koppers Monessen, Pennsylvania coke continuous emission monitoring system an oxygen percentage reading plus 3
plant boiler? for conducting both the initial percent, or 3 percent of the oxygen
A: Yes. EPA finds that this boiler only performance test and the ongoing percentage?
combusts cleaned coke oven gas as fuel. compliance monitoring for the boiler A: 40 CFR 60.155(a)(2) requires that
Therefore, EPA approves the use of under NSPS subpart Db. excess oxygen levels be reported.
Method 22 on a daily basis followed by Reportable readings are those readings,
Method 9 opacity readings by a certified Abstract for [0600080] when interpreted as a percentage of
opacity evaluator, if any emissions are Q: Will EPA waive the requirement in oxygen in the exhaust gases, that are
witnessed via Method 22. 40 CFR 60.486(e)(1) to record a list of more than 3 percent oxygen in excess of
Abstract for [0600076] identification numbers for certain the percentage measured during the
equipment subject to 40 CFR part 60, most recent performance test.
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative subpart VV, for the Solutia facility in
fuel usage recordkeeping frequency, Pensacola, Florida? Abstract for [0600085]
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i), Q1: Is a proposal to use an alternative
Nylstar’s two Kewanee boilers at its EPA finds that a waiver for equipment equation for calculating the coke burn-
Ridgeway, Virginia plant? following the first reaction step in the off rate for a fluid catalytic cracking
A: Yes. EPA approves the change from company’s adipic acid process unit is (FCC) unit at the Chevron Products
daily recordkeeping to monthly appropriate because NSPS subpart VV, refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi,
recordkeeping of fuel usage under NSPS indicates no subsequent requirements acceptable under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Dc because only very clean fuels which would make use of a detailed subpart J?
are permitted to be combusted in these record of the equipment which follows A1: Yes. EPA finds that there are
boilers. the first reaction step. All equipment typographical errors in the coke burn-off
calculation in the current version of to comply with a monitoring proposed modifications must be
NSPS subpart J, and the proposed requirement contained in 40 CFR Part submitted to the EPA.
alternative calculation taken from 40 63, Subpart NNN, as an alternative to
CFR part 63, subpart UUU is acceptable calculating the glass pull rate using the
because it does not contain any equation in 40 CFR 60.685(b)(3). Q: Are two separate disposal areas
typographical errors since it includes a A: Yes. EPA finds that determining located in Statesville, North Carolina
term to account for enriched air pull rates using the monitoring system and operated by Iredell County
introduced into the FCC regenerator. required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart contiguous under 40 CFR part 60,
Q2: Is an alternative method that the NNN, is acceptable because the results subpart WWW?
Chevron Products proposed to use for obtained using properly calibrated flow A: Yes. EPA finds that although a golf
determining the catalyst regenerator cameras should be more accurate than course is located between the closed
exhaust gas flow rate acceptable under those determined using the equations in and active disposal areas, these areas are
40 CFR part 60, subpart J? NSPS subpart PPP. contiguous because Iredell County
A2: Yes. EPA finds that because the owned both of them and two other
Abstract for [0600089] adjoining properties on the date NSPS
equation that Chevron proposes to use
for calculating the exhaust gas flow rate Q: Does EPA approve an alternative subpart WWW was promulgated.
comes from 40 CFR part 63, subpart nitrogen oxides (NOX) continuous
UUU, using the same equation for flow emission monitor system (CEMS) span
rate calculations under 40 CFR part 60, value for a 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db Q: Premium Standard Farms in
subpart J is acceptable. boiler located at the Indiantown, Florida Clinton, North Carolina, proposes to
power plant? derate two boilers by replacing the
Abstract for [0600086] A: Yes. EPA finds that the alternative forced draft fans with smaller fans and
Q1: Is the proposal to use information span value proposed by the company motors and reducing the fuel flow
regarding the fuel consumption rate, (300 ppm) will improve the resolution capacity. Is this derate proposal
flue gas oxygen concentration, and F- of the CEMS, and therefore, it is acceptable under 40 CFR part 60,
factors to calculate the exhaust gas flow acceptable. subpart Dc?
rate for two stationary gas turbines at A: Yes. EPA approves the derate
Abstract for [0600090] proposal under NSPS subpart Dc, since
Mississippi State University in
Starkville, Mississippi acceptable under Q: Can the requirement to conduct an it will permanently reduce the capacity
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG? initial performance test on the baghouse of the boilers, provided Premium
A1: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed used to control particulate emissions Standard Farms follows the procedures
approach for determining the turbines’ from the Product Rework Bin facility at established in EPA’s response. If the
exhaust gas flow rate is acceptable, the Harborlite Corporation in facility wants to increase the capacity of
provided that the accuracy of the meters Youngsville, North Carolina, be waived the boiler after it has been derated, a
used to determine fuel usage rates is under 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO? notification of the proposed
comparable to that of EPA Method 2. A: The performance test waiver modifications must be submitted to the
Q2: Does EPA find that emission test requested by the company is EPA.
results from one of the two identical unnecessary because the baghouse in
question is not subject to a particulate Abstract for [0600094]
stationary gas turbines can be used to
verify compliance for both units under concentration limit under 40 CFR part Q: The Apex Oil Company bulk
40 CFR part 60, subpart GG? 60, subpart OOO. The baghouse controls gasoline terminal in Greensboro, North
A2: Yes. EPA finds that the requested emissions from the Product Rework Bin Carolina, has been modified, and the
waiver under NSPS subpart GG will be facility, and not from other parts of the company requests a waiver from the
acceptable, provided that the emission plant. Because of this configuration, the requirement under 40 CFR 60.8(a) to
rate for the unit that is tested does not Product Rework Bin facility is subject to conduct an initial performance test to
exceed 50 percent of the applicable an emission standard in 40 CFR demonstrate compliance under 40 CFR
emission standard. 60.672(f) that includes an opacity limit part 60, subpart XX. Will EPA grant a
of seven percent but not to the waiver from the requirement for an
Abstract for [0600087] particulate concentration limit that initial performance test based on the
Q: Does EPA approve an alternate applies to other types of facilities with results of a test conducted ten years ago?
monitoring plan for the semi- stack emissions. A: No. An initial performance test
regenerative reformer regeneration gas will be needed to document compliance
streams routed to a reformer heater under NSPS subpart XX following the
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at Q: Biogen Idec in Research Triangle modification of the facility.
ExxonMobil’s Torrance, California Park, North Carolina (Biogen), proposes
to derate two boilers by replacing the Abstract for [0600095]
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA finds that an alternative forced draft fans with smaller fans and Q: Is the opacity monitoring
monitoring plan is allowed under NSPS motors, and reducing the fuel flow alternative that the ABC Coke Company
subpart J, provided these gas streams are capacity. Is this derate proposal proposes for a natural gas and coke oven
stable and low in H2S concentration. acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, gas-fired boiler at its Birmingham,
subpart Dc? Alabama, coke plant acceptable under
Abstract for [0600088] A: Yes. EPA approves the derate 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
Q: Does EPA approve an alternative proposal under NSPS subpart Dc since A: Yes. EPA finds that conducting
monitoring approach for determining it will permanently reduce the capacity visible emission observations would be
glass pull rates at the Knauf Insulation of the boilers, provided Biogen follows an acceptable alternative to a
GmbH plant in Alabama to comply with the procedures established in EPA’s continuous opacity monitoring system
40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP? Knauf response. If the facility wants to for ABC Coke, provided specific
Insulation proposes to use flow cameras, increase the capacity of the boiler after conditions listed in the EPA response
that the company has installed in order it has been derated, a notification of the letter are met.
Abstract for [0600096] (Chevron) refinery under 40 CFR part for a continuous and intermittent
Q: Are the monitoring requirements 60, subpart J? hospital medical infectious waste
for landfill gas wells applicable to A: Yes. Chevron’s submittal meets the incinerator (HMIWI) given in 40 CFR
leachate collection risers connected to requirements of EPA’s refinery fuel gas 60.51c, the maximum charge rate is
the active gas collection system, under guidance titled Alternative Monitoring linked to compliance with all applicable
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, at the Plan for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel emission limits, which includes
Carter Valley Landfill in Church Hill, Gas, and is approved in accordance with particulate matter (PM), CO, dioxins/
Tennessee? the specific technical elements specified furans, hydrogen chloride (HCl), lead
A: EPA finds that the applicability of in attachments to EPA’s approval letter. (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg),
the monitoring requirements in question Abstract for [0600100] sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
depends upon the age of the waste (NOX), and opacity.
Q1: Will EPA approve a request to Q3: Will EPA approve a request to
where the risers are located. Any risers
deviate from the assumption that a eliminate the operating parameter
collecting gas from active areas where
violation of the carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring requirements for minimum
waste has been in place for five years or
emission limit occurs if the facility secondary chamber temperature as
more or where waste has been in place
operates their hospital medical specified in 40 CFR 60.57c(a) and Table
for two years or more in either closed
infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI) 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec?
areas or areas that are at final grade
above the maximum charge rate and
would be subject to the monitoring A3: Yes. EPA approves eliminating
below the minimum secondary
requirements in NSPS subpart WWW. monitoring of the minimum secondary
combustion chamber temperature
Abstract for [0600097] chamber temperature as an operating
simultaneously as stated in 40 CFR part
parameter when the CO emissions are
Q: Could EPA clarify what is the 60, subpart Ec, 40 CFR 60.56c(e)(1), if
measured using an EPA compliant
correct monitor path length value to use the facility has actual CO emissions data
continuous CO monitor, as described in
for the outer section of a stack at the on a real-time basis from a CO
the response letter, and the emissions
Asarco copper smelter in Hayden, continuous emissions monitoring
are within the CO emission limits. EPA
Arizona (Asarco), under 40 CFR part 60, system (CEMS)?
A1: Yes. EPA agrees that direct views CO emissions level as a function
subparts A and P? The copper smelter of combustion efficiency and agrees that
discharges emissions to the atmosphere measurement of CO emissions using an
EPA compliant continuous CO the use of an EPA compliant continuous
from a 1000 feet tall stack that CO monitor will provide the
incorporates physically separate inner emissions monitor, which shows that
CO emissions are within the allowable information on combustion efficiency
and outer sections. that the surrogate parameter of
A: EPA finds that for purposes of limit of 40 parts per million by volume
adjusted to 7 percent oxygen measured secondary chamber temperature was
NSPS subparts A and P, Asarco may use intended to provide.
the outer diameter minus the inner on a dry basis at standard conditions, is
superior to using surrogate parameters. Q4: Will EPA approve a request to
diameter of the tall stack for the monitor
As a matter of policy, the first and eliminate the record keeping
pathlength of the continuous opacity
foremost option considered by the EPA requirements for HMIWI charge dates,
monitoring system operated in the
is to require the use of CEMS to times, and weights and hourly charge
outer, or annular, section of the tall
demonstrate continuous compliance rates as specified in 40 CFR
stack.
with specific emission limits. Other 60.58c(b)(2)(iii) in 40 CFR part 60,
Abstract for [0600098] options are considered only when subpart Ec?
Q: Does EPA approve Eastman CEMS are not available or when the A4: No. As previously stated in A2,
Chemical Company’s, Kingsport, impacts of including such requirements above, the maximum charge rate
Tennessee plant (Eastman) proposal to are considered unreasonable. In parameters are linked to other emission
monitor for the presence of a pilot addition, a CEMS for oxygen must be limits besides CO emission limits.
flame, in order to verify the performance installed, calibrated, maintained, and Q5: Will EPA approve a request to
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN of operated to monitor the oxygen eliminate the record keeping
an enclosed flare at its Kingsport, concentration at each location where requirements for the HMIWI secondary
Tennessee plant? you monitor CO. EPA describes chamber temperatures for each minute
A: No. Verifying the presence of a requirements applicable to CEMS in the of operation as specified in 40 CFR part
pilot flame alone is not sufficient. To response. 60, subpart Ec?
provide adequate assurance of Q2: Will EPA approve a request to A5: Yes. EPA agrees that actual data
compliance under NSPS subpart NNN, eliminate the operating parameter from an EPA compliant continuous CO
Eastman must conduct testing to monitoring requirements for maximum monitor will provide the information on
identify the flare temperature needed to charge rate as specified in 40 CFR combustion efficiency that the surrogate
achieve the required level of volatile 60.57c(a) and in Table 3 of 40 CFR part parameter of secondary chamber
organic compound destruction. 60, subpart Ec? temperature was intended to provide.
A2: No. EPA will not grant approval
Abstract for [0600099] to eliminate monitoring the maximum Dated: July 12, 2007.
Q: Does EPA approve alternative charge rate as an operating parameter as Michael M. Stahl,
monitoring plans for 22 separate it is linked to all emission limits, and Director, Office of Compliance.
refinery fuel gas streams at the not only to CO emissions. According to [FR Doc. E7–13894 Filed 7–25–07; 8:45 am]
Chevron’s Richmond, California the definition for maximum charge rate BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Notice: Air Programs: Applicability Determination Index Database System Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, Etc. Postings

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Notice: Air Programs: Applicability Determination Index Database System Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, Etc. Postings

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Thursday,

July 26, 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to the applicability, monitoring,

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 6, 2007

600030 ......... NSPS ............................. X .................................... Applicability for Distribution Facilities.

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 6, 2007—Continued

600041 ......... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Waiver of Monitoring Requirements.

M060036 ...... MACT ............................ M .................................... Area vs. Major Sources.

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 6, 2007—Continued

M060044 ...... MACT ............................ NNNNN .......................... 30 Weight Percent Acid.

the product, it is not subject to 40 CFR

the facility once again uses solvents air pollutant emissions.

where waste has been in place for two

También podría gustarte